RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

“Slack Like Me”

In yesterday’s NY Times, there was an article about Obama entitled, “A Delegator, Obama Picks When to Take Reins.”

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Just the opening photo alone is telling - he is stretched out on a sofa, talking to someone who is not in the frame. It reminds me of another photo I saw of him recently, sitting back with his feet up on the conference table. If you put a little cowboy hat on him, he reminds me of someone else, too - and I don’t like THAT someone, either!!! Anywho, as the title would indicate, Obama intends to “delegate” his workload to the members of his inner circle, rewarding their loyalty to him.

Ironically, or similarly, there was a lengthy article in the NY Times Magazine about George W. Bush on January 14, 2001, entitled, “The Bush Years; C.E.O., USA.” This article includes statements like, ”A good executive is one that understands how to recruit people and how to delegate,” he said after he presented three designees in Austin right after the New Year. ”How to align authority and responsibility, how to hold people accountable for results and how to build a team of people. And that’s exactly what we’re going to do. This is a team of people who’ll be dedicated to doing what is right for America.”

Hmmm. See, here’s the thing. I have said for MONTHS that Obama is the MIRROR opposite of Bush. The above referenced NY Times articles basically make that point for me. Obama likes to “delegate,” i.e., unload his work on someone else, taking the credit when it goes well, and spreading out the blame to everyone else when it goes wrong. In other words (as Bush likes to say), he accepts no personal responsibility.

Oh wait - I should say, neither ONE of them accepts personal responsibility. Interesting. And by THAT I really mean, TELLING. So, lessee - they both like to delegate, and they both take other people’s work as their own. I mean, really - was there ANY policy that OBAMA came up with on his very own?!?! Not of which I am aware.

He would take Clinton’s policy statements, sometimes changing a word or two here, most often not, and the media would claim HERS was like HIS. Say HUH?? Who said cheaters never prosper?!? Don’t even get me started on the whole Florida debacle of voter disenfranchisement, but there’s another big ol’ similarity for you!

The author of the Obama article makes statements like, “He is personally even-keeled, but can be prickly when small things go wrong.” Um, that does not sound even-keeled to me. No, rather, it just sounds a whole lot like Bush, whose temper is legendary.

Obama, on more than one occasion, has demonstrated that same quick trigger, like in one of the debates where he turned on Clinton and accused her of having ties to Wal-Mart (oh, yeah - YEARS ago, and hardly surprising since it IS an Arkansas based company. But - in throwing out this accusation, Obama was also engaging a smoke screen, hiding his WIFE’S work for a company closely affiliated with Wal-Mart. And, Michelle’s work was long after people began to question the hiring practices and employee treatment, unlike when Clinton was involved with them. A simple Google search bears this out.).

Every single time he has been pressed, his ratchet response is anger - hardly what I would call, “even-keeled.” (Perhaps the media is trying to equate his quick temper to being even-keeled the same way they equated Bush’s arrogant swagger as “charm.” Yeah, okay.)

I imagine, though, that for someone who claims he cannot keep up with paperwork, having someone ELSE to do it might just be helpful. I reckon that’s what happened to all of the paperwork from when he was in the IL Senate - he just couldn’t keep up with it, and *POOF* - it disappeared! What a shame! No paper trail for him!!! Hey, wait! Another Florida association!!! Ahem.

This is the same man who says he doesn’t even have a datebook for that time period. Really? What grown up with a job or family or LIFE does NOT have a datebook?!?! Since he already admitted he cannot keep up with things, it would seem to me a datebook would be MANDATORY for him. Yet, nope, no datebook for the ENTIRE time he was in the IL Senate. Huh - as I recall, there was a whole bunch of other paperwork “lost,” too! Oh, RIGHT! Bush’s Air National Guard paperwork!!!! Somehow, the military just happened to lose ALL of the paperwork for the son of the then Ambassador to the UN…Sure - that could happen - in about a gazillion years!!

Well, it is too bad it never occurred to Obama to at least get someone to do his SENATE work for him. But, hey - he was BUSY, okay?!?! He was CAMPAIGNING!!! And playing basketball - sure couldn’t take time to debate CLINTON - he had to play some round ball with the Tar Heels (I am originally from NC, and a Tar Heel fan, but REALLY - that was just silly.). And riding his bike! Oh, Good googly moogly - the comparisons just keep rolling on! You cannot make stuff like this UP, people!!!

