Arkansas Blog

is it too early to say... "told you so?"

Boo. BO's a politician, no doubt.

I'm pretty annoyed with his FISA stance and condemning Clark's statements.

(But lest we forget, Hillary too had some pretty awful stances, before she even exited the primary.)

P.S. Judging from the fact that this "lefty blog" is a Blogspot account and there are zero comments, something tells me this is a pretty obscure blog.

is it too early to say... "told you so?"

Only if you include the happy snoopy dance that comes with the admission Obama is doing everything we expected Clinton to do. As I have been saying for couple of weeks the happiest Obama supporters today should be the former Clinton supporters of the primary season. I didn't expect a major change but he's been running an extension of the Clinton style since they both hit the ground running/speaking at AIPAC after the last primary vote was cast. WHat happened with Clark yesterday and FISA over the last week or so.. well it's got me thinking seriously about leaving the party again.

"It looks like Obama is gun-shy after sticking by Jeremiah Wright. Now, he can't move quickly enough to denounce his own allies. So he's cross at Wes Clark, and he's mighty cross at MoveOn as well! Who else will he be cross with as he kicks off "Operation Piss Off the People Supporting and Bankrolling His Campaign In Order To Prove He Hates the Dirty Fucking Hippies". Now that the primary is over, he can turn his back on the people that brought him." - Daily Kos

This is an example of changing from the politics of conviction to the politics of whatever gets a vote. We see this every time a candidate gets scared of running on their convictions. I really had HOPE that this wouldn't be the case. We saw the same thing after the California Supreme Court made their decision on marriage...Obama couldn't come out fast enough stating that marriage should be between a man and a woman only. At least that is his belief. Candidates get bad advice from the people who have gained political power and see themselves advisers to the candidates. The common line is "liberals will still vote for you because they have no other choice -- go after those 'value' (gagg) voters". You can replace liberal with labor in 1994, it was liberals in the Kerry campaign, and for Gore it was ... liberals and environmentalists. Clinton's advisers must be working on the Obama campaign these days....

=================================================================

What was that he said about Hillary Clinton...?

"Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected."
"She'll say anything, and change nothing."

=================================================================

"...(But lest we forget, Hillary too had some pretty awful stances, before she even exited the primary.)

P.S. Judging from the fact that this "lefty blog" is a Blogspot account and there are zero comments, something tells me this is a pretty obscure blog."--JD

Uh, Hillary ain't our nominee and Obama was chosen (or so we were told) because he WASN'T just another triangulating, flip-flopping, speaks out-of-all-sides-of-his-mouth politician...LIKE HILLARY.

(Yes, I'm voting for Obama; no, I'm not buying anymore Obama is different crap.)

So our opinions don't count because we're 'obscure'...so relevance is defined by our popularity in blog world? Dang it...thought I was changing the Universe.

"Clinton's advisers must be working on the Obama campaign these days...."

You can't blame this on the Clintons. This is 100% Obama...new kind of politician....

"We need all hands on deck."
BHO

Ah, militarization of the language. Clever.

However, seems we need one more clarification on FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES:

"Faith-Based Initiatives Began with Clinton, Not Bush

Perhaps the greatest mis impression the media has fostered about the Bush Administration is this one: The Bush Administration marked the advent of the "faith-based initiative."

Not so. It was the Clinton Administration that opened the portals for federal money to flow directly into religious coffers for their mission work with troubled youth, drug addicts, and alcoholics. It was Clinton who opened this Pandora's box, not Bush."

President Bill certainly did more than he was given credit for, especially after Republics began the feeding frenzy over a blow-job based impeachment.
See bluename.

This is nothing new. Obama has to win some of the middle ground. Your alternative is McCain.

Update on HuffPo:

UPDATE: An Obama campaign official told the Huffington Post that the AP's claims about Obama allowing hiring or firing based on faith are false. From a portion of Obama's speech today:

"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

You can't blame this on the Clintons. This is 100% Obama...new kind of politician....

That is complete crap and you ought to know it by now.. he's hired tons of her consultants (and former Clinton administration officials) and damn near completely lost his voice on the tack he had 6 weeks ago. Voice being the best thing he had. Coincidence, I seriously doubt it.

