Democrats on the march

[Guest Truth Squad]

Everyone can see what's happening. Barack Obama has captured a hungry nation's imagination. He is winning more votes than anyone else, swampiing all the Republicans. When Obama speaks, he is amid thousands and thousands of supporters; when the other candidates speak, it looks and sounds as though they are speaking at office parties for companies that aren't doing well. John McCain is in the process of wrapping up the Republican nomination, but you wouldn't know it. His party is divided, and lacks enthusiasm - an interesting word for a Republican candidate, since its Greek origins are the words en and theos, which mean "in God."

Obama's political opponents are trying to call it rhetoric. All that shows is that they know they can't do what he's doing: inspire a nation. It's not rhetoric. It's the spirit of change: the same spirit that broke the plains, made America the greatest power in the world and put astronauts on the moon. The other candidates would like to have it behind them, but they don't. Barack Obama does.

That's why his candidacy is so exciting, and why good Americans --- people who want our country to move forward united --- of all political stripes have good reason to be excited about this. It is time to put an end to the politics of ugliness, of Coulter and Limbaugh and Rove, to enlist the help of the American people to bring change and restore the middle class, and common sense, which have been so horribly lacking these past several years. It is his ability to move the American people to action for a common cause that makes it his time. It is time to elect President Barack Obama.

[Guest Patriot]

Everyone can see what's happening. Barack Obama has captured a hungry nation's imagination. He is winning more votes than anyone else, swamping all the Republicans. When Obama speaks, he is amid thousands and thousands of supporters; when the other candidates speak, it looks and sounds as though they are speaking at office parties for companies that aren't doing well. John McCain is in the process of wrapping up the Republican nomination, but you wouldn't know it. His party is divided, and lacks enthusiasm - an interesting word for a Republican candidate, since its Greek origins are the words en and theos, which mean "in God."

Obama's political opponents are trying to call it rhetoric. All that shows is that they know they can't do what he's doing: inspire a nation. It's not rhetoric. It's the spirit of change: the same spirit that broke the plains, made America the greatest power in the world and put astronauts on the moon. The other candidates would like to have it behind them, but they don't. Barack Obama does.

That's why his candidacy is so exciting, and why good Americans --- people who want our country to move forward united --- of all political stripes have good reason to be excited about this. It is time to put an end to the politics of ugliness, of Coulter and Limbaugh and Rove, to enlist the help of the American people to bring change and restore the middle class, and common sense, which have been so horribly lacking these past several years. It is his ability to move the American people to action for a common cause that makes it his time. It is time to elect President Barack Obama.

I hate to burst your bubble, but I will. Obama vs McCain........McCain wins. McCain will

attract the independents and the Hillary supporters who won't vote for the person that beat

their candidate. Also, McCain is socially moderate, which will attract many Dems to his side.

One on one, Obama can't compete with McCain. The war and terrorism will be a major

issue in the campaign and Obama loses badly here. Get used to it, Republicans get another

8 years in White House.

[Bryan]

Everyone can see what's happening. Barack Obama has captured a hungry nation's imagination. He is winning more votes than anyone else, swampiing all the Republicans. When Obama speaks, he is amid thousands and thousands of supporters; when the other candidates speak, it looks and sounds as though they are speaking at office parties for companies that aren't doing well. John McCain is in the process of wrapping up the Republican nomination, but you wouldn't know it. His party is divided, and lacks enthusiasm - an interesting word for a Republican candidate, since its Greek origins are the words en and theos, which mean "in God."

LaClair also likes that lame etymological nonsense. Two peas in a pod, you and he.

Obama is indeed on a roll right now, but the Democrats are actually more divided than the Republicans at present. Obama and Clinton are polling neck-and-neck, and the primary season might finish without either one gaining the delegates necessary to capture the nomination. You want to see division, you wait until the former darling of the Democratic Party (Sen. Clinton) angles to have Florida and Michigan have their representation increased at the convention after she, er, accidentally forgot to remove her name from the ballot unlike Obama and Edwards.