There is ONE big difference between them, though. Yes, and it pains me to say it, but Bush is actually FAR more experienced than Obama. There, I said it. And it is TRUE.

At least Bush was the Governor of a pretty large state for a couple of terms. And owned a baseball team. That is a HECKUVA lot more than Obama can say. Who cares if Bush failed up at absolutely EVERYTHING he ever did?!?!

How is that different from someone claiming he was a community organizer, when he was really registering people to vote? Or that his buddies were the ones who really put his name on things to give him credibility he neither earned nor deserved?? Emil Jones? Tony Rezko? Bill Ayers? Yep - very little difference in that regard.

I simply do not have the time to ennumerate the VAST number of lies each one of them has told - Bush to get the US into a war, and Obama on getting us out of the Iraq war, which he claimed he did not say, just for starters. Oh, here’s a fun game - go find your OWN comparisons! Here are some topics: family history, policy issues, NAFTA…

What kills me is that MANY of the same people who went BALLISTIC about Bush’s lack of credentials are now the same ones jumping on the Unity Unicorn. The same ones saying it doesn’t matter that there is no paper trail, that Obama does very little of his own work, that he spends more time on the court than he did IN court, that he is arrogant, partonizing (I wonder if he gives nicknames, too? For instance, does HE call Axelrod “AxelRove”??), OR sexist. It doesn’t bother them in the LEAST that he has an inner circle controlling the message, no, CREATING the message, and he just goes along with what they tell him (oh, until he lost PA, now he is paying a little more attention), then blames EVERYONE but himself.

WHY can they not see that these two men are MIRROR IMAGES OF EACH other, slack as the day is long, riding a sense of entitlement bigger than Big Brown?? I don’t get it, I surely don’t. Maybe they wanted their own slacker president since Clinton worked his heart out. Maybe that whole slacker mentality appeals to all the young folk they claim as his supporters.

All I know is that these two men look a WHOLE lot alike to me.

Trackback URL

RSS Feed for This Post338 Comments »

Comment by roseeriter | 2008-06-17 14:00:27

Yup. Its the hypocrisy stupid obamabots. Bush and Obama are so much a like even though at opposite extreme wings, but as I said before a bird (eagle, USA) needs both wings to fly. If Nobama gets in the WH we’ll have another disaster and crash landing just like the other one that lasted for 8 freakin’ long miserable divided years and NOTHING for and of the people will get accomplished..NOTHING!

NOBAMA

 

Comment by obamaphobe | 2008-06-17 14:00:38

I remember recently the media was saying that Obama was using Hillary’s talking points from her playbook, and McCain was using Hillary’s talking points from her playbook. If everybody is a Hillary wanna’ be, why isn’t she the Nominee?

Comment by shano | 2008-06-17 14:17:44

Because Mr. Obama ran a better campaign and won the nomination because he had more primary delegates and more superdelegates under the current Democratic Party rules?

Hillary and Obama=95% in agreement on policy issues

McCain and Bush=95% in agreement on policy issues.

Larry Johnson is an undercover operative for the McCain camp.
Good luck with that Larry.

McCain=WORSE than Bush
McWorse.

Comment by memyself&i | 2008-06-17 14:40:33

Humans and mice = 99% shared genes

Obama and Wright = ???% agreement
Obama and Pfleger = ???% agreement
Obama and Ayers = ???% agreement
Obama and Resko = ???% discount

How are you counting all his “present” votes?

Comment by Slim Tyranny | 2008-06-17 14:52:31

Voting “present” in the Illinois state legislator has strategic value. It’s pretty disingenuous to attack him on “present” votes when those “present” votes have legitimate, substantive value.

Comment by memyself&i | 2008-06-17 15:05:36

I did not ask what strategic value a present vote had or did not have beyond being a cover for a future run for the presidency. My question was how people counted these votes when comparing Senator Clinton’s voting record with Senator Obama’s record.

 

Comment by LDW | 2008-06-17 15:28:37

Voting ‘Present’ is an automatic vote with the majority opinion, but without having to say one actually has an opinion.

The Planned Parenthood W.O.R.M. (What Obama Really Meant) Sutherland, who made up this stupid strategic voting nonsense, did it to help Obama, who didn’t want to be too closely associated with either side of the issue. She didn’t do it to help Planned Parenthood, unless, of course, Obama threatened some funding cutback if she didn’t play ball.

