Wow Obama's slums! Are you just another PR hack from the dillusional Clinton camp? Have another sip of that Kool-Aid and let me know how the Clinton fruad trial in LA works out. Might be some sniper fire that needs dodging there too!

The press, especially the Washington post has supressed the ugly truth about Barack Obama's history in Chicago, burried the truth about him, and acted like cheerleaders for him when they should have been exposing him as the false messiah he is.

Why has the Washington Post done this?

What has Obama offered them in exchange for their silence?

Why have they ignored the repeated requests by Clinton supporters to tell the world about the real Barack Obama, and about what he did and what he failed to do back in Chicago?

Clinton supporters have asked them nicely.

We have treated them with respect.

We have politely made our case to them and provided them hard evidence, but they have mocked and scorned both the best Democratic Candidate running and the people who know that she'd be the best President snd who know the truth about Barack Obama.

The difference between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters is like day and night.

Clinton supporters are policy oriented and want what's best for the country.

At best, Obama supporters act like arrogant spoiled children.

At worst, they act like cheap thugs.

If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, I will proudly vote for McCain because my loyalty to my country is stronger than my loyalty to the Democratic party.

Obama represents everything wrong with our country today.

He is all image and no substance.

He lies, he cheats, he steals.

He takes credit for other people's work.

He fools the young, the idealistic, and the simple minded.

He lies to the press and misleads them about his history, his intentions and his plans for the future.

He makes pretty speeches to cover up the ugly reality about his real beliefs about other people.

He claims to be a uniter when he is a vicious divider.

He claims to be post racial when he actually believes in, privately promotes, and financially supports the the racist, anti-white, anti-semitic, anti-American teachings of Rev. Wright and of "Black Liberation Theology", and he has for 20 years.

On critical issues, he says one thing to one group and says the exact opposite thing to another.

He tells people that he wants money from to ignore his official positions and that he'll "take care of them, so don't worry"

He is so evil and such an accomplished liar that he does all these things yet still gets away with them after he is caught on video or audio tape.

He let the poorest of the poor freeze in Slums in his district in Chicago when he was a state Senator, even though his close friend and campaign contributor Rezko had received $100M of government money to repair or replace them.

He is nothing like his carefully crafted public image and everything like George W. Bush, except he is far-left rather than far right, and even worse than Bush is.

He is arrogant, incompetent, immature, and doesn't care about anyone but himself.

He has a heart of solid ICE, but fools his cult followers and the press into believing he is a savior, when he's never saved anyone but himself.

He is the world's most effective con-man and a perfect example of the "banality of evil."

His words deceive, but his actions show his real nature.

Like the sirens of mythology, he leads everyone who listens to him to death and destruction.

Look at his real record, not the work of others he was given credit for.

Learn about "Obama's Slums" see the squalor he left in his wake.

He appeals to people to "help him achieve great things" but mever delivers on his promises and then he destroys them.

He does this over and over again as he moves from place to place and silences his critics through intimidation.

He has created a dangerous cult of personality that will bring nothing but pain and tragedy to those that fall under his power.

This is the truth about Barack Obama.

It is the ugly truth about a modern Huey Long who has far exceeded the evils of his namesake.

The souls of the poor who suffered and died in "Obama's Slums" cry out for justice.

They died for his sins.

They can no longer speak for themselves.

Their story must be told.

Powell would be anyone's ideal veep but does not want to run for public office. Webb, Fallon, Shinseki or Clark would give military polish. The veep Obama needs to win is Bill Richardson. He would garner 80% of the latino vote and turn the election if the Dems win TX. Romney the probable Republican veep will give McCain UT, NV, MI and small northeast states NH, VT along with most of the south except the Atlantic states which will be contested. The white working class edge of McCain is cancelled by the latino/black block. The over 65 is cancelled by the under 30 vote. White professionals and college grads will determine the outcome in the northwestern states.

I am telling you the smart move is to get someone to the left, get Kusinich in there as VP and watch.

