Obama: Romney jab reflects 'ineffective candidate'

"...whether they want John McCain as there nominee..."

Errrr..."their"

Near as I can figure it, from the Republic debates and stump speeches, all the Republic candies are liberals; McCain, Capn. Willard, UpChuckAbee, all of them.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I guess Mitt the Twit missed Ann Cooter's marching orders; 'McCain more liberal than Hillary.'

"BUSH VETOES STIMULUS"

WHO TOLD YOU TO GIVE VETERANS MONEY. WHO TOLD YOU TO GIVE ELDERLY PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR ME AND BOUGHT INTO MY BILLION DOLLAR MEDICARE D PROGRAM.
WHO TOLD YOU TO GIVE POOR PEOPLE MONEY. WHO TOLD YOU TO THINK.

I TOLD YOU I WILL "VETO" ANY BILL FROM THIS POINT ON THAT DOESN'T GO RIGHT INTO HALLIBURTON, BECHTEL OR BLACKWATER BOTTOM LINE.

I TOLD YOU NO "IMMUNITY" NO ECONOMIC STIMULUS. I TOLD YOU NO IMMUNITY MY GOP CHEERLEADERS WILL FILLIBUSTER THE VERY FABRIC OR AMERICAN SOCIETY.

NOW, GO BACK AND GET ME MY IMMUNITY.

(THIS IS WHY ARCHIVES WILL NOT LIE.)

He nails it on Romney! Very astute and sharp. What a great President he'll be!

"WE are the ones we've been waiting for. . ." -- Barack Obama, 2.5.08

Obama for President! Make it happen, folks!

Okay, swamp, what kind of reporters are you? You know darned well that Obama accepts money from lobbyists, yet you CONTINUE to report his lie that he doesn't accept lobbyist money!

Lobbyists generally are paid by corporations, unions and other interest groups to shape public policy by making regular contact with government officials. They must register with both houses of Congress, and make public disclosures identifying their clients and the amounts they are paid.

Some of the most influential players, lawyers and consultants among them, skirt disclosure requirements by merely advising clients and associates who do actual lobbying, and avoiding regular contact with policymakers. Obama’s ban does not cover such individuals.

For example, partners from the Atlanta-based law firm Alston & Bird donated $33,000 to Obama in the first 90 days of 2007.

Alston & Bird has a large lobbying division in Washington. It billed its clients nearly $3.9 million in 2006, ranking 35th among Washington lobbyists. Alston boasts on its website that it offers clients “unique experience with how policy is made” and knows “the people who make it: government and agency officials; members of Congress and their staff.”

Obama kept $2,300 donated by Alston’s Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader. Daschle, located in Washington, is neither a lawyer nor a lobbyist. He is a consultant.

According to Alston’s website, Daschle advises “clients on issues related to all aspects of public policy with a particular emphasis on issues related to financial services, health care, energy, telecommunications and taxes.”

Here's the short list of lobbyists his campaign has accepted donations from:

Obama’s biggest single source of corporate money - $160,000 - came from executives at Exelon Corp., the nation’s largest nuclear power provider, and its subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, an Illinois utility.

In California, Obama accepted $2,300 from a partner whose lobbying firm represents AT&T, United Airlines and the Recording Industry Assn. of America in Sacramento.

Here's more: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/

The fact that you, as reporters, would allow the campaign's fiction that Obama "does not accept money from lobbyists" is really irresponsible of you. You should, at the very least, qualify that by telling readers "Obama does accept money from lobbyists partners in the same law firm."

Obama's "ban" is particularly insidious because it's held up by his campaign as an honest way to run a campaign when, in reality, it's an attempt to skirt campaign finance law and keep reporters, like Frank James and Mark Silva, from being able to find out what corporations contributed to what candidates.

Now that Romney is dead and buried, Grandpa McCain won't stand a chance against Obama and he knows it....in fact, John McBush would get his butt handed to him by Hillary too.

This interview is a great example of old man McCain's craziness:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/25/senator-mccain-on-the-daily-show/

Guess all the libs here missed it. Romney's no longer running. Time to focus on Bush. Uh oh, he's not running either. How about Cheney? Nope. Guess they'll have to focus on Kucinich.