 

Comment by Caya | 2008-06-17 16:03:57

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html

He voted “present” on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1.

He voted “present” on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

He voted “present” on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.

 

Comment by Mawm | 2008-06-18 06:54:30

That is one of the biggest crocks of the campaign. Funny that you got sold on it.

Present votes are gutless votes plain and simple.

 
 

Comment by Slim Tyranny | 2008-06-17 14:52:50

Voting “present” in the Illinois state legislature has strategic value. It’s pretty disingenuous to attack him on “present” votes when those “present” votes have legitimate, substantive value.

Comment by Hope Floats | 2008-06-17 15:39:36

Yeah. They say ‘Present.’ They might have value, since they mean you showed up to vote. But that’s all they really mean: Obama likes waffles.

 

Comment by socalannie | 2008-06-17 15:40:53

Not taking a stand when that is your job is chicken-shit.

 

Comment by IndayHill | 2008-06-17 16:33:09

slim, IMO, voting “Present” by Obama, while a state senator meant he was CHICKEN!! COWARD!!

It was either he did not want to offend the bill sponsors OR he dID NOT KNOW what was in the bill !

Present = Empty head

Present = COWARD

 
 

Comment by Jack | 2008-06-17 15:50:48

“Obama and Ayers = ???% agreement
Obama and Resko = ???% discount

Discount? You are funny!

 

Comment by wry | 2008-06-17 16:56:40

This is funny!!!

 

Comment by Judith | 2008-06-17 18:15:34

Funny stuff!!!

 
 

Comment by hoodwinked | 2008-06-17 14:41:30

not to worry!

we’ll just get another lazy prez for 4 years - instead of a VERY hard worker.

just hope he gets the draft going in time to suck in all his naive young supporters!

Comment by Northwest rain | 2008-06-18 00:59:15

Obama is one of the LAZIEST individuals ever to run for Prez — except for bushie.

THIS is the guy that the DNC has chosen?

The voters chose the hard worker who LISTENS. Obama could care less about anybody except himself.

The Democrat Party is Dead.

 
 

Comment by IndayHill | 2008-06-17 16:27:38

shano, Obama stole the “crown” from Hillary, the smartest of them all!
Obama is a Chicago corrupt politician, under training by the mob.
Obama = WORST than GWB!
HILLARY IS THE BEST!!!

If you love America, vote for the BEST!!

 
 
 

Comment by Idiots | 2008-06-17 14:04:57

She’s not the nominee because she failed to win the majority of the pledged delegates.

Comment by Nicole | 2008-06-17 14:07:42

Is that you, Hippie Girl, in disguise?

Comment by Idiots | 2008-06-17 14:11:54

So, who won the most pledged delegates under the rules of the DNC that all candidates agreed to before the process began? Hint: even if you add in FL and MI under the proportions you want, it still wouldn’t have changed the result. It’s utterly fascinating that you’re screaming that the person who came in second under the delegate rules should be awarded the nomination. Either way, can anyone tell me an actual substantive policy difference between the two candidates that is so great that you are being driven to such anger? I mean, look at this blog, there isn’t a single solitary post about POLICY. It’s all scare-mongering and insults and threats. Voting for McCain won’t make the person who came in second in the Democratic nominating process the President. Not now and certainly not in 2012.

Comment by ulahane | 2008-06-17 14:33:40

Character is an issue! I do not accept that a person who was a member of TUCC for twenty years is fit to be president. I do not accept that a person who associates with a terrorist like William Ayers is fit to be president.

Policy alone? Though I don’t see why, when Obama can’t be trusted.

Universal Health Care: If implemented, Obama’s plan is doomed to failure and will delay real reform by decades. Clinton’s would work.

Abortion: Clinton is, like most Americans, opposed to partial-birth abortion. Obama, not only supports this particular precedure, he voted against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.

Iraq and Iran: Clinton’s position is based on reacting to conditions on the ground. Obama claims, sometimes he changes this, that his deadline is carved in stone.

NASA: Obama supports delaying building the space shuttle replacement, costing thousands of jobs in Florida and leaving us to hitch rides from the Russians for ten years or more. Clinton has never suggested such a delay.