Then there's the matter of Obama himself. Quite a likable guy. Quite charismatic--but so was Hitler, point being that charisma alone probably shouldn't be enough to make someone the best choice. Policy should be a big factor, ideally, and Obama is talking platitudes instead of policy at this stage of the game because it gives him the best chance to win. He has a thin record and no executive experience. On the plus side, he's a terrific orator and personally likable--the latter tends to be a top criterion for voters.

Obama's political opponents are trying to call it rhetoric. All that shows is that they know they can't do what he's doing: inspire a nation. It's not rhetoric. It's the spirit of change: the same spirit that broke the plains, made America the greatest power in the world and put astronauts on the moon. The other candidates would like to have it behind them, but they don't. Barack Obama does.

You just described feel-good rhetoric while denying that it's rhetoric. Paul LaClair would love you.

Summary of Obama's stance on civil rights: "We have more work to do."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/civilrights/

On disabilities (you've got to read it to believe the vacuity):

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/disabilities/

Obama has a plan to strengthen the economy. Figure the campaign Web site will help us out? Read it and weep, because there's no there there:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

Has Obama got the right band-aid for our energy future?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

We could go through the rest and you'd see the same thing. Obama clearly is trying to coast to the nomination on pleasing rhetoric. Earlier in the campaign, he displayed a tendency to make too many policy statements and it hurt him because it gave others something to attack. It's a wise strategy on his part to go skimpy on the details, and it's ridiculous to paint is as something other than what it is.

The closer we get to the election, however, Obama will have to begin to provide some hints as to what he would actually do in office. That's just one change that will alter the game.

That's why his candidacy is so exciting, and why good Americans --- people who want our country to move forward united --- of all political stripes have good reason to be excited about this. It is time to put an end to the politics of ugliness, of Coulter and Limbaugh and Rove, to enlist the help of the American people to bring change and restore the middle class, and common sense, which have been so horribly lacking these past several years. It is his ability to move the American people to action for a common cause that makes it his time. It is time to elect President Barack Obama.

So, what's the common cause again?

Oh, that's right, to bring change. Did "Truth Squad" happen to figure out any of the specifics? If not, maybe he can ask Paul LaClair. LaClair also prefers Obama (if I'm not mistaken). Maybe LaClair knows some of the specifics.

Just for comparison, here's how Sen. Clinton treats an issue at her campaign Web site:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/middleclass

It's got specific proposals, unlike Obama's. Plenty to criticize. Obama doesn't want to play that game because he loses it on experience.

McCain likewise leaves Obama in the dust when it comes to making specific statements of policy.

[Guest Guest]

Everyone can see what's happening. Barack Obama has captured a hungry nation's imagination. He is winning more votes than anyone else, swampiing all the Republicans. When Obama speaks, he is amid thousands and thousands of supporters; when the other candidates speak, it looks and sounds as though they are speaking at office parties for companies that aren't doing well. John McCain is in the process of wrapping up the Republican nomination, but you wouldn't know it. His party is divided, and lacks enthusiasm - an interesting word for a Republican candidate, since its Greek origins are the words en and theos, which mean "in God."

Obama's political opponents are trying to call it rhetoric. All that shows is that they know they can't do what he's doing: inspire a nation. It's not rhetoric. It's the spirit of change: the same spirit that broke the plains, made America the greatest power in the world and put astronauts on the moon. The other candidates would like to have it behind them, but they don't. Barack Obama does.

That's why his candidacy is so exciting, and why good Americans --- people who want our country to move forward united --- of all political stripes have good reason to be excited about this. It is time to put an end to the politics of ugliness, of Coulter and Limbaugh and Rove, to enlist the help of the American people to bring change and restore the middle class, and common sense, which have been so horribly lacking these past several years. It is his ability to move the American people to action for a common cause that makes it his time. It is time to elect President Barack Obama.

Lets mark this post.

[Guest Guest]

LaClair also likes that lame etymological nonsense. Two peas in a pod, you and he.

Obama is indeed on a roll right now, but the Democrats are actually more divided than the Republicans at present. Obama and Clinton are polling neck-and-neck, and the primary season might finish without either one gaining the delegates necessary to capture the nomination. You want to see division, you wait until the former darling of the Democratic Party (Sen. Clinton) angles to have Florida and Michigan have their representation increased at the convention after she, er, accidentally forgot to remove her name from the ballot unlike Obama and Edwards.