Well...if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Obama's dead right about Romney, though, he was a pretty ineffective candidate.

Obama's "ban" is particularly insidious because it's held up by his campaign as an honest way to run a campaign when, in reality, it's an attempt to skirt campaign finance law and keep reporters, like Frank James and Mark Silva, from being able to find out what corporations contributed to what candidates.

Posted by: Jeff | February 7, 2008 6:18 PM

Nice try Jeffy, you need to quit sniffing McCain's jockstrap and come up for air.

John McBush has more lobbyist's hanging around him than any of the candidates.

McCain Loan Could Violate Donor Privacy
http://www.politico.com:80/news/stories/0108/7837.html

McLame's Immigration Insanity
http://www.borderfirereport.net:80/letters-from-readers/mclames-immigration-insanity.html

Video: Liebs says McCain did not support amnesty for illegal aliens
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/05/video-liebs-says-mccain-did-not-support-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens

McCain: "We Are Not Going To Build Fences And Barriers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5G3kH1PvvU

Tom DeLay Disses McCain, Calls New Hampshire Win ‘A Blip’
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com:80/2008/01/09/tom-delay-disses-mccain-calls-new-hampshire-win-a-blip/

John McCain and Our Second Amendment
http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm

John McCain's Skeleton Closet
http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm#keating

The Conservative Case Against McCain
http://thenextprez.blogspot.com/2005/12/conservative-case-against-mccain.html

A Vote For McCain Is A Vote For Amnesty, Open Borders and Never Building A Fence
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/01/a_vote_for_john_mccain_is_a_vo.php

#%&@# You McCain's Unstable Temper Raises More Doubt from Arizona News ( This site will not post actual title. Search Arizona News for John McCain. It's worth the effort to find it. )

Conservative Group Campaigns Against McCain: He's No Ronald Reagan
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Conservative_group_campaigns_again_McCain_Hes_0301.html

Former Senator Rick Santorum sees a lot of problems with John McCain's credentials
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=e96c3803-c542-4a57-98bd-68635a744540&comments=true

John McCain's Temper Preceded Vietnam
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/30/123006.shtml

John McCain's Record of Economic Issues
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/03/arizona_senator_john_mccains_t.php

McCain Would Vote Against The Bush Tax Cuts All Over Again
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/301ccb6c-32b0-4ba7-8330-68d560f67dd8

McCains Stand On Detainees May Pose Risk For 2008 Bid
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801353.html

Democrats Contributed Heavily To McCain's Effort in District 11 Election
http://www.azconservative.org/McCain_Discord.htm

The Conservative Case Against Huckabee And McCain
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/019929f6-5799-479e-a86b-e2e2601330ab

McCain Walks Into Conservative Clothesline
http://www.baltimoregroupblog.com/2007/03/19/mccain-walks-into-conservative-clothes-line/

John McCain Is No Hero
http://www.usvetdsp.com/bengmcan.htm

U.S. Senator John McCain Is No War Hero
http://www.namvets.com/Reading/john_mccain_is_no_war_hero.htm

Flashback: The Real John McCain
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/43aba933-6972-4a36-a25f-a2973e69e4ee

Wife of POW Navy Pilot, Who Had Husband's Remains Sent Home By North Vietnamese in 1989, Was Lied to by U.S. Officials For Years About His Whereabouts And POW Status
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/31-oct-2005.html

Defending America by David Hackworth
http://www.hackworth.com/25jan00.html

IT'S TIME TO GIVE THE U.S. ARMY A GOOD SHAKE
http://www.hackworth.com/19nov01.html

Why Vietnam Vets Split on McCain
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_16/ai_61487324

Luck Of The Admiral's Son Not For "Grunts"
http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.htm

ARIZONA'S JOHN McCAIN: A Fraud, "Rhinestone Hero," and National Security Risk
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/mccain.html

MSNBC questions McCain's temper; Reporter says McCain vexes Senate colleagues
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_Does_McCains_temper_hurt_presidential_0707.html

Wow! And I thought I wanted to vote for Obama. Now I see the real man...and his following. I need to look for a new candidate!

