Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Knesset Kerfuffle Shows Obama Not Afraid to Engage

President George W. Bush's comments at the Israeli Knesset yesterday, in which he blasted as "appeasers" anyone who favors talking with rogue states like Iran or radical groups like Hamas, set off a furious back and forth between the Obama and McCain campaigns over foreign policy and national security.

The battle between the two presumptive presidential nominees has at least three lessons worth reflecting on as the general election contest begins in earnest. Let's take them one by one:

First, it showed that despite the fact that Bush is winding up his second term and battling charges of lameduck-ism, he still an unmatched ability to drive the political dialogue in this country.

Make no mistake: This was a pre-planned strategy by the Bush campaign to re-inject foreign policy into the presidential campaign in a way that many Republicans believe will ultimately be beneficial to McCain. Deride Bush -- and his strategic team -- if you will, but remember that Team Bush managed to get their man elected president and then reelected in the face of growing concerns about the war in Iraq and declining popularity numbers. Bush's political judgment since 2004 has proved somewhat suspect, but to dismiss his ability to understand and effectively analyze the political landscape could be a mistake on the part of Democrats.

The second lesson of the Knesset Kerfuffle is that the Democratic presidential nomination race is over. Amid all of the "he said, he said" between Obama and McCain/Bush, the one figure that has been almost entirely absent is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Can you imagine that happening even three months ago?

The third, and most important lesson, is that Obama is ready and willing to fight Republicans over foreign policy and national security concerns.

Bush's remarks at the Knesset provided Obama with an interesting conundrum. Refuse to rise to the bait or engage full force in an attempt to begin to address concerns -- voiced privately by some Democratic strategists -- that the Illinois senator may not be able to win a general election that is framed as a referendum on which party can keep America safe.

Obama, to our mind, took the smarter course by not simply answering the inherent critique offered by the president but also pivoting to try and make McCain answerable for the foreign policy pursued by the United States over the last eight years.

"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting America, that is a debate I will have any time, any place," Obama said today at a rally in Watertown, South Dakota. "George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for."

(Obama's campaign dismissed The Fix's attempts to read something into the fact that their candidate made his speech in South Dakota -- a Republican stronghold -- or that former Sen. Tom Daschle (S.D.) -- one of the many people mentioned as a possible running-mate -- was at his side. So much for that.)

In elections past, Democrats have sought to avoid an extended fight with Republicans over foreign policy, preferring to instead fight on the more familiar -- and friendly -- ground of domestic issues like health care and the economy.

The 2004 election may well have signaled a sea change in that strategy, as Bush effectively turned the election into a referendum on the threat of terrorism and the importance of national security as Democrats were unable to mount an effective response.

In the 2006 midterm elections, Democratic candidates fought their Republican opponents much more proactively on matters of national defense and foreign policy, a recognition that ceding that coveted political ground to Republicans was a recipe for success. That same election saw Republicans lose their traditionally large edge as the party voters trusted to deal with issues of national security -- data that further emboldened Democrats to fight back rather than change the subject.

Two years further on, Democrats are even more confident about not just fighting Republicans to a draw on the issue but perhaps even going on offense on it. Obama's comments are a sure sign that his campaign (and the Democratic Party more broadly) believes that it is well positioned to win a debate over foreign policy given the direction George W. Bush has taken the country over the past eight years.

It marks a remarkable change in tactics that speaks to just how much the political landscape has shifted since 2004. McCain and Republicans are certain to work to frame the national security/foreign policy debate in their favor, but Obama's initial response is a sign that they may have to adjust their tactics in the runup to the November election.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 16, 2008; 4:31 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Friday Line: How Many Seats Will Dems Gain in the Senate?
Next: McCain's SNL Appearance: 'Oldness' as a Plus

Comments

kaycwagner,
Not just comments it was a full speech.
Reading Bush's full speech to the Knesset is the only way to put his "comments" into full context.
He was obviously speaking to the history that lead up to the creation of Isreal and a restatement of the US support of their state.
It's quite clear that Bush wasn't speaking of Obama or the Democrats specifically but to the world entirely.
Any news org or politician who has used this speech to accuse Bush of using an overseas forum to interject politics have outed themselves for their biased and opportunism.
Americans want honest reporting and fair analysis' from their politicians.
Not just more of the same. That includes you too, Obama