A large part of the problem is the D party infrastructure. And that definitely is a current Clinton legacy as is the power of the DLC Blue Dogs in Congress. both parties seem to rely on the pool of "specialists" from the right wing think tanks.. (just look at the myriad of speakers that show up @ the Clinton school or speaking everywhere on csapn weekend programming). The rich own both sides of the isle when it comes to the real power with a megaphone infrastructure these days. As long as folks like Ross and Pryor can be considered moderates or even Dems... or folks like Newt Gingrich are not chased out of any and every town with torches and pitchforks.. the rich win.

Obma simply managed to include a voice for some of the other players/ideas during the primary... but the Clark fiasco yesterday was a very bad sign, imo.

He's abandoning his principles and supporters faster with each passing day now. I fully expect him to toss Michelle under the bus in 30 minutes or less when the Repukes finally do release the 'Whitey' tape.

When will someone start digging into all of the tax money funneled into "The Lord's Ranch" program here in Arkansas? What did the money go for? How many troubled youth were cared for? Where were they from? Where are they now? etc. etc.

He's the democratic George Bush. NO experience, no judgement of his own. Who is his Cheney? That's the question.

=================================================================

When ever you are caught with your pants down....just scream CLINTON.

Has worked for Republicans and apparently now works for Democrats too.

=================================================================

bush may have made more noise with his creepily named "faith based initiative" talk, but it was pres. clinton who got the ball rolling on this stuff back in '96 with the charitable choice act, which allowed churches to compete for those federal dollars alongside other charities and nonprofits and such. and this stuff has a history of bipartisan support. it's totally being misrepresented as an "omg obama totally slumming for the evangelical vote now!!!"

Any*Mouse, good point and link. I got to the AP story on HuffPost after they had added the update.

This sounds like a typical AP hack job to me. Obama is making a clear distinction on this, but it requires reading all the words. This is the same with the Clark comments, the media goes nuts before anybody reads all the words. Obama is saying that we need the help of faith based organizations, but is clear in his qualifications for that help, and their government funding. Everyone here is rushing to judgement just like the media has so carefully taught them to do. Eureka, I'm especially surprised at you.

I initially thought that Obama was purely throwing Clark under the bus, even though I thought it may have been an intentional move (still think that is possible). I think the thin British-sounding guy on Countdown made the best point about the Clark situation. Clark was making a point about John McCain's service not being so great, and that is what Obama reacted to in his speech. I think the point that Clark made about being captured and tortured, while honorable and deserving of our respect for his service, does not make McCain any better a candidate for president. He was goaded into that answer by the questioner, Bob Schieffer, anyway.

The problem with saying something controversial that is true, as in McCain's qualifications for president not being justified by his service, and intertwining it with something constroversial that is much more a qualified opinion, such as McCain's service wasn't all that great, you are left with either deboning the opinion from the more logical fact, or just rejecting the part that you don't like, never mind trying to defend the truth that may be fused to it.

Obama made the choice to reject the assumption that McCain's service was somehow not worthy, but didn't bother to do the "Kerry Dance" and try to explain the distinctions between one of Clark's points and the other.

All that said, I am still bothered by Obama's lack of a strong stance against telecom immunity. I can only justify it if he is getting something more substantial for it in the long run, or maybe some technological safeguards against the possibility of such invasions of privacy without cause in the future.

The truth is, I'm bothered even more by how easy it seems that hack-job AP articles, like the one on faith-based initiatives, can be used to douse Democratic turn-out come November.

I'm much more comfortable with Obama moving right in the general than Hillary starting on the right and waving vigorously at the left only when she gets in trouble in the primaries.

there's no story here is what i'm sayin

Triangulating was the largest problem I had with Bill Clinton and my discomfort about Hillary. It always leaves the opposition owning the thesis and setting the agenda. Let conservatives do the triangulating.