The UN: Obama has implicitly stated that U.S. is subordinate to the U.N.. Reference his statements about the global poverty act and his imfamous “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our … then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,”

(There are many, many more policy differences)

Voting for McCain does, however, make certain that Obama looses. And as much as you hate it, character and experience are as important as professed policies.

 

Comment by destardi | 2008-06-17 14:45:21

Can anyone tell me what other modern day president used race as a divisive factor, ripping open old wounds, just to gain votes?

Yea, uh huh.

“typical white person”

Comment by Slim Tyranny | 2008-06-17 14:50:10

Maybe you should realize that race in America is not merely “old wounds.” It’s still a real issue, and talking about it is legitimate.

Comment by Mary | 2008-06-17 15:32:53

Sure is, Slim.

I can’t vote for Obama. He didn’t show us any tears after Katrina.

 
 
 

Comment by etc. | 2008-06-17 15:07:51

“It [the country] is ready for a leader who will bring this great country together. No, that’s what this country wants. They want a leader who understands how to lead, how to bring folks together to achieve the people’s business. As you’re out campaigning for us, make sure you talk about the issues, because people when they hear it are going to find out, we stand squarely with the people.

There’s a big difference of philosophy in this campaign. I’m running against a man of Washington, by Washington and for Washington. Ours is a campaign that stands squarely on the side of the people and the families and the workers of America.” - George W. Bush, 2000

Sound familiar?

And for the delegate count, have Obama stripped of the Iowa and South Carolina delegates. Didn’t those states break the rules of the DNC by having their primary early?

Oh, wait… they voted for the messiah so their votes should count.

What a load of horseshit

 
 

Comment by Stephanie | 2008-06-17 16:38:29

I think it is Howard Dean in Disguise.

 
 

Comment by obamaphobe | 2008-06-17 14:09:47

She didn’t fail to win them. Obama bought them.

Comment by Idiots | 2008-06-17 14:15:09

Really. The pledged delegates? Name the delegates you feel were “bought”. Oh, and provide proof of your charge. You know, check stubs, campaign memos, etc. The constant invocation of the word “steal” is inaccurate because the person who will be the nominee for the Democratic Party was actually the front-running for several months starting in March. To award the nomination for the person who was in second place for the last three months of the campaign would actually be “stealing”.

Comment by power coast FL dave | 2008-06-17 14:26:24

He stole it.

Really.

Comment by Idiots | 2008-06-17 14:29:26

Prove it. Find me check stubs. Campaign memos. Anything. He won the majority of pledged delegates. That’s how the nominee is determined. You say that Hillary won the majority of pledged delegates, so prove your case. Name the delegates, name the states where she actually won these pledged delegates that somehow were “counted” for Obama. Again, FL and MI wouldn’t have changed the result even if Hillary had received all of them. So, prove that the pledged delegates were “stolen”.

Comment by Hope | 2008-06-17 14:57:13

Check stubs? Are you really that stupid?
HE DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH PLEDGED DELEGATES TO WIN THE NOMINATION!

Check out some donation info from 5/22:
Elected Officials Voting for Obama Who’s constituents voted for Clinton

Robert Cramer – Alabama
Gov. Janet Napalitano – Arizona
George Miller – California
Gerald McNerney – California - Obama Donation $5,000
Fortney Pete Stark – California
Zoe Lofgren – Cal.
Howard Berman – Cal.
Adam Schiff – Cal.
Henry Waxman – Cal
Linda Sanchez – Cal
Joe Donnely – Indiana - Obama $7,500 Donation
Baron Hill – Indiana – Obama $12,500 Donation
Ben Chandler – Kentucky – wow Obama drew less than 10%
Bill Delahunt – Massachussetts
Gov. Deval Patrick Mass.
Sen. Ted Kennedy Mass. - $10,000 from both candidates
Sen. John Kerry – Mass.
Gov. Bill Richardson – New Mexico
Carol Shea-Porter – New Hampshire
Gov. Brad Henry – Oklahoma
Patrick Murphy – PA Donations from Clinton $2500 Obama $18,826
Sen. Bob Casey – PA
Patrick Kennedy – RI
Charlie Gonzalez - Texas
Eddie Johnson - Texas
Rick Boucher – Virginia
Nick Rahal – WV
Sen. Robert Byrd –WV $10,000 from both candidates
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV – WV - Obama $5000 Donation

Here’s some interesting one’s that are undeclared whose constituents voted for Clinton (please note the donations):