Then there's the matter of Obama himself. Quite a likable guy. Quite charismatic--but so was Hitler, point being that charisma alone probably shouldn't be enough to make someone the best choice. Policy should be a big factor, ideally, and Obama is talking platitudes instead of policy at this stage of the game because it gives him the best chance to win. He has a thin record and no executive experience. On the plus side, he's a terrific orator and personally likable--the latter tends to be a top criterion for voters.

You just described feel-good rhetoric while denying that it's rhetoric. Paul LaClair would love you.

Summary of Obama's stance on civil rights: "We have more work to do."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/civilrights/

On disabilities (you've got to read it to believe the vacuity):

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/disabilities/

Obama has a plan to strengthen the economy. Figure the campaign Web site will help us out? Read it and weep, because there's no there there:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

Has Obama got the right band-aid for our energy future?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

We could go through the rest and you'd see the same thing. Obama clearly is trying to coast to the nomination on pleasing rhetoric. Earlier in the campaign, he displayed a tendency to make too many policy statements and it hurt him because it gave others something to attack. It's a wise strategy on his part to go skimpy on the details, and it's ridiculous to paint is as something other than what it is.

The closer we get to the election, however, Obama will have to begin to provide some hints as to what he would actually do in office. That's just one change that will alter the game.

So, what's the common cause again?

Oh, that's right, to bring change. Did "Truth Squad" happen to figure out any of the specifics? If not, maybe he can ask Paul LaClair. LaClair also prefers Obama (if I'm not mistaken). Maybe LaClair knows some of the specifics.

Just for comparison, here's how Sen. Clinton treats an issue at her campaign Web site:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/middleclass

It's got specific proposals, unlike Obama's. Plenty to criticize. Obama doesn't want to play that game because he loses it on experience.

McCain likewise leaves Obama in the dust when it comes to making specific statements of policy.

The most important thing right now is to bring this country together and if we can do that then workable policies will follow. Obama seems to have a gift for promoting solidarity.

Maybe that is what we need more than anything right now.

Maybe you should run for president, Bryan. Could you withstand the scrutiny?

[Guest Twizzler]

I'll summarize what Pat-Rat and Bryan just said:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

[Guest Guest]

I hate to burst your bubble, but I will. Obama vs McCain........McCain wins. McCain will

attract the independents

and repel the Republicans, lol.

and the Hillary supporters who won't vote for the person that beat

their candidate. Also, McCain is socially moderate, which will attract many Dems to his side.

and repel Republicans. Centrist Democrats and independents are both vastly outnumbered by the Republican support McCain WON'T have because of this moderation.

One on one, Obama can't compete with McCain. The war and terrorism will be a major

issue in the campaign and Obama loses badly here.

How do you figure? Most of the nation is opposed to the war (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm), and so is Obama. McCain isn't. You've got it backwards.

Get used to it, Republicans get another

8 years in White House.

LOL, you'll be as right as you were when you predicted Guiliani's win.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I'll summarize what Pat-Rat and Bryan just said:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

This is a brain on drugs.

[Guest Truth Squad]

I hate to burst your bubble, but I will. Obama vs McCain........McCain wins. McCain will

attract the independents and the Hillary supporters who won't vote for the person that beat

their candidate. Also, McCain is socially moderate, which will attract many Dems to his side.

One on one, Obama can't compete with McCain. The war and terrorism will be a major

issue in the campaign and Obama loses badly here. Get used to it, Republicans get another

8 years in White House.

What are you smoking? Hillary's supporters are all going to support Obama. The Democrats are united this year. It's the Republicans who have the problem. Evangelicals and wingnuts don't trust McCain. He can barely win his primaries, even after he has been declared the nominee by all the news media. Pat Buchanan was too funny. He had been saying that Clinton would unite the Republicans if she was nominated - so last night, after Obama took the delegate lead, Buchanan suddenly changed his tune to say that Clinton or Obama would unite the Republicans. What a bozo. Apparently you haven't been paying attention either.