I have to admit a large measure of disappointment about Obama already, and if he is moving to keep and even expand "faith-based initiatives," he has IMO gone beyond anything necessary to get elected. The stuff about being sure religious institutions don't use government money for proselyting and forego religious tests in hiring and use the grant only for "secular" programs is a crock. Funds are fungible and everything a religious institution does is intended to deliver its message and elicit a positive response to it. Non-verbal communication is much, much more powerful than verbal communication, and the government should never be paying for non-verbal messaging by a church, mosque, synagogue, or coven. There is a churchly book (I think) titled "Doing the Truth." I am all for religious folks doing their truth and not just talking about it, but they should do it on their own nickel, not mine or that of adherents of any other faith. "It is more blessed to give than to receive."

also i need to read entire thread before posting! hi, elwood!

Bitch all you want about triangulating, but it works. Obama is doing whatever it takes to win. He always has so don't act surprised.

It's like standing on the sinking ship. Looking to the left you see alligators, to the right you see sharks...what you gonna do? I'm stuck with Obama and I'll vote for him if his head splits apart and 3 giant snakes start dangling from his neck hole. My other choice is McCain and I'll let Cheney shoot me in the face before I vote McCain.

So I have to make some kind of happy news out of everything Obama says or does until January 20th, 2009. This makes me think about a few things. First off, no candidate is ever going to be as far left as I am....and I suspect Eureka is. It won't happen, I think it should, but it won't. In order to get elected I guess the middle must be courted and kissed. I'd personally rather get back to Cheney and his gun......but that brings up the church folks. They have to be courted and kissed too. Yuck!

And I think at the heart of the matter, no politician is ever going to piss off the giant telecoms. They're too powerful. They must be blown, not kissed, on a daily basis. They own whole US Senators.....ie Pryor and Lincoln. I'm betting it's easier to pull God's beard than it is to indict and convict any of the giant telecoms. We won't live to see the day when justice for the spying telecoms comes around.

So here is what I like about Obama. While still a politician and all that that implies, he is much quicker at making the right decision. His campaign floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee while Hillary and Bill stomped around like dinosaurs in a tar pit. What Obama has said about gays and racial relations is true and it took guts to say it. He seems very smart. I just hope he's a good human with a good heart. We won't know that for several years.

I have no choice. I have to tell myself that Obama is the next FDR. He has one choice......he MUST get elected. So I am going to assume with a large ASS that Obama Knows Best and if I just vote for him and relax (remember relax?), everything will turn out fine because enough time has passed, America is due another great leader and we sure as hell know that ain't Honest John McCain.

I think they'll shoot him. I think that is the number one problem we and he face.

>>Obama is doing everything we expected Clinton to do.<<

The difference is the word "expected". That's what is so ironic.

Very well put DBI.

But, the enormity of this whole charade of self governance has finally sunk into my addled pate. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Even St. Vic is no longer worthy of my vote. I will be leaving large portions of my November ballot blank. Right now the only two candidates I know of who are worthy of my support are Rebekah & Joyce.

Zelda said, (Yes, I'm voting for Obama; no, I'm not buying anymore Obama is different crap.)

I'm with you, Zelda. I thought it was pretty evident that Obama was no different way back in the winter and sprng. I just didn't know how long it would take for Huff Post and some of his henchmen to open eyes and take notice.

Some Obama lovers are prime for a hard fall. Not me - I noticed he was just a politician and very skillful at avoiding any mud left on his own clean hands - so nothing he does will surprise me. I'm disappointed so far, but he's still a million times better than McCain, so it's another ho-hum day in politics for this Dem.

Eureka said, "he's hired tons of her consultants "

So what does that mean? If he can't hire people he likes and if he can't direct them what does that say about him? It's actually worse to think he can't help it because of the "evil Clintons" than to think it's deliberate......

MJD said, When ever you are caught with your pants down....just scream CLINTON. Has worked for Republicans and apparently now works for Democrats too.

Of course. That was my first clue back in Jan, Feb and Mar that we weren't dealing with a "different kind of politician". He was the same old "blame the Clintons for the weather and everything else" kind of politician and that made me actually like him less.