Sam Farr – Cal.
Jim Costa – Cal. - Obama Donation $5,000
Bob Filner – Cal
Joe Courtney – Connecticut - Obama $5,000 Donation
Gov. Steve Beshear – Kentucky
Rep. John Oliver – Massachussetts
Rep. Niki Tsongas – Mass. – Obama $5,000 donation
John Tierney – Mass.
Ed Markey – Mass
Travis Childers – Mississippi
Sen. Frank Lautenberg – New Jersey - Obama $9,000
Gov. John Lynch – New Hampshire
Charlie Wilson – Ohio – Obama $7,000
Marci Kaptur – Ohio
Dennis Kucinich – Ohio
Zack Space – Ohio - Obama $7500
Sen. Sherrod Brown – Ohio $10,000 from both
Dan Boren – Oklahoma
Jason Altmire – PA - Obama $10,000
Tim Holden – PA
Gabriel Gifford – Arizona Obama Donation $9,000
Michael Honda – California
Sen. Jack Reed – RI – Obama $5,000
Lincoln Davis – Tennessee
Bart Gordon – Tennessee
Gov. Phil Bredesen – Tenn.
Nick Lampsen – Texas - Obama $5,000
Alan Mollohan – WV
Gov. Joe Manchin – WV

 

Comment by obamaphobe | 2008-06-17 14:57:26

I don’t have receipts, check stubs, delegate lists. I didn’t make the purchase. But ask your Messiah for that information. I’m sure he’ll be totally transparent. Now your turn, list one of Obama’s accomplishments. And, please don’t say, he inspires and unites. Obviously, you have been checking out this blog as well as others. I have yet to see Unity. Only division. Zero points for Obama.

 
 
 

Comment by hoodwinked | 2008-06-17 14:45:57

try this:

“Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, “non-super” delegates, has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 82 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 35, or 43 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $232,200″. Note: as of 2/2008, just imagine what the total wound up looking like!

hint: google “obama money superdelegates”

tough research, but someone has to do it!

Comment by OnlyTheTruth | 2008-06-17 14:58:51

People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. From the same article:

“Clinton’s PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $205,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions.”

So… it’s O.K. for Hillary to do it because she didn’t spend as much? Or, are you miffed that her campaign was mismanaged and she spent her money in the wrong places?

Selective journalism abounds on No Quarter. Any distorted or edited information that continues to feed this pathetic and never-ending Hillary pity party, and conspiracy theories, is called “research”?

Comment by hoodwinked | 2008-06-17 15:19:11

hold on!

the O-bots think their candidate is holier-than-she.

news flash: HE ISN’T!!

he’s just as slimy (o.k. slimier) but pretends otherwise.

that’s the real trajegy.

 

Comment by selective journalist | 2008-06-17 15:23:19

and by the way, in the interests of full disclosure, you should have cut and pasted the first line in the para about Clinton:

“Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded”.

 

Comment by Hope Floats | 2008-06-17 15:45:37

Obama outspent Clinton 3 to 1… again. Guess what his PAC is called? The Man From Hope Fund. That’s right.

 

Comment by IndayHill | 2008-06-17 16:46:44

hey! only the truth, you misled me with your name, only the truth! PHONY!
So, what you are saying is, this NQUSA site is giving false journalism about Barack Hussein Obama (his parents gave this name to him, that’s the truth!)& you are upset!
YEAH?!? How about the MSM giving FREE PASS to BHO, NOT UPSETTING?
IF YOU LOVE AMERICA, VOTE FOR HILLARY OR MCCAIN !
HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW BHO????

 
 
 

Comment by bodemokrat | 2008-06-17 14:48:00

Why do all you Obama trolls think you can force
someone to vote the way you want them to?
This is not a court case where you can make your “brilliant” argument, win the big case
and we will all submit to your superior knowledge. We can vote for anyone we please
for whatever reason we please and all the
whining and intimidation and vitriol can not
change that.
and please remember BOWL BIG TIME IN NOVEMER!

 

Comment by athena | 2008-06-17 15:08:22

Actually Obama did not have a win from February 19th until his NC in win in MAY where he carried 92% of the black vote and LOST IN, a state which according to polls was his to win.

Comment by Mary | 2008-06-17 15:35:49

Obama won only because of superdelegates.