[Guest Fact Checker]

You want to see division, you wait until the former darling of the Democratic Party (Sen. Clinton) angles to have Florida and Michigan have their representation increased at the convention after she, er, accidentally forgot to remove her name from the ballot unlike Obama and Edwards.

Although I don't know who'll get the nomination, my expectation is that you'll see a unity photo with BOTH Barack and Hillary at the Denver Convention. But that's just an opinion. As to your above statement, that's only right with respect to Michigan. As to Florida, all 3 were on the ballot and she won by double digits. None of the 3 campaigned in Florida. The result doesn't count because a Republican State legislature jumped the Florida primary election aheady of the New Hampshire primary by moving the date to January, disqualifying the delegates under Democratic Party rules. The National Republican Party doesn't care that the Florida election was in January, and they're counting the Republican delegates from Florida. I don't see how the Democratic Party can allow Floridian Democrats to be disenfranchised, especially considering the 2000 election debacle.

[Guest Guest]

LaClair also likes that lame etymological nonsense. Two peas in a pod, you and he.

Obama is indeed on a roll right now, but the Democrats are actually more divided than the Republicans at present. Obama and Clinton are polling neck-and-neck, and the primary season might finish without either one gaining the delegates necessary to capture the nomination. You want to see division, you wait until the former darling of the Democratic Party (Sen. Clinton) angles to have Florida and Michigan have their representation increased at the convention after she, er, accidentally forgot to remove her name from the ballot unlike Obama and Edwards.

Then there's the matter of Obama himself. Quite a likable guy. Quite charismatic--but so was Hitler, point being that charisma alone probably shouldn't be enough to make someone the best choice. Policy should be a big factor, ideally, and Obama is talking platitudes instead of policy at this stage of the game because it gives him the best chance to win. He has a thin record and no executive experience. On the plus side, he's a terrific orator and personally likable--the latter tends to be a top criterion for voters.

You just described feel-good rhetoric while denying that it's rhetoric. Paul LaClair would love you.

Summary of Obama's stance on civil rights: "We have more work to do."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/civilrights/

On disabilities (you've got to read it to believe the vacuity):

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/disabilities/

Obama has a plan to strengthen the economy. Figure the campaign Web site will help us out? Read it and weep, because there's no there there:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

Has Obama got the right band-aid for our energy future?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

We could go through the rest and you'd see the same thing. Obama clearly is trying to coast to the nomination on pleasing rhetoric. Earlier in the campaign, he displayed a tendency to make too many policy statements and it hurt him because it gave others something to attack. It's a wise strategy on his part to go skimpy on the details, and it's ridiculous to paint is as something other than what it is.

The closer we get to the election, however, Obama will have to begin to provide some hints as to what he would actually do in office. That's just one change that will alter the game.

So, what's the common cause again?

Oh, that's right, to bring change. Did "Truth Squad" happen to figure out any of the specifics? If not, maybe he can ask Paul LaClair. LaClair also prefers Obama (if I'm not mistaken). Maybe LaClair knows some of the specifics.

Just for comparison, here's how Sen. Clinton treats an issue at her campaign Web site:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/middleclass

It's got specific proposals, unlike Obama's. Plenty to criticize. Obama doesn't want to play that game because he loses it on experience.

McCain likewise leaves Obama in the dust when it comes to making specific statements of policy.

Still with the LaClair obsession. Kinda sad when you consider that LaClair hasn't posted here in quite a while.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

I hate to burst your bubble, but I will. Obama vs McCain........McCain wins. McCain will

attract the independents and the Hillary supporters who won't vote for the person that beat

their candidate. Also, McCain is socially moderate, which will attract many Dems to his side.

One on one, Obama can't compete with McCain. The war and terrorism will be a major

issue in the campaign and Obama loses badly here. Get used to it, Republicans get another

8 years in White House.

Hiya, coward. McCain and Obama both attract moderates. That is why McCain could beat Hillary but not Obama. It is unlikely that anyone who voted for Clinton would go for McCain. As far as the war goes-do you really think McCain's 'we could be in Iraq another 100 years is what people want to hear? I don't think many Republicans will cross the line to vote for Obama, but many of them aren't very excited with McCain. Also, the Mormons have been shaken by polls indicating that one of the major reasons Romney lost was his Mormonism. In 2006 the Republicans lost by turning the Latino vote from overwhelmingly Republican to somewhat Democratic. This year they may have done the same thing to Mormons. The election certainly isn't set yet, but it is hardly a clear road to a McCain victory.