DBI, sharks and alligators - I think that describes it nicely. You are absolutely correct that we are married to a choice and for better or worse it will stay that way. He will, of course win - that's what all this running to the center is all about - it was foreordained that he would do that even if it does cause Arianna Huffington does foam at the mouth over it. We are decidedly on the left, most of my family is decidedly on the right, but the vast majority of the country lives in the foggy, mushey middle where nothing much changes and minds are easily swayed one way today and another tomorrow and THOSE are the people - scarey as they may look - who will determine the next POTUS. If Obama had been what he pretended he would have gone the way of all those great libs of the past right off the stage without a bang - just a whimper.

I never believed he was different - everything he said and did proved he wasn't different - we just had a lot of gullible people who thought they FINALLY had a Rocky. Well, Rocky he ain't - but he WILL win and goddess willing, he will do some GOOD THINGS for this country. BUT they won't be the sweeping liberal changes too many expected.

I've said it before - I have a good friend who always looks me in the eye and says "never fall in love with a politician, they will fool you every time." I'm just glad I didn't fall in love with this one because he is a cunning one......

=================================================================
As a black male liberal Democrat, Obama will probably have to triangulate more than President Clinton (white male moderately liberal Democrat).
=================================================================

"innoculation" season does seem to be underway

i wonder if it is already achieving results?

perhaps (name/link)

only time will tell

Obama sells out MoveOn.

He must have Bigfoot tires under that bus.

"So our opinions don't count because we're 'obscure'...so relevance is defined by our popularity in blog world? Dang it...thought I was changing the Universe. "

Um, Zelda, I never made a comment about anything in that regard. I later quoted Daily Kos (from the same bit Max later quoted), a blog w/ readership in tens of thousands. And if by "our" you mean AT, I think it's w/o question that AT Blog is the most relevant in the state by a huge margin.

But yes, to answer your question, generally a blog is more relevant/substantive the more viewership it has. Obviously that's not always the case, but there is a correlation. That's why I thought it was pretty arbitrary to cite the first blog.

BO is taking decisions I would have easily expected from Clinton, but not him. As John Oliver said, Obama exchanged his "Change" hat for his "I want to be president" hat. Shame on Obama.

(That said, I still think he's a stronger candidate than Hillary, but not as strong as I would have liked.)

Eureka said, "he's hired tons of her consultants "

So what does that mean? If he can't hire people he likes and if he can't direct them what does that say about him? It's actually worse to think he can't help it because of the "evil Clintons" than to think it's deliberate......

bb Ci Ci

He can hire anyone he wants, but the Clinton supporters ought to be dancing in the streets about who he's hiring this month. And he damn well ought to lose support from those of us who know better.

It means (at this point to me) he seemingly intends to finish his campaign running to the right, ignoring the center and the left, and if he wins, govern much like Clinton... I knew it's was risky supporting him.. and only considered doing so when it was down to Clinton or anyone but Clinton as a choice (my fourth choice) to make. It took 40 years to get this far over the edge of fascism... and if I have to fight for an inch by inch movement back towards the center, I will. But I have to sense there is a sincere desire by a candidate to do that.. If I was off by an inch, so be it.. Who's next? I am not waiting four years or four weeks to pivot and try supporting someone else... or tacitly sit by and support a Senator who fails to uphold his oath on our precious amendments now.

There is a solid 30 percent liberal Senate and 40 percent progressive caucus in the House... Ignore that, shun that, lose me in days.. no more compromising, not now. the Blue DOgs and the GOPers stopped compromising a long time (decades) ago.. it's long past time time to play hardball. Were killing to many innocent people and losing the final illusion of being a nation under a rule of law, not men. Not to forget the working and unemployed poor or big oil/coal energy policy...

The middle described by MSM no longer exists... it's far left f the Lieber Pryors. Obama is trying to run right these past few weeks.. and he's looking weaker by the day (like Gore and Kerry did) for playing that old no-stand style with the same old final Clinton playoff team.

Obama and McCain need to do something now with the position they have... neither have demonstrated leadership...and McCain has had far longer chance to do so... But they both (along with their party) better show us something now. (FISA WAR ENERGY TRADE LABOR, pick something and lets have a fight bout it, damn)

We gave up Rocky this year when we all ignored Kucinich a scrappy smart very experienced (nearly 40 years in office) progressive with a lot of common sense to boot. and no interest in selling us out. Every question folks asked him about, he not only had a solid good answer but had in his hand or back pocket a bill written by his own hand, at the ready and awaiting action...

