Conservative pundit: 'Obama should run'

Looking at the field, Obama's probably the best choice to win and of course it's only about winning and nothing else.

- Kerry's a dissembling weasel with the charisma of a log.

- Hillary is a reptilian opportunist and comes off that way. Plus she'd be a rallying point for Republicans

- Edwards is a nothing more than haircut with a toothy smile under it.

- Gore is intelligent and competent but boring. Plus he has this I'm-the-smartest-kid-in-class-and-I-know-it air... PLUS his environmentalism is going to (unfortunately) turn people off.

Which leaves us with Obama who is smart, affable, telegenic, non threateningly bland and with not much of a record that can be used against him.

He's the only bona fide celebrity in the bunch, which makes him the "strongest" candidate in the bunch. That has some people posting here wetting their pants in ecstasy while others (like me) are sighing and shaking their heads.

Ah, more Barack Obama stuff from the Newspaper now Called the Barack Obama Advocate.

One thing I would like to know from the Trib, since the Washington Advocate Bureau is so concerned about racial comments (I mean they did cover Sen. Allen and macacca five times!!), but will we see something about Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer and his racially insensitive comment? In case the Advocate staff is uninformed about this racial development, I'll help:

U.S. House of Representatives Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer has apologized for saying a black Senate candidate "slavishly" supported the Republican Party.

Hoyer, D-Md., said no offense was intended in his remarks about Republican Senate candidate and current Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, CNN reported Wednesday.

"I should not have used those words," Hoyer said in a statement.

Doug Heye, a spokesman for Steele, said Hoyer's comments were "insensitive and pretty stupid."

"This is nothing new for Steny Hoyer," said Heye. Heye referred back to 2002, when Hoyer was quoted as calling Steele a "token" candidate. Hoyer insisted at the time that the quote was out of context.

Jaunito,
Won't you be voting for Ralph Nader or some other unelectable cheap suit anyway. Just curious.

Historically in critical times a leader of mythical proportions does appear! This now might just be the case. Our country has never been in such a critical condition, needing triage 24/7 as does our image internationally. Barack Obama clearly could initiate the healing process at home and with international entities.
Praying for this to happen, as I have not in my years of enjoying life as an American felt so demoralized for the nation and embarrassed as well by the pathetic style of 'leadership' in Washington.

John D, you should be ashamed of yourself. Imagine what would happen if "the Swamp" abandoned ObamaFest 2008 and reported on the actual 2006 campaign!

John D, by now you should realize that a "Swamp" reporter will NEVER report on something that would reflect badly on a Democrat (such as Hoyer's remarks, or how a Pennsylvania Democrat called Republican Senator Rick Santorum "the anti-Christ"). To report these facts might hurt their cause.

I like Barack Obama. I'd support him if he became the Democratic Party nominee.

But just as Hilary Clinton has her negatives, Barack Obama has one big one that almost nobody will mention.

That is, he's black. (Or half black, which to many if not most people, is the same thing.) In fact, he'd be the first black man to run for President in this country. Is America really ready to support a black man for President? I'm afraid there's enough racist hatred left in this country to make it a chancy proposition.

And, for Obama, running for President (and being President) presents a personal risk no other candidate would face. Namely, the risk that some "white-rights" fanatic will manage to assassinate him. He can't help but consider that--just as I'm sure it entered into Colin Powell's calculations when his name was bruited about as a Republican nominee.

So let's wait and see how it all plays out.

Hey, John D.

At least Hoyer apologized. Allen made all kinds of excuses including "I just like to make up words". Also, Hoyer's was just a one word slip up whereas Allen continued to mock the poor kid who was doing his job, so to speak.

It also turns out that Allen has had a number of incidents where he used the "N-word". Try to find that in Hoyer's past.

But for his skin color we don't know much about Obama yet. We should have learned from our past experience with Carol Mosley Brown that skin color alone is not enough to warrant election to public office. I know the hard core racists and the hard core liberals will disagree with this but to the liberals I say that one of the worst kinds of racism is the patronising attitude that if someone is black and articulate, he or her should be selected above all others as long as that they have no felony convictions. To the hard core racists nothing can be said to change their attitudes but that's probably true of the liberals also.

John D.,
Inadvertantly, no doubt, you just drew the starkest difference between Allen's and Hoyer's reaction to getting caught. Steny Hoyer said, "I should not have used those words". End of controversy. How many excuses did we get from Allen after his comments? (I meant mohawk. I made it up. I'm sorry he was offended, etc.) I still don't know if Allen eventually said he is sorry for using that term.