I can't imagine why Obama would even consider Hillary Clinton as his running mate. She doesn't add anything to the ticket that a running mate is supposed to provide. She is not from a swing state, she is not from a part of the country where he might need assistance, and most important, she doesn't have much more of the singular thing that will be the key difference between Obama and McCain: foreign policy experience. Plus, it would be very uncomfortable having Bill around under those circumstances. It would be much better if Hillary used her considerable smarts to craft legislation on the Hill and maybe become a passionate and effective Senate leader. (We don't have one now.) And Bill could remain in his elder statesman role. I don't think it is anyone's dream ticket. If Hillary had won, she would want Obama to bring in all of the new voters who signed up in the primaries. But she doesn't bring anything special. People who are die hard democrats enough to vote for Hillary Clinton will support the ticket in November.

I highly doubt Mr. Obama will pick Ms. Clinton as a VP and I certainly don't think he will pick Senator Kennedy, that would be political suicide.

My dream ticket, although I don't think it will ever happen, would be Colin Powell as VP with Mr. Obama. I think he would bring great military experience and a wonderful sense of diplomacy and demeanor that would match Mr. Obama very well. However, I don't think that would happen.

"And then she promptly failed her DC bar exam. Oops!

Posted by: buzzardist | May 13, 2008 4:11 PM"

The D.C. bar exam pass rate in 2006 was 51%. The national average was
67%. Clinton took the exam in 1973. The earliest statistics available
online from the National Conference of Bar Examiners are from 1981.
The D.C. and national avererage pass rates in 1981 were 58% and 65%,
respectively. A lot of smart people fail bar exams. She then went on to be listed as one of the top 100 lawyers in the country. Still don't like her, but I'm willing to defend her where it is warranted.

"asked in 2000, Who would you rather have a beer with? Most Americans would choose the class jock over the studious, calculating class nerd."
A variation of it is in the works now. faced with choosing a woman with a lifetime in politics, government, and social issues, most Americans (in the Democratic primaries - no, make that mostly caucuses) chose an inexperienced, freshman senator who campaigned on platitudes and generalities of Hope & Change.
No, make that "Change we can believe in". Somehow that brings out the concept so much better.
Posted by: Krishna | May 13, 2008 11:24 AM"

So what variation are you talking about? Obama is the class nerd,scholarship student, President of the Harvard Law Review, a Consitutional scholar, and adjunct professor. Hillary is the one in the photo op throwing back a shot and a beer to show how middle-class she is. Obama also has a lifetime in politics and government (though it has so far been a shorter lifetime) and actually has more time in elected office than she does (she has never held any public office other than her Senate seat), but if you want to believe that it is simply because he's more likeable than she is... well, he is, but that's not the only reason.... go ahead and believe whatever makes you feel better!

"I'm not particularly fond of Hillary but the only way she bears any similarity to Bush is in her stubbornness... she easily has a good 25 or 30 IQ points on him and she earned her degree from Yale, no gentleman's (or gentlewoman's) C's there!"

And then she promptly failed her DC bar exam. Oops!

"McCain is no George Bush -- the Arizona senator believes that government can often be the solution, not always the problem...."

By your measure, George Bush is no George Bush. This is the president who saddled us with No Child Left Behind. If that isn't treating government as the "solution," then I don't know what is. The essence of "compassionate conservatism" is to use the government to solve social problems. McCain has the same basic philosophy as Bush in this respect...but without the pretense of being "compassionate."

In fact, it's curious that no candidate this year has really gained significant traction running from a small-government stance. Ron Paul is the only one. McCain, Huckabee, and Romney all have records suggesting that they see government as a solution, and all of the Democrats share this view.

The small-government conservatives were virtually shut out of this presidential election cycle, and thus the confusion and indifference toward the two parties. Nobody can tell them apart anymore.

Republicans are being inspired by Obama and voting for him. Other Republicans don't like McCain and see Clinton as a more viable conservative choice. Some Democrats don't like Obama and are vowing to vote for McCain. In this merry-go-round of ideals and voter alliances, can someone tell me the difference between Democrats and Republicans again?

"In the end, I'd say McCain is far more like Bush: They are both swaggering-jock types. They both have good senses of humor, and neither is going to overstudy the matter."