....He will, of course win - that's what all this running to the center is all about - it was foreordained....

Pulease, get rid of the blinders, you under estimate the sneaking underhandiness of the repub right, they are very skilled political operatives. The democrats conversely talk like wolves and act like sheep. You also ignore the fact that Obama has received a lot of support from blacks, the youth vote, some latinos, the extreme left and some of the center left. With his change in message, he is now a politician who says anything to get elected, not something I think most of us wanted.

Do you really think he can garner enough votes to cancel out the loss of the youth vote, they were the ones who he most influenced by the "change" message and they will drop like flys during crop dusting season. Youtube can be a public relations nightmare.

Hillary's disinchanted supporters will accuse him of doing what he accused her of doing and despite the rhetoric the wound is still open between the supporters of both. We still do not know whether or not a roll call vote will occur at the convention!

The latino vote becomes a toss up, he keeps the black vote and will lose all the whites voters who tell the pollsters they oppose racism but vote the opposite.

The intellectual religious center right doesn't have enough influence to energize the mass to support him. It is doubtful he would garner their support in any case. They are white and mainly racist.

His fervent supporters will hold course but the change he has taken will cause many to pause. The moderate republicans who disagree with Bush and might have supported Obama will rightly assume that he is simply more of the same so why vote democratic.

Many white voters who support Obama despite their qualms about his race now have a reason to bail. And this is to me the biggest disappointment of all...Obama could have used this campaign to reach out to the whites who are racist or have racist tendencies and show them he is above their beliefs, that he is not "black" but that he is a human and that he has their interests at heart. Through that cause he might have become the catalyst to put a lot of racial issues to rest.

Obama has lost his message and becomes a sheep in the pasture no more willing or able to shear the wool from his body than dubya has hope of having an intelligent thought. I hope what I say here is incorrect. But even if he wins who do we get the Obama of change or the typical pol?

Now the fist-bump is under the bus.

His Holiness (Peace Be Upon Him) disses a kid in front of the press.

I may have blinders on about winning, ArkyTravler, but I don't have blinders about Mr. Obama and I haven't had for over 6 months.

I do think, however, that winning comes in the middle - not on either extreme. Bush won by claiming to be a compassionate conservative and he got a lot of Democratic votes - those that are not so liberal. Clinton won with a coalition of liberal and moderate and Obama will do the same. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your outlook), this is the year Obama can't lose even if he disappoints all the Kos and Huffington Post folks. He's got doddering McCain as an opponent and as someone said - he's just Dole only older.

I have not seen a hard left running candidate win - ever........

>>Hillary's disinchanted supporters will accuse him of doing what he accused her of doing and despite the rhetoric the wound is still open between the supporters of both. We still do not know whether or not a roll call vote will occur at the convention!<<

There are lots of disenchanted Hillary supporters - I am one of them - but almost NO ONE who voted for Hillary will refuse to vote for Obama. It ain't happening. No one could dislike him more than I do but he is 1000 degrees closer to my politics than is McCain, so we will do all that we can to get Obama elected. The few that won't vote for him are just nuts anyway - much like the handful of Obama supporters who MAY turn away over his move to the center. But it won't be many and it won't make a difference.

Can you not just look at Barak Obama and see that winning is what he does - he doesn't lose...

>>Obama has lost his message and becomes a sheep in the pasture no more willing or able to shear the wool from his body than dubya has hope of having an intelligent thought. I hope what I say here is incorrect. But even if he wins who do we get the Obama of change or the typical pol?<<

To me, he has been a typical pol since about January of this year - actually he always was a typical pol, but I realized it in January. So, to me, now I think we have a level, more honest playing field because the man some of you thought was Barak Obama never was and that was what I hated so much. Even as he talked of a 'different kind of politics' and talked of unity and change - he was using all the methods all pols use and I hate being conned more than a hate a pol.