What do you think Bruce,should Barack run ???

I think he should move down to Texas,become a two term governor,run the state into the ground financially,and then "graduate" to President like our current Cheerleader in Chief did.

I do not claim to involve myself in politics, much less would I ever claim any affiliation with a particular political party; but I wanted to say that Obama's insight, intellect, and eloquence continue to prove to me that he is a blazing light in the leadership of this country, this United States of America.

It is comments of his, like the ones I list below, that give me pause and reason to believe that we have not only found ourselves in Illinois with a great senator for the 21st century, but perhaps the next Lincoln for the ever increasing divisions that this United States of America faces within.

Hope, Charity, and Love above all else,
Peto

"Some of the shame should be ours. For too long we have been silent and complacent... We have to start by ending the empathy deficit,"

"We need to understand everybody has a sacred story to tell. We haven't been able to break through barriers of race and class. And we should make New Orleans a model for what is possible."
-Senator Obama after Hurricane Katrina

I recall a few "blogs" back, I got a lot of flak for calling Obama a liberal.

Get a load of this quote from today's AZ Republic during his book tour. ( my thoughts added)

Question: The 300 million American was born this week. What kind of future awaits this child?

Answer: If we focus on creating an economy (socialst) that gives all children the opportunity to get an education to better themselves,( do we not have that now with free education up to 12th grade and endless opportunities to get help with college?) if we deal with our long-term energy issues not only for the sake of our economy and national security but for the sake of the planet,( OOO K, Al Gore rules!) and if we develop foreign policy so that we’re not only thinking in military terms but think about diplomacy and development in our poor countries around the world ( you mean like outsourcing good jobs to poor countries?) , then I think their future can be bright. ( Let's try to be really nice to countries who need us to be their scapegoat)

Hillary Clinton couldn't have said it better.

Typical liberal "fluff" talking in left wing generalities

..oh but he's 1/2 black. Woo hoo! What a genius!

Many people believe that Sen. Obama's the most viable candidate for the White House in 2008, but ultimately, it is his choice on whether to run or not.His diverse life experiences, as well as his experience in grass roots politics, and as a state sentator, in my mind, makes him a good candidate. Yes in comparison to other Democratic or Republican candidates, he lacks the political experience, but we have given far lesser men (i.e. our present Chief of State) the oppurtunity. Personally, I believe the real problem in a lot of people's minds is that Sen. OBama's a little too tan for the job. If he fit the status quo, I believe the question of his experience would be a less important question. As the old saying goes (at least among African Americans) a black man has to be twice as qualified as a white man for a position to compete for it. I just hope we have come farther as a people than I think we have and give Sen. Obama a fair chance. Win or lose, I believe he is the best thing Democrats, Americans has right now.

In a small way,I hope that one of the Republican losers wins the Presidential election in 2008.

The Cowboy in Chief that we currently have has made such a god awful mess of everything that he has touched,it's almost beyond being fixable.

Whomever the next President ends up being,he won't be able to move forward until he cleans up after the Dubya Crew,I gurantee you that it will take more than four years to do this.

Goodluck with that mission.

Some of these comments seem to be knee-jerk responses borne of fear -- fear that the Democrats, including Obama, might just be successful in November and in 2008. Why do conservatives who would never vote for a Democrat even care whether Obama runs? And why are they surprised that Obama gets a lot of coverage from the Trib--after all, he is our senator, he's popular, and he seems to be a really honest, decent person (the same cannot be said for so many politicians on both sides of the aisle). Finally, John D., "macaca" is basically a synonym for the n-word. It is never acceptable to address someone with that word, let alone a dark-skinned person. "Slavish," while not a good word choice when talking about someone of African ancestry, is a perfectly acceptable word most of the time--it just means servile or subservient and implies blind loyalty. In fact, it seems like the perfect word to describe your allegience to the Republicans.

This really shocked me coming from David Brooks. Not because he's conservative (and I mean that in the old-fashioned sense of the word, which explains his dislike of Bush), but because of his call for "a new style of politician". He says Obama's "deliberative style" will bring something new to Washington.

I guess I never thought of Obama in that way. He's clearly smart, of course. I've just never noticed anything especially deliberative in his style.

More to the point, though, is that when a mainstream guy like Brooks calls for a hero to ride in and save the day, and when he thinks he's found that hero...