[Bryan]

The most important thing right now is to bring this country together and if we can do that then workable policies will follow.

Pulling the country together can result in implementation of policy, sure. But the important thing is to have good policy. FDR achieved solidarity very effectively and implemented quite a few bad policies that probably prolonged the GD by years.

It is foolish to achieve solidarity behind foolish policies, and only slightly less foolish to achieve solidarity when the policies are kept largely under wraps.

Obama seems to have a gift for promoting solidarity.

That's nice. If he could combine that with advocating good policy then he might make a good president. Unfortunately, most of the policy he has described thus far is bad policy.

Maybe that is what we need more than anything right now.

Or maybe that would be the worst possible thing right now.

Maybe you should run for president, Bryan. Could you withstand the scrutiny?

I think I could compete effectively against Dennis Kucinich given similar funding.

[Bryan]

I'll summarize what Pat-Rat and Bryan just said:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

It's much better as a summary of Truth Squad's opening post. Total denial of the obvious truth that Obama is going for style over substance at this point of the campaign.

Twizzler has nothing to say about it. Maybe he's in denial, too.

[Bryan]

Still with the LaClair obsession. Kinda sad when you consider that LaClair hasn't posted here in quite a while.

As far as you know, you mean? Or are you a personal acquaintance of his posting anonymously, that you would know for sure that Truth Squad isn't LaClair?

I've seen recent posts of LaClair's, and they are extremely similar in content to Truth Squad's in this case. That suggests three things. First, it might be LaClair posting under a different name. Second, Truth Squad might be influenced by LaClair in his views. Third, Truth Squad just coincidentally reasons in the same unfortunate twisted manner as LaClair (equivocation and lame etymological arguments).

In any of those cases it's appropriate to point out the similarity.

[Guest Guest]

It's much better as a summary of Truth Squad's opening post. Total denial of the obvious truth that Obama is going for style over substance at this point of the campaign.

Shut up, Bryan. You're the last person who should be accusing others of style over substance.

[Guest Guest]

As far as you know, you mean? Or are you a personal acquaintance of his posting anonymously, that you would know for sure that Truth Squad isn't LaClair?

You idiot, the only times Paul hasn't posted under his registered name were a few times that he forgot to log in, and he himself pointed out the honest mistake each time. What motive could Paul possibly have for abandoning his registered name? Do you think he's afraid of people knowing what he's saying?

Let it go, Bryan. Everyone's sick of you. You may love defending the indefensible, and writing theses in which nothing is really said, but you're not being haunted by LaClair. He stopped caring a long time ago, and so have a lot of other people. You're just lucky guests don't have ignore lists.

[Bryan]

You want to see division, you wait until the former darling of the Democratic Party (Sen. Clinton) angles to have Florida and Michigan have their representation increased at the convention after she, er, accidentally forgot to remove her name from the ballot unlike Obama and Edwards.

Although I don't know who'll get the nomination, my expectation is that you'll see a unity photo with BOTH Barack and Hillary at the Denver Convention. But that's just an opinion.

You're probably right about that. But a photo-op isn't going to erase internal resentment among rank-and-file Democrats.

As to your above statement, that's only right with respect to Michigan. As to Florida, all 3 were on the ballot and she won by double digits. None of the 3 campaigned in Florida.

Florida law requires that candidates drop out of the race to have their names removed from the ballot. You're correct to point out that Clinton didn't duplicate her Michigan shenanigan in Florida. She had a different approach for Florida:

"Hundreds of thousands of people have already voted in Florida and I want them to know I will be there to be part of what they have tried to do to make sure their voices are heard," said Clinton before jetting to Sarasota and Miami for events on Sunday.

The Clinton campaign claims that the senator from New York is abiding by the no-campaigning pledge because Sunday's two Florida events were technically closed to the public. But the stops were treated as major news events in a state where many Democrats have expressed anger over the absence of the party's presidential candidates during a period when Florida is overrun by Republican contenders.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=276341

Depends on the definition of "campaign," doesn't it?