... and they were both (undeservedly) admitted to elite schools as legacies, and finished very close to the bottom of their class. At least the US got it's money's worth out of McCain's flight school (also a result of being from a privileged family since people who finish fifth from the bottom in their graduating class don't generally get into flight school), while Bush only played fighter pilot on the weekends (if he wasn't too hung over or strung out on Coke to report for duty)! I'm not particularly fond of Hillary but the only way she bears any similarity to Bush is in her stubbornness... she easily has a good 25 or 30 IQ points on him and she earned her degree from Yale, no gentleman's (or gentlewoman's) C's there!

"In today's world it is unimaginable, and undesirable, for a vice president to be as uninformed as Truman was about an administration's top secret and priority."

Funny, in this administration Bush is the cluelss one while Cheney hordes all the secrets in his man-sized safe and secret "energy policy" meetings!

How can you characterize HRC's war vote as considered when she admits that she didn't read the National Intelligence Report before she voted. You're right though about it being calculating. Just like the gasoline tax holidy.

OR, perhaps Hillary should just stay in the Senate.

She is a star there and has worked much in the mold of Ted Kennedy to pass meaningful legislation.

She actually HAS a record of working across party lines unlike Obama and is smart enough and has the necessary work ethic to rise to Majority Leader.

Hey, Jon Stewart had a great line talking to McCain.

Why don't you ask Hillary to be your V.P.?

You know that might be a good idea.

I know it would hurt her in the Democratic Party but given how badly the DNC and the leadership is treating her anyway, why not?

She can run as an independent. She may not get a Presidential run but V.P. is pretty good and she can do a lot of good which is the whole point of holding office.

Obama is toast in November so we should salvage what we can.

What do you think?

I've got one thing to say to these feminazi Hillary folks who keep threatening us with their non/McCain support:

"Rowe vs. Wade"

Swallow your false pride, vote your true interest.

It is sad that Democrats have allowed Republicans to convince Americans that Education is a bad thing. We have allowed Republicans to define "Liberal" as a dirty word and in this campaign we (HILLARY!!!) have allowed people that have graduated from college ( at great financial and emotional cost) to be villianized. Why shoud we as Democrats keep up the discussion about better Education when we have allowed the whole concept of higher education be used as a wedge to seperate us? (HILLARY!)
Democrats (me included) should be ashamed.
Educated people are just as patriotic, religious (not me) and American as anyone else. Coastal Democrats are owed an apology. Middle america does not have a monopoly on morals or family values and politicians need to be held accountable for perpetuating the myth.

Let's hope that a whole lot of thought goes into the VP selection for McCain. His age is a real concern along with his health history and God knows that job will age whomever gets it. I see McCain as a certain (1) term President so maybe the Republicans are looking to him as a caretaker of the Oval Office until they can find a candidate that America can get excited about. I like McCain but it's obvious that he is a "cookie cutter" of GWB and that has just about ruined this country in (8) short years. I don't know, maybe it is time to take the plunge with an unknown quantity and let the a new guy have a shot at it. Obama couldn't do any worse of a job than the Ivy League white guys have for the past 40 years. He makes me nervous because he has this supercool detachment from the process like he is above it or maybe he has another agenda that is unknown to anyone except for himself. Who knows?

Obama will lose because of the doubts Hillary has put in the minds of "blue collar" voters in southern/western Ohio and eastern Pennsylvania( for possible 2012 run, don't laugh). Obama will help the Democrats expand the senate lead if he can avoid more Rev. wright problems or Ayers problems. If he is stuck with the liberal tag, he will drag down the resurgent souhtern Democrats.

Questions about the next VP? Well, Barack Obama, first and foremost needs a running mate who is ready to be President from day one. He also needs a Democratic pit bull who can allow him to stay well above the fray when the vicious Republican attacks begin in the fall. His running mate should be able to solidify the base of the Party as Obama tries to reach across the aisle.

Should his running mate have to assume the Presidency in an emergency, Obama needs to be certain that his Vice President will embrace and faithfully execute his vision and direction for the nation. Such a person would have to be a rock solid member of the Democratic wing of the Democratiuc Party, to show the DINOs and the DLC that a new day has arrived, and there is no turning back.

Finally, and this is a sad thing to have to contemplate in the 21st Century, but if Barack Obakma is going to be the first black President, he'll need someone at his back whom the right wing fears more than anyone else, just for that added measure of security that the Secret Service can't provide. That man was endorsed by Al Gore and Jimmy Carter in 2004.

His name is Howard Dean.