There was a time when Donna Brazille said if the superdelegates “chose” our nominee, she’d resign from the DNC.

But since it was Obama who they chose, Brazille changed her mind.

When Obama loses in November, we’re all hoping Donna Brazille will finally resign.

Comment by socalannie | 2008-06-17 15:55:16

I’m hoping that Donna Brazilla, Coward Dean & the other Dem meatheads that orchestrated this sham of an election get run out of town on a rail.

 
 
 
 
 

Comment by memyself&i | 2008-06-17 14:54:16

The rule does not give the nomination to the person who gets the “majority” of the delegates. It gives the nomination to the person who first receives the required number of delegates. Neither candidate received enough pledged delegates to become the nominee. The super delegates gave the nomination to Obama.

 

Comment by blueasthesky | 2008-06-17 15:09:28

Neither candidate has enough pledged delegates to get nominated. The notion that Barack won because he got more pledged delegates is a lie promoted by the Obama campaign to cover up the unpleasant fact that Hillary got more popular votes.

Comment by Auntie Meme | 2008-06-18 11:28:59

Getting more pledged delegates did have something to do with the support of the supers however.

What’s great is how Hillary’s campaign kept switching tactics depending solely on what would help them: first they tried to put the nomination in the bag as early as possible, by lining up as many supers as possible, saying “this is a delegate race”. Then after Obama fought her to a draw on Super Tuesday and racked up all those victories in February, Clinton’s campaign started asking supers to hold off from committing, saying that “every voter needs to be heard from”. Conveniently ignoring the fact that in ‘04 Kerry wrapped it up basically after New Hampshire, effectively “disenfranchising” most of the country, and that it was their hope that Super Tuesday would accomplish the same for Hillary.

And much the same with MI and FL: they were against seating the delegates before they were for doing so. That sort of win-at-all-costs hypocrisy didn’t escape the notice of supers, nor of voters. All it accomplished, in the end, is that it ginned up zillions hundreds dozens of Hillary voters to get pissed off and say they’re going to support the progressive McSame over Obama, who shares 90%+ of Hillary’s positions.

But it’s not going to be Harriet Christian-types deciding this election. It’s going to be swing voters and an energized Dem party base, both of which are supporting Obama according to reality-based measures.

 
 

Comment by Hope Floats | 2008-06-17 15:43:26

It was never about winning the majority of the pledged delegates. It was about hitting the magic number, something Obama could not do even with cheating. The SD’s had to come in, but their votes don’t count till the convention. Then they should vote for the strongest GE candidate. That’s why Hillary is making a case for the popular vote. The Dem primary voters in caucus states and open primaries chose a weak candidate who no one really knows too much about.

 

Comment by alee21 | 2008-06-17 21:01:04

Abetted by Obama hooligans like you, the MSM, the undemocratic DNC and of course the unspeakable caucuses. Obama may have “won” the nomination, but he will not win the election.

I will do everything I can to make sure Obama will lose.

Go PUMA.

Go Hillary, 2008, 2012

 
 

Comment by Darryl | 2008-06-17 14:05:56

See, what everyone doesn’t understand, is that corporate America has taken over. It doesn’t matter if its democrats or republicans, they choose a pawn and they go with it. Whom ever is the biggest sell out wins.

Comment by Nicole | 2008-06-17 14:08:43

Obama’s definitely a major-league sellout although I still don’t think he’ll win the GE.

 

Comment by AF catfish | 2008-06-17 16:09:41

Yep - you know who received less in contributions from the Health Insurance industry? McCain!

 
 

Comment by Pragmatist | 2008-06-17 14:06:15

Obama is a fraud and a liar; pure and simple.

Comment by Stray | 2008-06-17 14:46:48

Uhm a Thats not the campain I remember.

 
 

Comment by Joe Smith | 2008-06-17 14:07:39

No one really knows what this guy really stands for. He does not write his own speeches and did not formulate his own policies.That is very apparent since he can’t talk about them with out the prompter. He has no track record besides being part of an anti-American church. Which from everything that I ahve seen was for him a means to an end. That is why it amazes me when people vote for him. How do they know he will be any different than Bush. For all we know on day one he would come out and say. I changed my mind. I think Bush was doing the right thing and I will continue it. If you don’t like it you can get under the bus.

Comment by Nicole | 2008-06-17 14:09:55

Obama’s a poseur, a cypher, and a blank slate: he’s anything you want him to be.