The new John E. comment that will be posted under multiple aliases is "sniffing McCain's jockstrap." Got that? It's what will pass for actual research and explanation like I posted above. It's "sniffing McCain's jockstrap."

I don't know where he got it from. I guess he was sniffing jockstraps this week or something. Hard to tell with that adled brain.

All you friggin liberals...Romney hands down is the best candidate. Comparing him to anyone else is like apples and oranges. He did what's right to keep the hippies from taking over and allow the lesser of the two evils to happen.
Obama is a sad pathetic little man.

The only reason Obama was more effective than Romney is Obama has the black vote and the white guilt vote.
Other than that Obama is a putz with a silver tongue.

Paulo

JD, you need the past tense there even if that is your opinion. I'd refute it but the point is really moot right now. It's "was" the best candidate, JD.

Right on Obama ! had the lil tool been effective he would be competing with mcCain for the NOM,nice to

see Obama giving you abit
of his arsenal, note to hillary, you may need to rethink those statements, that he wouldn't hold his own in a general election.

Also, for when you get done sniffing, what "try" did I make? I didn't try anything. I did some research and posted information that's readily available on the net and in campaign donation disclosure databases. You can do it, too, John when you're done sniffing. The sites you've passed along are merely smears and have nothing to do with public records. The ones that are even true (like the Lieberman) are nothing to disagree about so they don't bother me.

Do or do not, John E. There is no try.

“No Democrat has suggested that we surrender to terrorism. Democrats have suggested that we start withdrawing out of Iraq so we can focus our attention on terrorism. But, you know, it’s a classic example of trying to conflate the war against real enemies with the failed strategy of the Bush Administration in Iraq. ”

BRILLIANT !

"Obama the uniter", who obviously can't even unite his own party, goes out of his way to trash a Republican who isn't in the race any more.

Classy move, Barack H.

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff.

http://opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=K02&cycle=2008

Read to me who is at the top of the lobbyist-receiving list.

Now here's the thing. I doubt Barack Obama really knows whose law partner is a lobbyist and whose isn't. Lots of lawyers have partners who do lots of different things. Would you say a donation is pro-Life if it came from a pro-Choice donor who is married to a pro-Life spouse? C'mon, what's your standard for indpendence? 6 degrees of separation? Not gonna happen.

The answer, for those who don't click on the link, is that Hillary has more lobbyist money than #2 and #3 combined. Obama is not on the list.

Is Jeff trying to deny the fact that most of Obama's donations are small amounts? Try this:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?filter=A&sortby=X

which shows that MORE THAN A THIRD of Clinton's donors gave $4600, twice the primay max amount (Obama less than 10%). That, Jeff, is very good evidence of big money going to Clinton.

Jeff: If individuals want to make campaign contributions in their own capacity to Obama's campaign then they may do so, just like any other American. The janitor at a Halliburton company might decide they want to contribute to the campaign if they want to, but it does not make Obama obligated to Halliburton. Obama is obligated to the American people as a collective voice. There is no 'we'll give you this big chunk of money if you do this for us' in Obama's campaign contributions.

Paulo: Your comment about the white guilt vote is sickening. How simply you look at the world, and uncharitably.

Jeff -- here it is again,

February 03, 2008

K Street's Not Far from the White House (02/03/08, 5:15 pm)
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain maintained their status as lobbyists' favorite candidates all through 2007. By the end of the year, Clinton had collected $823,000 from lobbyists—more than anyone else—while McCain's haul totaled $416,000. Giving by lobbyists to the candidates still in the race at this time slowed down in the summer months when Congress—and the rest of the nation's capital—took a break, but contributions picked up again in the last three months of the year, when lobbyists gave about $378,000 to candidates still in the race. Barack Obama, who doesn't accept contributions from federally registered lobbyists, has still collected about $86,000 from unregistered employees of lobbying firms, lobbyists' immediate family members and state and local lobbyists. Even with so many of the candidates bad-mouthing the lobbying industry lately, lobbyists aren’t likely to stop giving donations—they're hoping for influence and access to whoever wins the White House.