Posted by: Shawn S | May 23, 2008 3:29 AM | Report abuse

When Barack clarified that he would meet with rogue leaders with "preparations" and detailed how it would work.
He just reworded what the Bush's policy is...everything Barack says he would do and what the "preparations" would be is exactly the same way the Bush Administration is doing it.
How is this a change?
With all Barack's huffin and puffin and rallying against Bush and Mccain, I expected him to have something of substance to bring to the table regarding diplomacy...not just more of the same

Posted by: Shawn S | May 23, 2008 3:14 AM | Report abuse

Obama was acting like the politician he was taught to be by WRight. He had to face down Bush, the most unpopular President, ever. He also had to make a stand for his political opinion on conversing with Hamas, a terrorist group committed to the destruction of Israel. That opinion is very controversial. The only points I would give him were his condemnation of Bush for not going after al-Queda.

Posted by: afed27 | May 19, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

The media has given Bush another pass, his comment to the Knesset. For the president of a nation to degrade a respected American to members of a foriegn country and than compare a question of diplomacy to Hitler and the Holocaust and extermination of six million Jews, demonstrated Bush's ignorance and lack of qualifications for the position he unfortunately holds. The Israeli's good manners prevented Bush from being thrown out on the sidewalk. He is an embarrassment to all Americans.

Posted by: kaycwagner | May 19, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Ho-hum. Anything about Huma yet, Chris? She makes Louis Farrakhan look like Mr. Rogers.

Posted by: sawargos | May 19, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

We need McCain's clear vision of which world leaders that can be trusted and which ones are the new Hitlers. We don't need Obama and is naivete like Neville Chamberlain.

Chamberlain was prime minister of Britain when he watched as Hitler took over Austria. Then he supported Hitler's take over of the Sudetenland section of Czechoslavakia. Then Chamberlain, after meeting with Hitler and signing a peace agreement him in Munich, saw Hitler ignore the agreement and take over all of Czechoslavakia. Then Chamberlain watched Hitler take over Poland, after telling everyone that Hitler could be trusted.

The modern day Hitlers love Barack Obama and how he will allow them to grow in strength all while assuring Obama what men of peace they are. Kuwait would now be in Saddam Hussein's hands if Obama had been president when Iraq invaded Kuwait. And Hussein would now have the atomic bombs he openly said he would use against the United States.

Chamberlain refused to join in the German assassination plot against Hitler before Hitler invaded Austria. If he had not been someone like Obama who believes in meeting with and empowering madmen we would not have had WWII in Europe and the loss of tens of millions of soldiers and tens of millions of citizens. Not to mention the extermination of over 5 million Jews by Adolph "Ahmadinejad" Hitler.

How many modern-day Hitlers would Obama empower? John McCain is no Neville Chamberlain. People like Ahmadinejad will never be strengthened by a McCain presidency.

Posted by: BadgerOne | May 19, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Re: Don't underestimate Bush political strategy. Is that the same strategy that has him threatening to veto the farm bill and the mortgage homeowners bill? I can only hope he continues to veto these bills and offend EVERY group in the country

Posted by: phil | May 19, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Only someone with no morals whatsoever like George Bush would use the occasion of a speech to a foreign legislature to attempt to win points in a political contest in the United States. Of course, after watching almost seven years of the most criminal and shameful Administration in American history, nothing surprises me about George Bush. As for the idiots that still support him, the depth of your ignorance is beyond comprehension. Apparently, an 8 trillion dollar deficit (two trillion of which is owed to Communist China), $4.00/gallon gasoline, food rationing, involvement in a war we can't, and will never, win, the destruction of our Constitutional liberties and the loss of the respect and reputation we once enjoyed amongst most nations of the world is not enough for you. Well, go ahead and vote for McSame, and you will witness the transformation of this country into the largest third world country on this planet. And, you're going to have to explain to your children and grandchildren why you allowed the federal government under the Bush Administration to place upon them the crushing burden of an overwhelming debt that should have been paid as it was incurred. It's apparent that approximately 1/3 of the American (Conservative) People are borderline mentally challenged or worse. Yet, I'm confident that the other 2/3 of the American People (Moderates and Liberals) will do the right thing come this November. With 3 recent special elections placing Democrats in offices long held by Republicans, there is a factual basis for my hope.

Posted by: Caliguy55 | May 19, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I wish you or another colleague would dig into this issue more someday.