Well, if a savior is what it's going to take, I fear the future.

By the way, Juanito, you're letting appearances fool you, which you're not supposed to do. John Edwards has the misfortune to appear younger than his years, and to be a slick-looking lawyer. But he's no fool. And he was the only major candidate talking about the largest and most ignored flaw in the US of A -- the flaw of being very much divided along economic class lines. All the others, including the populists, spouted about the ubiquitous "middle-class". Edwards actually talked about (gasp!) poor people.

I know a lot of people are concerned about Obama's lack of experience at the statewide or federal level. But it's worth noting that Abraham Lincoln only served two years in Congress, and did it long before he became President.

Not a comparison, just a thought.

I’m sure there are some members of our society that will feel that the race of a candidate is a factor, I for one, and I sure many others here do not prescribe to this notion. People say that Obama doesn’t have the experience to run for President, but then again look what we have now, a guy that was probably one of the worst Governors Texas ever had. What I see in Sen. Obama is one of the most intellectual, articulate, and level headed politicians we’ve had since JFK. I hope he does run.

If Obama wants to change the political landscape and chart a new course for this country's future...one predicated on integrity, inclusiveness and common good and he has the guts to...then he should spearhead the Green party Movement and push the bloated, self-involved, unfocused Republican and Democratic parties into the repair shop for rehabilitation. He'd be doing the American political system (and all of us) a huge favor.

Charlie H. Obama would not be the first black man to run for president. Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. ran back in the 80's (84 I think). There also might have been others who I am not aware of.

It's unfortunate that in 2006 we still have to look at race as a factor in an election, but we do. I'm a fan of Obama, but I'm not blindly following him. I would want more specifics on whether he supports abortion, his views on educational funding in this country, etc. However, if Harold Washington, a black man, could get elected Mayor in one of the most segregated cities in America; anything is possible.

Ms Bennet,

I assume you're speaking of Edwards BEFORE he was the '04 VP candidate. As Kerry's running mate he was an entirely different man, mouthing vague blather and even caving in on tort "reform"!

JD,

Nice subtitles you came up with there. You don't think that your own prejudices came out there at all do you? Come on you were literally putting words in the man's mouth! In talking about the educational system in this country he is alluding to the fact that test scors lag far behind the rest of the world. Germany and Japan in particular. And yes there are opportunities for people to go to college but not nearly enough. When lower middle class jobs paying 25,000 to 30,000/year now require college educations it is definitely time to increase the opportunities.

Ok so on to the energy issues the Senator speaks about. There is no longer any doubt in the legitimate scientific community that global warming exists. You are right though, Al Gore has been the poster child for this issue for year, and now, it turns out he was right all along. We our destroying our planet. Beyond that if it wasn't for our need for oil would we having the types of global political problems we have now? Would we even have an interest in the middle east if it wasn't for our addiction to oil? I think not.

Lastly you pan his ideals of helping the poor countries of the world economically. Do you not understand that we live in a global age and that we will all feel the effects of poverty around the world? This isn't only about the Untied States anymore. We are a global community and the Senator is actually only expressing his Christian beliefs that it is the duty of those who hav to help those who don't. obviously you don't beleive that.

The words that the Senator said and that you quoted here are beautiful words and a beautiful sentiment for a better tomorrow. Yet you see only hate with skeptical eyes. How sad.

Ms Bennet,I agree with you on Edwards,unfortunately,the current regime favors the situation below.

Trickle-On Economics Update:
A $20 million wedding cake covered with diamonds was unveiled on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, Calif., as food banks across the country reported "sharply increasing" requests for help from the working poor.

Do these quotes sound like those of a weasel?

Who was right,Bush or Kerry?

Kerry did however warn the administration should exhaust its diplomatic avenues before launching war: "Mr. President, do not rush to war, take the time to build the coalition, because it's not winning the war that's hard, it's winning the peace that's hard." [30]

After the invasion of Iraq, when no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found, Kerry strongly criticized Bush, contending that he had misled the country: "When the president of the United States looks at you and tells you something, there should be some trust." [31]

Charlie H -- Not only did Jesse Jackson run (more than once) but so did Alan Keyes. Keyes is slightly to the right of Mussolini, but he was one of the few candidates who actually articulated arguments about substantive issues rather than mouth platitudes. A very scary world we live in when I tell people that Alan Keyes is a voice of the intelligentsia in politics!

Juanito -- And speaking of substance, I'll grant you, once he became Kerry's running mate Edwards mouthed the party line. Ick.

