Guess the D's are learning. The R's are not the only ones playin this game.

You are reading to much into my comments. Take a chill pill, I made no such assertions. If you put yourself into a group of people who are blindly voting for Obama then that is something you ascribe to yourself, not me.

No, I am not reading too much into your comments. You likened Obama to the Beatles and his following to a thousand screaming teenyboppers. Surely you have more respect for us than that, and surely you aren't going to go back to the "you just didn't understand what I said" argument when what you said was very, very clear.

SO basically you are saying that there are not a majority of voters who are voting for Obama because 1) Anyone but McCain/Republickin and or 2)He is black and or 3)They just like him better because he is young and or 4)He sounds so hip when he talks.

And that there are not people just voting for McCain because 1)Anyone but a Democrat and or 2)He is right-to-life and or 3)He is white and or 4)He has been around a lot longer.

IMHO there are a lot of people on both sides of the issue who have no freaking clue what either canidate stands for.

Oh for fuck's sake. Quit lumping me into this "everybody" and quit trying to find ways to show that anything you've said regarding WHY people choose who they vote for is any different than any other reason people have ever chosen who they vote for.

My god do you listen to yourself?

Charisma in a pol you support, is a remarkable leadership quality.

In a pol you don't support, is fiendish trickery.

Me, I've come to admire it. Getting people to like you. I wish I were better at it. I wish I had Reagan's natural disarming charm, Clinton's conveyance of immediate compassion, Obama's remarkable poise. All three are men at ease with themselves.

As I already pointed out, child support is public information to begin with. Ever check The Smoking Gun? All court documents are public unless they are specially sealed by the judge for some reason. And owing back taxes is a crime, so as soon as they charge you with it, that too becomes public information. They did not release his tax returns (private information), they did not reveal whether he has received welfare/unemployment (we assume because he didn't, but if he did, it must have been under legitimate circumstances, because they didn't press charges--if they had, then yes, those charges would have been public,) and the one person who illegally gave out information (the police officer who gave his home address to a reporter) is being punished accordingly.

Most people would be appalled to learn how much of their information is 100% public.

The most basic explanation for why Barack Obama may win next Tuesday is that voters want economic deliverance. The standard fix for this in politics everywhere is to crowbar the old party out and patch in the other one. It is true as well that the historic nature of the nation's first African-American candidacy would play a big role.


Barbara KelleyPush past the historic candidacy, however, and one sees something even larger at stake in this vote. One sees what Joe (The Plumber) Wurzelbacher saw. The real "change" being put to a vote for the American people in 2008 is not simply a break from the economic policies of "the past eight years" but with the American economic philosophy of the past 200 years. This election is about a long-term change in America's idea of itself.

I don't agree with the argument that an Obama-Pelosi-Reid government is a one-off, that good old nonideological American pragmatism will temper their ambitions. Not true. With this election, the U.S. is at a philosophical tipping point.

The goal of Sen. Obama and the modern, "progressive" Democratic Party is to move the U.S. in the direction of Western Europe, the so-called German model and its "social market economy." Under this notion, business is highly regulated, as it would be in the next Congress under Democratic House committee chairmen Markey, Frank and Waxman. Business is allowed to create "wealth" so long as its utility is not primarily to create new jobs or economic growth but to support a deep welfare system.

(continues)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533132337982833.html

Merc, I often don't know if I'm reading something you've written or just something you pasted in.

Its an article from the Wall street Journal.
I especially don't like the last paragraph - hope thats not true. If so then we are moving into a plan/policy that has repeatedly failed and been proven to be a disaster.

Sorry about that. Yes it is from the wsj and is only the first part of the article it continues in the link. Just another assessment. I hope it is not true. The times are uncertain.

19 months into the campaign, Obama used some boilerplate lefty lingo and everybody saw it as an opportunity to lose their shit.

End of the world sighted. Cats and dogs, living together. Four days out.

I'll be out of the country for all the insanity - THANK GOD.

I think if Obama wins, he will be an effective, smart, and I dare say moderately conservative leader (to the frustration of the true left), knowing he needs to build consensus to tackle the economy, healthcare, the wars, energy, etc.
I hope he gets the chance. Oh, and I think the temperament and verbal ability is a plus.

plus....he's got soft hands and is a great kisser.