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=332

Jeff, so you're saying that individuals who happen to work in a particular industry or for a particular company should be barred from making a single $2300 donation? Obama has, what, a couple of hundred thousand donars and you want to focus on a few individuals because of who they work for? And call it insidious? Makes sense to me.

Yet another reason not to like Obama.

The lie that there are no terrorists in Iraq...what kind of garbage statement is that? Abu Nidal? Abu Musab al-Zarwawi? Uday Hussein? Perhaps Obama would like to try out an 'iron maiden,' given that he doesn't think it's terrorism...

Obama et al never SAY out loud they're for surrender. They just want to "fight" the War Against the Terrorists in a way that guarantees the U.S. can't win that war.

How is that different from surrender?

Shame on Romney for telling the truth about these people.

Jeff is 100% accurate and the fact that these reporters do not call him on it is pathetic. He had a lobysits leading his campiagns in both NH and SC, he takes money from lobbyists and disguises it as bundles. He isnt fooling anyone except for the idiots who think he is the 2nd coming. Although I suspect deep down even they know he is lying.

"Obama et al never SAY out loud they're for surrender. They just want to "fight" the War Against the Terrorists in a way that guarantees the U.S. can't win that war."

We may be losing fighting it the Bush way; On these very boards just the other day a whole panel of MICs expressed concern that the efforts in Iraq may be causing AQ to metastasize on a large scale.

Regarding 'fight them there or fight them here'; We might be able to whip them here.

No Democrat has suggested that we surrender to terrorism. Democrats have suggested that we start withdrawing out of Iraq so we can focus our attention on terrorism. Barrack Osama
Yeah ok lets give em welfare, a vote for the Democratic Party, Public Housing, I myself enjoy killing terrorists where they live, not in the US,
lets focus, Obama is a PUTZ, exactly who is this guy?

Sorry Barack. Mitt was expressing what most Republicans feel. Your plan is a plan for surrender.

You say you will have the troops home by the end of 2009. Either you are lying about the pull out or you are creating a recipe for disaster. Iraq is becoming more and more stable by the day, but a pull out in one year would be disastrous.

From the New York Times: "(Romney's) attack advertisements paved the way for a devastating counterattack from the McCain campaign, and what many of Mr. Romney’s advisers believe was the most effective commercial of the election cycle, a negative advertisement that cited quotes from newspaper editorials to make the case that Mr. Romney was a fake.

"In the end, even though Mr. Romney’s aides contended he found his voice in New Hampshire, he wound up losing the state as well."

Obama was right about how ineffective a candidate Romney was. He made a HUGE miscalculation by going after McCain with lies like saying he's for amnesty. Quite simply, the Romney campaign brought out a figurative knife with those attack ads and the McCain campaign answered with a figurative gun.

Romney then tried to figuratively put the McCain campaign in the hospital and McCain answered by figuratively putting the Romney campaign in the morgue. Where it is today.

Mark O, they aren't just "a few" contributions. Obama has tons of these bundled contributions in his FEC filings. He has nearly as many lobbyists donating to and working for his campaign as Hillary. I just think he should be honest about it.

I don't blame Obama for taking lobbyist money. Everyone needs campaign cash. I blame him for lying about it and skirting the federal reporting laws. They need to be stiffened so that law partners in firms that also do lobbying and "consultants" need to register the same as full-time lobbyists so that the public receives full disclosure. Spouses of lobbyists who cannot prove that their contributions came from a source other than their spouse should also have to register.

Guys who are posting the "top" lobbyist contributions list. I have absolutely no problem with any of that. At least they're being honest and not skirting the reporting requirements. Lobbyists have been giving money to candidates since 1792 and that's not going to change. What we need more of is transparency in government. Hillary and McCain are following the rules and admitting they take lobbyist money. Obama is simply lying about it.

They aren't small amounts, either. Sidley Austin, a law firm that did millions in lobbying work in 2008, gave over $100,000 to Obama's campaign through partners who aren't registered as lobbyists.

Here's detail about the Sidley Austin donation. Accepting more than $187,000 from a lobbyist organization is NOT a "small donation" or "a few contributions." Skadden Arps is in here, too.

Obama's campaign accepted $187,750 from his former law firm, Sidley Austin, which earned $4 million from lobbying activities in 2006. He got contributions of $112,650 from Skadden, Arps et al, which earned $1,220,000 in lobbying income last year.