Richard -- I like the idea of new parties, Green or otherwise. The ones we have are certainly meaningless. The problem with a new party is the danger of a repeat of Ross Perot -- a bunch of dissatisfied people gathered around a single person (who turned out to be a bit of a nut), rather than people gathered around a philosophical position.

Loony -- America is entirely built around excess consumption. We admire the rich. We envy them. They're our heroes. We don't want them to spread the wealth, we want to be just as rich as they are. Hence the worship if gilt wedding cakes and The Donald and Bill Gates... talk about ick! But that is not a phenomenon of the Bush era. It goes WAY back.

From everything I have read, Barack Obama is a bright young man. But it surprises me that so many citizens are so willing to throw their support behind this inexperienced individual for the toughest job in the country. This tells me that the country is so desperate for reasoned, enlightened leadership at the top (something that Bush & Company has not been able to provide) that its citizens will support a virtual unknown with a sparse track record.

Ms Bennet, Richard F,

"Green" might in fact be a philisophical focus for a viable oppostion to Republicrats. What we desperately need is a constitutional ammendment to require run off elections in the event that there isn't a candidate winning a simple majority of votes. That's not easily done, granted, but it would be more easily done than the other fix, ie adopting a parliamentary system.

The powers that be cynically depend upon people not wanting to "waste" their votes. With runoff elections a third, or fourth or fifth party could not automatically be dismissed as spoilers or crackpots.

Dean G.
I hate to use an cliche, but holy Kool Aid.

Yeah, typical lefty. If you don't agree with Obama you must be racist! My only problem concerning race and Obama is with how the media portrays him. The man is 1/2 white, so if I were racist towards Obama, I would be hating 1/2 me.

As far as the outsourcing comment, I agree we are in a global economy and what better way to help these poor countries get on their feet than good ol' capitalism. I hear lefties cry all day long about how all the jobs are going overseas etc....

Well which is it? Should we be helping countries get on thier feet or should we be passing artificial laws supposedly to keep all the jobs here?

Al Gore? Debate over?

Was there even A debate? When did it take place? I must have missed it. Anyone who questions Obama is a racist and anyone that questions G Warming is a "shill" for big oil. Doesn't sound like a debate to me.

Hmm, what a shock. Soon after the "debate" was declared over the State of CA sues auto manufacterers.

I thought you lefties were all over conspracy theories? I guess that one got past you.

Anyway, my original point was that Obama is a generic liberal. Can you at least admit he is liberal?

Most on this board cannot.

Yeah, typical lefty. If you don't agree with Obama you must be racist! My only problem concerning race and Obama is with how the media portrays him. The man is 1/2 white, so if I were racist towards Obama, I would be hating 1/2 me.

Posted by JD

Your logic is supranormal! You can't get past the
fact as to whether he has a label of white ,black
liberal,conservative.....let his actions speak for him. Why must you put a label on people instead of their deeds????

Bill R.

Re-read my post. Re-read it again if you have to.

I have no issue with his race. I have issue with how the media covers his race.

No wonder you leftys always accuse the right of being racist. You don't comprehend what you read and can't handle an alternate view (how ironic)

I did not label him anything other than a liberal.

Isn't this mostly a political discussion here at the Swamp? Is that not fair game? His actions and deeds say Liberal.

Would you classify Obama as a Liberal Bill R.?

Juanito....I think I understand your views somewhat on things.....I have one question on your stance of somewhat leaning right but not really happy....If 20 years down the road it finds Iraq as a very large disaster, will you tell your grandkids you voted for, or against it.

bill r.,

I have always thought going in was a bad idea. period. And the way this administration did it -- topple the Baath government in a couple of weeks and then call the war a success -- made it an even worse idea.

What I want to see now is a plan to get out that will not make the situation worse. I haven't seen one yet.

So I'm against the war and also against precipitous, withdrawal -- I don't know if that answers your question or not.

JD,
Is it "liberal" to be against universal healthcare and support a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran?

JD...I don't have to re-read your post. I've seen them enough to know, you are all about labels. You can't start a post without some playground smack talk. You put the level of a discussion,right off the bat,so low that name-calling becomes a step up. There is something that's buried, even if it is latent. You wouldn't make fun of his "roots". I have never heard you mock anyone for going back to his "roots" in Ohio to see his Grandmother! You throw around "liberal" like it is a word of disgust. It comes from liberty: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

Now where in there do you see something bad?It's a different viewpoint from yours, but why do you wish to demonize it?