"...But Kennedy offered him the second spot on the ticket to unite the party's northern liberal wing and its traditional southern wing."

No he DIDN'T.

J. Edgar HOOVER did.

JFK's secretary has said publicly that she was in the room when Hoover called the Kennedy brothers and delivered the news that LBJ would be vice president, "or else".

Regardless, the LAST thing we need on an Obama ticket for change is an old style political panderer who is the poster child for washington DC insider politics, and political pandering for personal gain!

Send her back to the Senate!

NO to VP Hillary!

Jim Webb would be the perfect veep complement to Obama--heartfelt rhetoric, authentic, able to appeal to all those Southerners and "white voter" types (!).
If anyone were to have to step into the presidency in Obama's place why not have a like-minded, bright articulate similar visionary with a consummate military record, including a father and son who have served. Obama-Webb is appealing.

You failed to address the second letter-writer's observation -- correct in my view -- that Hillary Clinton "seems every bit as arrogant as Bush, and like him, she seems unable to admit mistakes."

As for the class jock, Hillary is the one who has been behaving like a masculinity-insecure, overcompensating bully. I don't recall any McCain surrogate comparing the testicles of McCain, Huckabee, and Romney, as that idiot Carville did Hillary and Barack. Hillary's ridiculous simulated swagger makes her much more like Bush on that score than McCain is -- and she looks just a silly swaggering as Bush does.

We don't think that Edward Kennedy warned against the "dream ticket" of Obama/Clinton to HELP the party. Kennedy has been considerably weakened in recent years, and wants his power back. His route to that goal is by becoming the puppetmaster to inexperienced rookie Obama, and it would be hard to manipulate if the Iron Lady was the VP. Kennedy has a closetful of laws he wants to pass before he retires, but he has been blocked, and is salivating to get back on top.

I have a question for clinton supporters. And again, I have 0 dog in this fight in the end. But do you really think that she has any chance ouside of a coup of the convention? What odds do you give it?

"asked in 2000, Who would you rather have a beer with? Most Americans would choose the class jock over the studious, calculating class nerd."

A variation of it is in the works now. faced with choosing a woman with a lifetime in politics, government, and social issues, most Americans (in the Democratic primaries - no, make that mostly caucuses) chose an inexperienced, freshman senator who campaigned on platitudes and generalities of Hope & Change.

No, make that "Change we can believe in". Somehow that brings out the concept so much better.

All that being said I still probably will not be voting for either side in the end.

So the blog broke yesterday, and I could not post on here and I feel my email was miss represented. The Rendel point was part of a list of exactly what I would not do. Here is what I stated.

Regarding the question on who would be a good vp for the candidates posted last week here would be some ideas.

Because I don't see any chance of Clinton getting the nomination I want to give a couple of different options for Obama, depending on how he would want to gain votes.

Based on a more strategic view of american politics and any effort to re-bridge the gap from the Clinton divide. A governor like Ed Rendel may make a smart move. The man supported Clinton, but I think he loves power more, and could be convinced, though I hear the man has baggage of his own. To go in that dash for the center, a former general type like Wesley Clark could work.

Though I have yet to see any proof that going to the "center" with a VP candidate will win anything for the Democrats, as it did not in the past two elections. It makes more sense to me for him to elect a VP who can be the "liberal rabble rouser" and allow him to go to the center, this did not hurt Clinton 1 with Gore. Its similar to the theory of how Cheney scares most of the Democrats more than Bush, and is the reason they used to stop impeachment.

So these are my wild cards, and because of the idiocy of most of the Democratic leadership when it comes to campaign maneuvering and tactics, again see the W-L ratio over the last 8 years of political campaigns, all of these have a 0.000% chance of even a cabinet position. Which is too bad, I think they are some of the people who have the true willpower needed in the executive branch to make a real impact and right the ship. If Obama really wants to see a new kind of politics why not find himself a new type of politician, someone who has not held a major office but has all the skills needed? A VP needs to come off as someone who is nobodies patsy and here are some names that I think would border between crazy and brilliant.

Michael Bloomberg, may be a good bridge the left right question.

Ron Paul, try a grab for some of the socially liberal, economically conservative, Republicans.

RFK Jr., I have heard his name as the successor to Clinton in the Senate if she were to leave. Why not just call him up to the majors?