I think voters furious with Bush will vote for Obama - even some of the religious ones, IF they don't believe he is a Muslim. The ones who bought that lie won't ever vote for him no matter how much wool he would shear from his body. I also think he will get moderate religious folks because he's pandering to them. We know is pander but they will like it and won't be so worried about him being an evil Socialist.

I think all we lost was the smoke and mirrors. Now I recognize the man I'm voting for and couldn't vote for in the primary because he reeked of pretense and the stuff he said made my hair hurt. I don't think he's changed at all - he just doesn't need to pretend anymore.

One thing that pleases me is that my post generated thoughtful respones...anyway, I know that I am a glass half empy type of guy, lets hope that what "you" say becomes the reality!!!

Ci Ci - Bush, though he had to steal both elections garnered the vast majority f his votes from the extreme GOP base... You have to feed your base.. He fed them by giving them a brand new boogie man nation to murder and torture without consideration of the right or wrong of it... among other things.

There is a base in many parties who do now or certainly would if they knew what was going on... want leadership, want someone to stand up for them, stand up to BushMcCain co., stand up for something, anything.

It's another reason why Obama should stand up for this FISA fight against the lawless executive branch now.

And as to his base.. Stand up for FISA is the second largest people driven blog on Obamas blog today.. You know what number one is? Women for Obama. If Obama cannot stand hard and fast for his base supporters... he's in for a lot of trouble.. so is our constitution.

As hard as I am being on Obama.. it's should not escape many people that no one even considers asking McCain to lead on anything.. All expectations in this country outside of the super rich... are on Obama.. all he needs to do is lead.. assume the position and quit listening to those Clinton Gore Kerry capitulating always scared of Republican consultants.

Nothing should be taken for granted, but this election is his to lose as surely as the primary was Hillarys to lose.

Will he lead in time? We know McCain will be Bush three, but that fear is not enough without leadership from the dem side.

"Obama moves right" ? you bet he does, though not necessarily just the way the thread title was meant. i've lost count of the moves he's made this year (that turned out to be "right" when i thought he was doing it "wrong")

so much so that i now have more faith in his (and his campaign staff leaders Axelrod & Plouffe) judgement about how to win the election on the terms they want, than i do in anyone else who asserts what they should do.

so far it seems a question of:

McCAIN... POSSIBLY crazy, DEFINITELY old, SEEMS stuck in a '48 - '68 time warp, PROBABLY will be the same as W only worse (by the mere fact of continuity)

versus

OBAMA ... POSSIBLY more centrist than advertised, DEFINITELY "hip" (to new ways and new demographics), SEEMS monogamous (unusual for a young, charismatic Democrat) with a temperament to match his time, PROBABLY will be the same as Carter, only smarter

(and a smarter Jimmy Carter is looking mighty good compared to the last 28 years)

Eureka, I hear you about Bush stealing the election - but he wouldn't have gotten close enough to steal it had not a lot of independents and democrats voted for him. McCain won't get close enough to steal it unless Obama REALLY screws up and I don't think he is that stupid.

I am glad you hold Obama's feet to the fire - I don't like apologists who pretend nothing is different - like Katrina Vanden - what's her name - vanden heuval I think - from Slate. She was on TV today out talking anyone who dared dis Obama.

I just don't think Obama is different today than he was last month - we had a picture of him and the picture was wrong.

You are right that no one is expecting much from McCain - look at all this running around the world looking 'presidential' while his campaign slips away from him. It would be sad if I didn't hate the old man so much.

I don't know what to expect from Obama - we don't know the man. He has no real public history for us to base much on. He is sort of a blank slate. This is a year when the world is clamoring for the US to change. It changes slowly and hopefully he will do some good things - at least I hope he doesn't do anything harmful to the country. Whatever he does - he will be better than McCain.

My expectations are lower than yours because I don't like Obama all that much, but I really don't think there is any great risk that he will be worse than other Democrats. A lot of big Democrats dissed the Clintons and put all their eggs in Obama's unknown basket, so I think a lot of people will be reminding him what's expected. My only fear is that he's too cunning and might be more interested in his own career than the country - but if he's as smart as he appears it will eventually dawn on him, if it hasn't already, that his career goes as the nation goes.