But I'm sure you will revert to the sandbox again,so all I will say is....I'm made of rubber..you're made of glue....Na Na Na!

Bill R and to the rest of the Obama lap puppets: Please explain what the "esteemed" Senator has done? What has he done in his career that makes hima qualified candidate for president? And I don't want an answer of "Well what did Bush do before he stole the presidency?"
Let's keep this about Obama. What has he done exactly? So far as best as I can tell he gave a speech at the Democratic convention in 2004. He won an easy election because the media, led by the CHicago LIBune that told the world about the "BOMBSHELL" that Jack Ryan wanted to actually have sex WITH his wife that forced him out of the campaign. He went to Kenya. He has a new book.
Hmmm, I wonder if Barack Obama was a Republican like Michael Steele of Maryland or Ken Blackwell of Ohio, would the media be drooling all over Obama?

John D.,
What he hasn't done is take his parent's and parent's friends money and run an oil company into the ground, he hasn't been owner of an unsuccessful professional baseball team, and he didn't wait until his 40s before he stopped drinking and took life seriously.

"JD,
Is it "liberal" to be against universal healthcare and support a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran?"

I called him a liberal, not stupid.

Bill R.

Uh, no I haven't made fun of anyone going back to Ohio (Kansas actually) to visit their Grandmother, but I did make fun of the media's lack of attention if something like that happen, while overhyping a trip to Africa.

Again, I don't think you comprehend my posts.

Also, where did I say the term "liberal" is a bad word and not all those "noble" definitions you described?

However, I see nothing "progressive" in "liberal" politics.

That's what we do here Bill R. Debate these things. I think its funny that you won't debate, just accuse me of name calling, or being racist etc....

Typical lefty fall back position.

JD..."CHIcago LIBune"?! You want a serious debate after throwing that infantile gem out there? Please. You're lucky they even approve your posts anymore. But then, freedom of speech IS a tenet invented and owned by the liberal philosophy...if you don't like it, don't take advantage of it. Besides, the Tribune is hardly known as a liberal newspaper...

"Let's keep this about Obama?". Why, because you know that Bush can't stand up to Obama in regards to qualifications, so let's just avoid a comparison because it would inconvenience you? Because you know that your making experience an issue after voting for Bush is entirely and grossly hypocritical? When WILL you discuss Bush, anyway? You want to focus on picking apart Obama, but never has it seemed a good time for you to look at the man who's currently ruinging our country in an objective light.

There's always an excuse for Bush backers to avoid actually thinking critically about his policies or hold him accountable for anything. Nope, he gets the kid gloves. Bush gets accused of having the intellect of a child, and yet in your tactics of defending him, you guys treat him as just that: a defenseless twit who can't stand on his own merit. So change the subject. Bin Laden! Terror! Evil liberals! Strawberry ice cream! Anything, at all, to duck any minute shred of accountability.

There's never a reason to argue with the guy in the glass house, though. I'm wasting my time.

Like a typical loon, Jethro can't answer the questions. I asked to keep it about Obama, not anyone else. And, for the record, Bush didn't wait until his 40s before stopping to drink and take life seriously, it happened in his 30s. And the other comments are nothing more than moveon.org talking points.

But Jethro and the rest of the intellectually challenged leftists, talk about Obama. What has he done in almost 2 years as senator? I would like to know. Enlighten me.

Frosty,

I've never referred to the Chicago Tribune as the "Libune" In fact, I believe they do a pretty good job in keeping things balanced.
The only exception to that is the Swamp's Obama fetish.

Guys, John D. JD. Is it really hard to comprehend that we are 2 different posters?

My "name" has 2 letters, John D. has 5 letters and a period. It's really not that hard if you apply yourselves!

I recognize that there is a difference between John E. and John F.
C. Morris, and Bill R.

Can you please do the same regarding John D. and I?

Please try to pay attention.

JD, what you are asking is way too complicated for the Leftists, sort of asking them what does 2 + 2 equal?

Anyway, Frosty, this Swamp item is about Barack Obama running for president. There have been countless forums here about George Bush debated, if that is what it's called, between you Lefties and us supporters of Bush.

But since this Swamp post IS about Barack himself, let's keep it there in the posts.

So, so far, Jethro and Frosty (are you folks one and the same??) have yet to answer the question: What has Barack Obama done that makes him presidential material? What has Barack Obama accomplished that makes him deserve the accolades?