The result doesn't count because a Republican State legislature jumped the Florida primary election aheady of the New Hampshire primary by moving the date to January, disqualifying the delegates under Democratic Party rules.

And the Republicans forced Michigan to follow suit, no doubt. It's hilarious that you tried to spin it to put the blame on Republicans. It isn't a partisan issue. States jockey for earlier primaries to increase the relative importance of their state in the primary process. Think about it. If Giuliani led off with a big win in Florida it makes a big difference in the campaign to follow.

House Republicans and Democrats passed the earlier primary bill (HB 537) by a 115-1 vote - a challenge to the national parties that are wielding threats in an attempt to prevent a nationwide race for earlier and earlier primaries.

http://www.jacksonville.com/apnews/stories...D8O0PVN02.shtml

Wow! The Florida legislature sure is dominated by Republicans! Only one Democrat!

The National Republican Party doesn't care that the Florida election was in January, and they're counting the Republican delegates from Florida.

Actually they cut Florida's delegate count in half. So they do care. They just wanted to make sure that the voters in those states were not completely disenfranchised like the Democratic primary voters.

The Arizona senator gains 57 delegates, half the usual number awarded because the national Republican Party punished Florida for holding its primary before Feb. 5.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=276341

I don't see how the Democratic Party can allow Floridian Democrats to be disenfranchised, especially considering the 2000 election debacle.

My point exactly. Clinton is certain to make that point as well. If Michigan and Florida are counted in full, Clinton has the delegate lead right now.

Michigan: 73

Florida: 185

[Guest Twizzler]

This is a brain on drugs.

It certainly is. Thanks for the explanation. We were all wondering.

[Guest Twizzler]

You want to see division, you wait until the former darling of the Democratic Party (Sen. Clinton) angles to have Florida and Michigan have their representation increased at the convention after she, er, accidentally forgot to remove her name from the ballot unlike Obama and Edwards.

Although I don't know who'll get the nomination, my expectation is that you'll see a unity photo with BOTH Barack and Hillary at the Denver Convention. But that's just an opinion. As to your above statement, that's only right with respect to Michigan. As to Florida, all 3 were on the ballot and she won by double digits. None of the 3 campaigned in Florida. The result doesn't count because a Republican State legislature jumped the Florida primary election aheady of the New Hampshire primary by moving the date to January, disqualifying the delegates under Democratic Party rules. The National Republican Party doesn't care that the Florida election was in January, and they're counting the Republican delegates from Florida. I don't see how the Democratic Party can allow Floridian Democrats to be disenfranchised, especially considering the 2000 election debacle.

The fairest solution is to arrange a primary or caucus in each of those two states for May or June.

[Guest Twizzler]

As far as you know, you mean? Or are you a personal acquaintance of his posting anonymously, that you would know for sure that Truth Squad isn't LaClair?

I've seen recent posts of LaClair's, and they are extremely similar in content to Truth Squad's in this case. That suggests three things. First, it might be LaClair posting under a different name. Second, Truth Squad might be influenced by LaClair in his views. Third, Truth Squad just coincidentally reasons in the same unfortunate twisted manner as LaClair (equivocation and lame etymological arguments).

In any of those cases it's appropriate to point out the similarity.

LaClair might have convinced someone. Call the CIA!

If anyone said anything like that to you, Bryan, you would immediately identifying it as a fallacious appeal to identity. Apparently someone has left a lasting impression on you.

We all know your political prejudices, Bryan. Your saying that Obama supports bad policies doesn't mean anything. Anyway, I thought your position was that he wasn't specific enough.

There is one fact you cannot deny - well you could, but no reasonable person can deny it. Barack Obama has inspired an entire generation, and is winning over his party from a far better positioned adversary.

Maybe you don't want real change in our country, but most of us do. The only way to accomplish that is to inspire the people so that they will demand change. McCain cannot do it because he has no apparent vision and isn't promoting change anyway; and he cannot unite the country, standing as he does on the wrong side of the war. Clinton cannot do it because she cannot unite the country.