Ralph Nader, you want to show that your against politics as usual, can you think of anyone who better represents that? It could heal the very sore gap between the indy progressive movement and the democratic party?

Denis Kusinich, think of it like the Ralph Nader plan, only you avoid the Blogger complaints about 2000. He may need a makeover though.

Stumped's VP post is interesting, but like a U.S. high school textbook, it is badly out of date.
Stumped even forgot to mention that better than one-in-four vice presidents BECOME PRESIDENT. VP selection is no laughing matter, really.
There are two clear trends in VP selection that Stumped missed:
1. GEOGRAPHY MATTERS LESS and LESS -- Bill Clinton, of Arkansas, picked Al Gore, of neighboring Tennessee. If there was any balancing of the ticket there, it wasn't with age, or experience or geographic diversity. He picked Gore because of his media power (he was popular) and because of his Washington connections (Bill had none). Also, the match didn't violate the only rule of VP selection: Do no harm.
2. THE VP JOB IS BECOMING MORE POWERFUL -- George W. Bush's selection of Dick Cheney was a key decision. Cheney gave heft to a ticket headed by a man with fewer that two terms as the constitutionally weak governor of Texas. But, that choice also meant that Cheney would transform the vice-presidency into a remarkably powerful office (read the Washington Post to learn more about this). Forget Truman and The Bomb, after Cheney, it's possible the vice president will be the one keeping secrets from the commander-in-chief.
The conclusion is this: After Cheney, and despite whatever amateur analysis you get from Stumped, the VP selection is important to voters and the future of the nation. It's really not a joke any more. If Stumped was any analyst, he'd have seen this years ago.

I'd say that belting down shots in a working-class bar qualifies Clinton as one of those Bush-McCain "swaggering-jock types."

It was actually the contest in 1800 that provided the momentum for the 12th amendment. While Jefferson chafed serving under Adams, it was the Jefferson-Burr fiasco that actually brought the push for the 12th amendment.

It was proposed in 1803 and ratified in less than 6 months.

JW,Why would you make a comment like that?

The President Hillary Clinton reminds me of is Nixon. So secretive. Only promoting people who are guaranteed to be intensely loyal to her.

The VP beauty contest has an importance usually absent from the elections this time around. Whoever the major candidates choose as running mates will automatically become a potential presidential nominee in 2012 and/or 2016, given that neither party has an incumbent in the race this year. This particularly true for McCain, given his age and health.

Dionne's article today speculates on Obama's running mate as a pro-Clinton governor of Ohio or Pennsylvania, or an Indiana Senator, all of which could assuage Clinton-backers unhappy with the flame out of her candidacy. I don't think this is likely because of the potential boost in 2012 or 2016. Political figures with much higher profiles nationally are going to be scrabbling for the VP slot on an Obama ticket as a consequence. And, as Senator Clinton points out, with Senator Obama's dearth of foreign policy experience, someone like Joe Biden or Chuck Hagel makes much more sense than an unknown Democratic governor. It's going to be fascinating to see how the calculus works in selecting running mates this time out.

How about Hillary running as an Independent candidate?

It takes more than badmouthing and dirty tricks to be a President. It takes a person who can pick the right people. Her disorganized campaign proved that she can't do that. A President must be organized. She makes a good Senator who pays attention to details, but a President must lead, not micromanage. She is simply unqualified for this particular job.

I agree that Hillary is smarter than W. She reminds me more of Cheney.

McCain, is on par, another W. He makes me shudder with his "tough" talk on Iran and Hillary is more like him than a Democrat.

Hillary lost this election when she voted for the Iraq war to make herself into a female tough guy.

I'll be so glad when they have all exited the stage and some sanity can return. Oh, and be sure and take Bill with you !!!

Dear Writer,
You write at a third grade level. Any wonder your company is going under?

Mark these words - Clinton supporters will 'pass' on Obama.

"McCain is no George Bush -- the Arizona senator believes that government can often be the solution, not always the problem."

I'd certainly agree that the US government is the problem in Iraq.

Dear stumped,
Even though I agree with your categorization of Hillary. She is not that far from Bush. At least in her SWIFTBOAT abilities and down and dirty confrontation. What do you say?