So far, two can't name ONE thing, instead they attack George Bush.

So, I guess the answer is that Barack has done NOTHING, he is just a media creation, nothing more, nothing less.

What can a junior Senator from the minority accomplish in our system of government? Any Democratic bills get bottled in committee and arent' voted on the floor. He did co-sponsor legislation regarding ethics reform most recently. It was largely toothless because your party watered it down.

Your facts are a little murky there, Jethro. Obama did cosponosr ethics legislation, but GOP did not water it down. Though regarding ethics, I wonder how that translates to his campaigning for the ethically challenged Bob Menendez in New Jersey, his "personal support" and assistance to Alexi Giannoulious, and his quietness on the under investigation Boy Governor?

I also remember Barack was to cosponsor lobbyist reform with Sen. McCain, but then left McCain high and dry.

Little Johnny D.

Why do you insist on using the JD side of your personality to bolster your gutless rants ???

If you have a point to make,that has any fact basis whatsoever,then you should not have to post under two names to make a point....Get it ???

You need to find a girlfriend or some friends or somthing,I have never listened to a person who has had such robotic thinking in my life.

If the Dems were wetting the bed the way that the GOP is now,I wouldn't be on here telling people to stay with the Dems,I would say throw the bums out.

If George W. told you to jump off a cliff to save the GOP,would you jump off ???
I think we both know the answer to that,.....a dead little Johnny D.

Loon,
I can't stop laughing.

The above post explains a lot of the views posted by SOME of you left wingers.

Can someone with a brain join in? C. Morris? Dienne?

Please save the left from themselves.

R. Loon and John E. are really boring.

John E. is 43.

43!?!?!?

"R. Loon and John E. are really boring."

Posted by: JD | Oct 21, 2006 2:59:13 AM

No JD "boring" isn't the way I'd describe them. I'm thinking more like a burning itch. The best thing to do in that case is just don't scratch.

In other words, ignore them. Don't respond to them directly (as tempting as it may be) because it only makes it worse.

I know this from experience. Now and then I give in to the urge and respond to one of them, and it just unleashes a bigger torrent of offensive idiocy. The itch becomes worse.

These two spend most of their time just talking to each other. If everybody (instead of most people) ignored them they would spend all of their time doing that and the world would be just a tiny bit better.

PS: It's not really important that bill r lies about his age or that Loon lies about being from Bridgeport. Let it go.

I stopped listening to Brooks when he started quoting bogus statistics by the racial eugenicist Sailer in his columns as proof that Republicans have a superior love of family.

Ironical that he's pushing an African American for president now.

CORRECTION:

"It's not really important that bill r lies about his age ..."

should read:

"It's not really important that John E lies about his age or that Loon lies about being from Bridgeport."

I'M SO SORRY, BILL R!!
I had just finished writing a longish post to you when I pounded this out really fast.

A slip of the fingers that I hope won't happen again.

Of course you're not in the same league as these blubberheads.

Juanita,
I would listen to your overwelming intelligence,buy I'm just not "smart" enough to follow along with your "big" brain.
IT MAKES MY HEAD HURT!!

Love,Blubberhead

John E.
Here's an idea. When posting a comment, have a point. It makes it much more interesting to the reader!

Speaking of which, when was the last time you or your shipmate R. Loon had a point to make?

Don't ask how, but I have it on good authority that JD and John D are two separate people.

Neutral Lady,

I never doubted that. Thank you for weighing in to put that idiotic rumor to rest.

Neutral Lady,

HOW ???

"Don't ask how,"

Apparently John E. doesn't comprehend what he reads.

She said don't ask how John E. and what do you go and do?

Neutral Lady,
Don't fall for the JohnD./JD scam.

Little Johnny created the "JD" guy because he needs someone to second his wingnut rants.

"And yet in his new book, 'The Audacity of Hope,' Obama makes a strong counterargument. He notes that it’s time to move beyond the political style of the baby boom generation. This is a style, he said in an interview late Tuesday, that is highly moralistic and personal, dividing people between who is good and who is bad."

The above is a good argument for a younger candidate, and so is the fact that he is South-side Chicago yet educated at Harvard.

Come on! Anyone over forty know that a black man could not be elected president of this country.

If Obama were the Democratic candidate, white people would pour out to the pols, especially the men, to vote for whoever the Republican candidate might be.

The obvious 'elephant in the living room' that the 'in their own world' media deny.