[Guest Reasonable Doubt]

Still with the LaClair obsession. Kinda sad when you consider that LaClair hasn't posted here in quite a while.

For whatever reason either legally or otherwise Paul now seems to post as *Guest*. His writing style is very noticeable with things like left wingers and such. Why he has stopped using Paul is anyone's guess? I guess Junior is too busy searching out colleges and his professors to exploit. There as even been no word on him on Kearny High School instituting uniforms officially next year. It is official in the daily announcements. They call it the LaClair doctrine in that they had to wait until Junior graduated to make sure Paul didn't bring a claim against them.. You can see how Paul cares for this town. He doesn’t just covering the problems his son causes.

[Bryan]

The fairest solution is to arrange a primary or caucus in each of those two states for May or June.

Fair?

Who's paying for it?

[Bryan]

LaClair might have convinced someone. Call the CIA!

I'm sure he's already on Bush's list.

If anyone said anything like that to you, Bryan, you would immediately identifying it as a fallacious appeal to identity.

I doubt it, since there's no such fallacy.

Apparently someone has left a lasting impression on you.

We all know your political prejudices, Bryan. Your saying that Obama supports bad policies doesn't mean anything. Anyway, I thought your position was that he wasn't specific enough.

Apparently I didn't express myself clearly enough.

1) Obama does have a voting record. That voting record indicates support of bad policies, and yes that's my opinion based on political differences.

2) Obama's recent campaign strategy has de-emphasized policy specifics in favor of bland unity. "Truth Squad" apparently hasn't been paying attention enough to notice.

3) I think Obama is smart to avoid talking policy, because it shows his naivety and inexperience (as it did late last summer when he threatened to invade Afghanistan to get Bin Laden if President Musharraf wouldn't do it).

My overall point is that voting for somebody simply for the sake of unity is stupid. There needs to be some policy behind the promise of unity, and good policy is preferable to bad policy. Since I see his policies as bad, I would be foolish to act inconsistent with that view and vote for Obama for the sake of unity. Same principle applies to Democrats. That party is a fractured coalition united by disagreement with (or hatred of--take your pick) the current administration. Obama can't please the whole coalition so he sticks with the message that they agree on. Brilliant election strategy if he can get away with it, but it says nothing about how he will lead.

There is one fact you cannot deny - well you could, but no reasonable person can deny it. Barack Obama has inspired an entire generation, and is winning over his party from a far better positioned adversary.

Most of that could be said of Britney Spears five years ago, so why would I deny it? Have you been tuning out when I state that Obama is charismatic and likable or what? I'll add that he's an intelligent man, albeit prone to errors associated with his naivety.

You answer my point about the blandness of Obama's policy descriptions with the equivalent of "Yeah, but isn't he dreamy?"

Maybe you don't want real change in our country, but most of us do.

So you don't care what the change is? We could go with Islamic Sharia law and that would be great by you?

The only way to accomplish that is to inspire the people so that they will demand change. McCain cannot do it because he has no apparent vision and isn't promoting change anyway; and he cannot unite the country, standing as he does on the wrong side of the war. Clinton cannot do it because she cannot unite the country.

You need to read the Obama and Clinton statements on the war more carefully. They're both stringing you along. They both realize that a sudden withdrawal would be practically impossible as well as disastrous (Joe Biden was the best of the Democrats on that issue). They talk against the war because they know that you love it that way.

“And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?” Kroft asked.

“No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation,” Obama replied.

http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_...k-obama-on.html

Escape hatch.

Nice.

Here's one more policy position from Obama's Web site. Enjoy:

Plan for Ending the War in Iraq

“But conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.

I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, ‘an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.’ The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus.”

—Barack Obama, Clinton, Iowa, September 12, 2007

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Is that a brilliant plan or what? The man's a genius!

[Guest Guest]

For whatever reason either legally or otherwise Paul now seems to post as *Guest*.

Proof or gtfo.

His writing style is very noticeable with things like left wingers and such.

In other words, big words you don't understand, therefore everyone who uses them must be the same person.

He doesn’t just covering the problems his son causes.

Back to grade school with you, so you can learn to construct a sentence.