This has been the problem all along. I am a die hard Dem and I can say that I think a good number of my fellow Dems are way too busy drinking the Barak kool aid to open their eyes. Everytime I turn around this guy has found a dishonest way to portray himself as the second coming. Through my own research, I have found what is stated on this board. He stands on stage and portrays himself as the Washington outsider, he says he does not take PAC money, he says he does not take lobbyist money and it is all a distortion of the truth. The problem comes in when he is challenged about all of it, he cries foul and claims he is being picked on by the big bad politicians. What a bunch of crap. I am afraid, very afraid that if this continues, we will blow the best chance in more than a decade to take back the White House. Is Hillary perfect? Oh Lord, no, but one has to wonder if Barak had to stand up to the kind of scrutiny the Hillary does, would he still be standing. As a darling of the media, he seems to get a big pass, in alot of areas and CNN and MSNBC should be made to register with the FEC as Obama campaign surrogates, so slanted has been their coverage of the campaign. What the Dems really need is someone, neutral and respected to bring these issues into the public eye and level the playing field so people can make a truly informed choice. I am not sure who that mught be, but I pray they show up soon.

No one has yet to refute Jeff's point. Jeff said that Obama is lying when Obama says he doesn't accept money from lobbyists, and that the reporters who repeat the lie are not doing their job when they do not refute the claim. There is ample evidence that Obama's campaign receives aid from lobbyists -- he just does it in a different way than McCain and Clinton. We all know McCain accepts money from lobbyists. I don't think Jeff is denying that (if he is, he is no better than an Obama novitiate and should be treated as such.) But to say, "McCain accepts more money from lobbyists, therefore Obama gets none," is irrational, at best. It is as illogical as saying: Because the Cubs have not won the World Series since 1908, the Bears cannot win the Super Bowl in 2009. If you want to believe that Obama is perfect, that's your right. But it is not proper for journalists to continue to print lies they know are not true.

It was a mistake for Obama to make disparaging comments about Romney who's no longer running. that will hurt him in the polls. To me, he's nothing more than a smooth-talking politician who gives blacks and white people who cater to blacks or fear them, the chance to have a black president. It shouldn't be about race, but black people seem to always use color as excuse for failure, that they are constantly being discriminated against when in all part of the country from sports, entertainment, politics, blacks are well spoken for and represented. That's the honest truth. and nobody can say a bad thing about blacks or media is all over it. and Bush bashing is every day occurrence and everybody is ok with that. If Obama wins, I have no doubt tax will go up, more spending, welfare system expands, bigger gov't, corruption. and the country will again see that media hype, the hip guy of the time, a liberal politician has no real substance, just a legacy of being the first black president, oh I mean second, sorry Bill. The only thing I like about him is he doesn't seem like a wife cheater, and we can be proud of him for being a good role model for that.

Obama doesn't take money from lobbyists because he already got caught taking money from lobbyists ala Rezko. What a bunch of hot air!!

Hey, Obama, Huss-e-in Yo mama, you’re calling Romney “ineffecive”? Listen you druggie stoner addict, stinky (according to your own wife) pothead, the only area that you have any comparison to Romney, is that you have a law degree from Harvard too. That’s it! Otherwise, you have not done anything in your life that is anywhere near Romney’s intelligence, competence, experience, etc., - you have not run ANYTHING! ..zippo! Romney has run the Olympics, Bain Capital, and was a governor! So shut the hell up! If anyone is ineffective, it is YOU!...Druggie! You’re only popular as a fad and a trend among young people who either do not know any better or are misguided and are lost ...your promise of change and hope are empty promises ‘cause you have not changed anything except changing from an addict to non-addict.

JB, thank you! I fully acknowlege McCain takes lots of lobbyist money just like Obama does.

I realize lobbyists are necessary to fund a modern campaign. The thing I have a problem with is Obama claiming he doesn't take the money when he does. Thanks for the intelligent and understanding post. It's good to talk substance around here for a change.