Comment by Fred C. Dobbs | 2008-06-17 14:13:12

Except GONE.

 
 

Comment by shano | 2008-06-17 14:23:58

Mr. Obama writes his own speeches.

Mr. Obama went to the best schools on a scholarship-for those that dont know how this process works:
That means Mr. Obama was smart enough to deserve special consideration on his own merits. He excelled because he was exceptional in his intellect and drive to succeed.

Not because his family had money and connections (like McCain and Bush).

How do you know Mr. Obama will be anything like Bush with absolutely no evidence this is possible? Are you a psychic? What other historical events have you correctly predicted?

Larry Johnson is an undercover operative for the McCain camp.
McWorse than Bush.

Comment by power coast FL dave | 2008-06-17 14:30:34

Mr Obama’s parents attended Harvard.

Obama was a legacy admit, as well as financially connected.

Like affirmative action, for the connected and crazy, kook-aid, say.

Comment by Slim Tyranny | 2008-06-17 14:37:54

Obama went to Columbia University undergrad. Ivy League school, no legacy.

Try again.

Comment by memyself&i | 2008-06-17 15:13:14

I don’t care about how he got into Harvard Law School, but you need to get your facts straight.
His father went to Harvard to get a masters in Economics.

Comment by Slim Tyranny | 2008-06-17 15:52:46

My facts are straight. Obama got into Columbia University for his undergrad years WITHOUT the benefit of any alleged legacy.

 
 
 
 

Comment by bonita | 2008-06-17 14:33:32

LMAO:

Writes his own speeches!! That’s a good one. Have you been paying attention at all during this election.

By the way, Obama went to Harvard as a Legacy, not because he earned it. Just in case you don’t know, a legacy is granted if one of your parents went to the school which his father did.

Comment by oldvoter | 2008-06-17 14:40:45

No, that’s not true. There are NO legacy admits to law school. That’s only a factor (among many) for undergraduate/college admissions.

 

Comment by Slim Tyranny | 2008-06-17 14:41:29

Wrong, he earned his way into Harvard.

Look, I know it’s tough for some of you to accept, but there is a mountain of evidence showing that Obama has an impressive intellect and great academic abilities. Harvard Law wouldn’t accept someone with no money just because their father attended a grad program in another part of the university, with no donations factored into the equation.

Nice try.

Comment by Hope | 2008-06-17 15:16:42

Do you award him “smart” points for each utterance of the syllable telling sound of, “uh”?
Please note the correlation of the sound with the perception that one does not think quickly.

Comment by Slim Tyranny | 2008-06-17 15:45:39

That all you got?

He graduates Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, and all you got is your perception that he says “uh” too much?

You fail.

 
 

Comment by memyself&i | 2008-06-17 15:35:53

I don’t care how he got into Harvard. It could very well be on merits. One think I do know is that he was not “someone with no money” as you suggest.

His grandmother, the woman he threw under the bus, raised him from the age of 10. She was the Vice President of one of the biggest banks in Hawaii. From the age of 10, he attended Punahou, one of Hawaii’s best private schools. There is nothing wrong with growing up privileged. What is wrong is his lying about it. It’s like him saying his parents met and fell in love at the Selma March. I guess it’s more romantic than the truth, his parents met in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii.

 

Comment by Mary | 2008-06-17 15:38:01

No, SLim. Legacy AND Affirmative Action.

Comment by Slim Tyranny | 2008-06-17 15:43:59

Wrong again. Look, diminishing his accomplishments as based on “affirmative action” with NO evidence is ridiculous.

He graduated Magna Cum Laude from HLS. Was that based on affirmative action, too?

You are wrong, sorry.

Comment by Mary | 2008-06-17 16:22:19

Check out your posts.

You said he EARNED his way into Harvard.

You didn’t KNOW he was a legacy from his Dad’s Harvard PHD until we told you that.

He WAS a legacy.

You’re chasing your own poorly informed tail, like my cat does.

Doesn’t matter. Can’t vote for Obama. No tears after Katrina, according to Jesse Jackson Jr.

Comment by Slim Tyranny | 2008-06-17 16:42:52

No, Mary, you’re wrong.

See, you’re making a simple logic mistake. You can both EARN your way into a school and be a LEGACY.