The other thing I fear is that I have heard soooo many Republican activists say they don't want the WH this year. They hope the Democrat wins and they plan to scream 24/7 when he can't accomplish much - and he won't because things are in such a god awful bush mess.

I said this about Hillary and now I'll say it about Obama and hope I would have been right 2 times if we could have had 2 winners for one job. I always thought that Hillary was doing what it took to get elected, which was far too much running to the right to suit me. As Al Gore and John Kerry showed us, you get to do zilch unless you win. At this point in the campaign it has to be all about winning.

Now, after you've won you got 4 to 8 years to do as you please....to a certain extent. I was expecting Hillary to swing left the minute she got into office and now I have to project the same thought onto Obama. I might as well think and hope that....I got no other choice.

I am a liberal not because of party, not for group hugs, not because someone else was or is, I'm liberal because I think liberal policies are fairer and do more to help the average person of any race, sex or creed than about anything conservative thinking can produce. I think we'd be stuck in the 19th century if there hadn't been liberals at the wheel now and then in the last 100 years or so.

Read John Dean's book Conservatives Without Conscience and you'll see why I was a liberal Republican back when there was such a thing and now I'm a liberal Democrat....for lack of a better term....I am a Liberal and like chasv and his God thing, I want you to be a Liberal too! And man....if I was a pray-er......I'd be praying that Barack Obama will be a Liberal again the minute he takes office!

Everyone seems to be unhappy with their Boy Kings.....Louisiana already
wants to hang their new governor. LOL love it.

This is what going to happen to us... good information!
----- Original Message -----

Please read...and think of what kind of world YOUR
grandchildren/great-grandchildren will have to work/live in.

I am not crazy about this year's pickings, but I have come to the realization
that I cannot just stay home....the stakes are too high. God is & always will be
in control; nothing catches Him off guard, but He does expect us to make wise
choices.

If you read this , be sure to read who the author is at the bottom. Only God has
the authority and the power to arrange how the events of the next 10 or 15 year
will unfold. Who the winners and losers will be.

Obama And McCain

By Thomas Sowell

June 5, 2008

Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it
is time for a sober-- if not grim--assessment of where we are.

Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate
candidates. When Election Day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for
either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.

This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in
the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of
terrorism in the world-- Iran-- is moving step by step toward building a nuclear
bomb.

The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear
bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb-- and they can make 9/11 look like
child's play.

All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table
forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists' demand--
however outrageous those demands might be-- or to risk seeing American cities
start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.

All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health
care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.

Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their
concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can
expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to
humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.

They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of
innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in
the Middle East.

They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as
Osama bin Laden's threats to target those places in America that did not vote the
way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then
but he may be able to in a very few years.

The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as
Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s-- and our 'leaders' and
intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the 'leaders' and
intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.

We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River, oblivious to the
waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.

What does this have to do with today's presidential candidates? It has everything
to do with them.

One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from
going nuclear-- or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western
leaders talked in the 1930s.

There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West's lack of
military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of
devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the
West's industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were
able to turn the tide and win decisively.

But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot
even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down
morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.

Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of
whoever becomes President of the United States next January.

At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate
or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our
displeasure-- at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to
the job.

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all
is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people
who hate America.

On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when
they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama
should be a no-brainer.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University,
Stanford , CA94305.

His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

Chas, Sowell is an idiot of the first order. Any bin Laden threat to Americans in '04 to "not vote for" Bush was tailor made to MAKE Americans vote for Bush and it worked!!! Bush is bin Laden's best recruiting tool ever. Why on earth would bin Laden want to lose his prize 'boogie man' that is guaranteed to stir up any group of angry young men and women he chooses???

Hey Max, obama is not proamerican and there f(&(K you too.

Hey Chasv, it made big news when Mcbush went to church last sunday.....
ya know, By their fruits thingy???
I'm on board with DBI,,,we need a non- believer, sex mad, peace lovin, for the PEOPLE,
sex lovin, war hating, prez of ALL the people.
And, yes Sowell is a repug idiot, and a self hating idiot at that.