Obama is like the dog that has just lifted its tail from between its legs once he is safe from a stronger, superior and more fierce opponent. Now that Romney is gone, Obama feels safe from the anticipated debates had Romney were still in the race, and so now Obama can open his tobacco-stinking mouth! Obama should be grateful now that his main hurdle has been removed from his path. And despite the polls (which measure mostly popularity anyway), you would have slipped, stumbled and subdued in the debates. Let’s face it, Romney is much more articulate than you and your “uhmm - uhmm - punctuated speech”, and he’s way smarter than you. “Fresh face” does not equal competence and being qualified. This American electorate should stop being seduced by the entertainment sector and its preference for the popular, the low and the mundane, but rather embrace the lofty, the noble and the exceptional.

Pat, you're right. He has been working the system all his life.

Jeff appears to have done his research, but his proposal is not law, nor even the standard of normal discourse, so he should probably cool it with his accusations.

If he were to get his proposal into law it would be quite strict (he proposes that members of law firms with lobbyists be registered as lobbyists for the purposes of restricting donations). It would penalize large law firms, to be sure. Would such a standard extend to spouses AND children? Apparently Jeff wants to do this, but how does one show the spouse does not have separate income? Want to audit every contributor? Right now, if I have 12 children, I can effectively give 13 x $4600 to Hillary and it all shows up as legal. What if those children actually have their own pro-Hillary opinions and their own summer jobs? Want to remove all bundlers? Fine, but let's see a workable definition of bundling. Maybe Jeff is not so good at proposing legislation himself, and should get off his high horse.

The thing is, if you look at the campaign donations, Obama gets the biggest donations from just about every profession and every walk of life, except oil and gas, lobbyists, lawyers, CEO's, and partners (see my http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~loui/donations.html, for Y07Q1-Q2 search results). So if you succeed in restricting lawyer donations altogether, you will just be penalizing the other candidates. Obama is number one among the military. OK, take that away. Then he's number one among church employees. Remove them. He's number one among Teachers. Veterinarians. Doctors. Professors. Google employees. You can't deny that Obama's money base is very broad.

Jeff cannot assume that the rest of us hold to his proposed standard. Here's what Jeff would have reporters say: "Obama does not take as much oil and gas money as McCain, but he takes in about $50M from people living in the same states as people who work for oil and gas companies." "Obama takes essentially no lobbyist money, but he takes about $32M from people who go to the same Starbucks as some lobbyist." Jimminy, Jeff, that's a lot to ask of a reporter.

Obama is the king of poorly thought out statements. Here is what many are doing, continue to vote for Romney and conservatism. Romney only suspended his campaign not quit. That means he still retains his delegates and will still be on ballots and may even win more delegates. So even though McCain has the nomination just about wrapped up, that is even more reason to vote for Romney and send McCain and everyone else a message that conservatism is still important. Join the ground swell of support for Romney and conservatism www.ultimitt.org

Wow DHR,
What kind of white bread cornfield do you hail from? It's so funny how you insist that black people always make things about race when...well, you brought it up to begin with. In this century minorities still aren't "well spoken for and represented" in that great many of arenas. Entertainment? It still looks pretty whitewash on most major network television shows. Politics? Ah yes, that explains why there have only been three black Senators in US history (Barack being one of them). However, you're right about sports...wait, if you only count basketball, American football, and track&field.
I think, in this instant, Obama is trying to use color as an excuse for success...not failure. Not only that, but he had every right to go on the record and defend himself - it was Romney's parting campaign speech, not his dying last breath. Furthermore, people rag on Bush because he's been screwing up since day one (you don't need my opinion, just check out his 30% approval rating), and not because of his skin color. Whereas, ironically, you seem to be ranting against Obama because of his skin color and NOT his approval rating...or any other form of facts. Bravo.

Obama's "jab" is just the kind of Kennedyesque remark that is appropriate.

It was Romney who made an inappropriate remark, as he did many times.

Obama's response is clean and elegant and just what Romney deserved.

And it was true, Romney is ineffectual.

A dull, plodding man in fact.

Just one who spent $40 million of his own money promoting himself.

But the clown did it for "his love of America" didn't he? That's what he said.

Blind ambition had nothing to do with it.

Blind to his own inadequacies, that is.