Obama’s father was a legacy in a different Harvard program than the law school. A parental PHD doesn’t mean automatic admittance. It might even make zero difference, especially if donations are not involved.

So yes, he was a legacy. And YES, he earned his way there. He went to an Ivy League school undergrad and had the grades, and at Harvard itself he proved he had the intellect and work ethic (Magna Cum Laude).

Legacy does not preclude admittance on merit. You’re just confused.

Sorry that your presidential choice comes down to what Jesse Jackson Jr. said.

 
 

Comment by Observer | 2008-06-18 08:57:38

He needs to release his grades from Columbia and Harvard… That will settle some questions on that front.

http://tinyurl.com/4tzpm2

 
 
 
 
 

Comment by Hope | 2008-06-17 15:04:05

He does not write his own speeches by any stretch of the imagination. Granted, politicians may use speech writers; however Obama flat out plagiarizes.

See if you like this.There are lots more if you do.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eqOaVbznE5o

Comment by Slim Tyranny | 2008-06-17 15:10:04

Obama wrote the entire “race in America” speech he gave in Philadelphia. That’s pretty impressive.

Comment by ulahane | 2008-06-17 15:15:48

You mean the one where he swore he could no more disown Wright than he could disown the Black community? Right before he disowned Wright?

The one in which he said he had heard controversial sermons? Just days after he said he had controversial sermons?

Impressive? Yes, but not in the way you’re implying.

Comment by Hope | 2008-06-17 15:18:11

That would also be the one where he insulted his own grandmother in front of the nation for a perceived political gain.

Comment by Slim Tyranny | 2008-06-17 15:46:26

So you admit you were wrong/lied about him writing his own speeches?

Comment by Hope Floats | 2008-06-17 16:31:39

Obama delivered an entire speech that had been given already by Deval Patrick. I don’t know or care about who writes which speech, but I know he freely plagiarizes and lies.

Comment by Slim Tyranny | 2008-06-17 16:44:10

Deval Patrick has nothing to do with the Philly speech. I was merely disproving the lie that Obama never writes his own speeches.

Comment by Hope Floats | 2008-06-17 16:54:27

Alright, so he only sometimes plagiarizes other politician’s speeches and only lies sometimes as opposed to never. Well, that’s a horse of a different color.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
 

Comment by memyself&i | 2008-06-17 15:26:08

The one where he threw his grandmother under the bus. Knowing he wrote those words himself makes it even more horrendous.

Comment by Mary | 2008-06-17 16:24:14

Yes. Apparently it was his OWN IDEA to call his loving grandmother a racist.

He used “racist” a lot during the primary, to his own personal gain.

Won’t work in November, though.

 
 
 
 
 

Comment by athena | 2008-06-17 15:14:00

Obama’s father also attended Harvard. His father is from a WEALTHY farming family in KENYA. The sheep our out is force today!

 

Comment by blueasthesky | 2008-06-17 15:19:40

Mr. Obama writes his own speeches.

If by “write” you mean cutting and pasting speeches from Deval Patrick. All that nonsense about hope, change, and “yes we can,” that’s all from Patrick.

 

Comment by Steven Mather | 2008-06-17 16:28:59

Senator Obama mouthed Patrick Deval’s speeches word for word.

How do you manage to type while at the same time using your head as a probe in a self-administered proctocological examination?

 

Comment by Anee | 2008-06-17 18:49:27

Obama plagerized most of his speeches and can’t speak without a teleprompter… some education. He probably was a slacker in college too.

 

Comment by alee21 | 2008-06-17 21:07:04

FYI, affirmative action is alive and well, especially at the top schools.

See this article from the Brookings Institute:
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/winter_affirmativeaction_schuck.aspx>http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/winter_affirmativeaction_schuck.aspx

Statistics from this article for U of Michigan:
“the odds were approximately even that black applicants with scores between 1100 and 1199 would be admitted, whereas the odds for whites did not reach that level until they had scores in the 1450-1499 range. With a score of 1500 or above, more than a third of whites were rejected while every single black gained admission.”

“At Michigan, being black, Hispanic, or Native American gives one the equivalent of a full point of GPA; minority status can override any SAT score deficit. And a recent study of 47 public institutions found that the odds of a black student being admitted compared to a white student with the same SAT and GPA were 173 to 1 at Michigan and 177 to 1 at North -Carolina State.”

It’s not racism, these are the facts of life.