Bush and the Clinton's have done incredible damage to what remained of Israel's support here in America.
The divisions in the country brought to light recently by the battle between Clinton and Obama are less about rich and poor or black v. white, and they certainly aren't about red v. blue. Nor as Harold Ford tries to claim, is this a battle of the true Left v. the Centrists. And the true Left, by the way, has a diverse mix of hawks like myself, centrists and doves. 'Centrists' are another group defined as the DLC.
(We just politely say they're "special".)

This is a singular battle within the Democratic party, between the Hillary/Bush/McCain/Lieberman hard line foreign policy Democrats v. the true moderate Left Wing Democrats.
But you won't hear that mentioned in public -it's easier just to claim Obama can't win the 'whites'.

And an example can be found in our own Senate, where the few hard line Dems repeatedly vote with the Republicans - and not in the bi-partisan manner Lieberman would have you believe, quite the opposite in fact. Hillary is losing the election sole because of her foreign policy votes. She lost me permanently when she voted with Lieberman and the other hard line Dems who joined with all of the Republicans to defeat her own party-including Obama - when the Dems attempted to place a moratorium on the practice of cluster bombing civilian populations.

Is that really the kind of bi-partisanship any Democrat wants?? Hell NO.

Pat Buchanan claimed Bush got a standing ovation by the Knesset for the Nazi/Hitler/appeasement remarks. And it's now been confirmed by the press that the Knesset knew the attacks were aimed specifically at Obama and as a warning shot to the Democratic party.

The Knesset is out of line, and has overstepped it's bounds. Their words, that now dare to ravage the very hands that sacrifice their own sweat and blood to feed it, will get not one more ounce of support from me.

Posted by: hazmaq | May 19, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

You see there are many who can fit this shoe which President Bush has thrown. It could be either Pelosi, Carter (yes..the very Carter that went and tried to negotiate with Hamas a month before. Israelis refused to provide even security for this buffoon!), or those bleeding heart liberals from Europe. But why is Obama jumping up and down? I guess the stone hit the dog very badly? hahaha

Posted by: rationalthinker | May 19, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Is Obama a uniter? No, He cant even unite his own party for his nomination. He is a great uniter , will work with Republicans. Is he joking? Idiot...this guy has real big ego. Cant wait for Nov to see his ego blasted, mangled and thrown out and also if his stupidest supporters in a generation.

Posted by: rationalthinker | May 19, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I thought the discussion was about another subject this morning.The President hit a nerve in osama's body, although he did not mention his name, and he swallowered it hook line and sinker. It shows how inexperienced he is , and how on the edge he is. you don't even have to mention his name,but he will jump on it with both feet. He is the most inexperienced person that is running for the presidency. I was taught to answer when you were talked to or addressed directly.He is so afraid someone is going to get one on him, me jumps in the discussion, even when he is not being addressed.And by the way, he blew it terribly.He knows nada about foreign policy, but says he welcomes debate on foreign policy, AND HE WOULD WIN!

Posted by: elmerck | May 19, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Citizens living in Hawai'i are having *Fits* & *Outraged* writing endless letters and commentaries to both the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star Bulletin since they printed that the appointed junior Senator is coming to Hawai'i possibly giving a speaking engagement inside Punchbowl National Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii. It's a Veteran's National Cemetery not Obama's personal "Soap Box," to stand on and rant; it's a place for those resting in peace. The people of Hawaii are angry at the thought of this and have every right to be at the report he's planning this - it's a disgrace. Punchbowl would NOT be a "wonderful backdrop." Talk about crass -- speechifying in a national cemetery during a political campaign. Imagine this: thousands of enthralled Obama supporters rushing around the cemetery to get close to the man, trampling over the graves of men and women who've given their lives in service to their country. The reactions posted in Comments still, when the idea of a Punchbowl speech was first floated are from angry families whose loved ones rest in peace. National cemeteries are no place for political speeches. Makes you wonder about the maturity and integrity of the people who proposed such a preposterous idea in the first place.

Senator sell your socialism opinions on Capitol Hill, Hawaii's questioning and lost respect for the "so-called," junior appointed Senator who's turned into another Washington D.C.*Wanna-bee* just allot of talk nothing more. You'd make a great car salesman NOT A PRESIDENT you seem to sell plenty of B.S. to those not wise enough to read between the lines of a script written performance; every word out of your mouth is written by a paid staff member whose worked the D.C. circuit for years like the well known Mr. Rove," Yes, he too could write a good speech and America bought it; just look at our current sitting "Bobble head," in the oval office.

Webster's Fourth Edition describes Barack Obama as a "HYPOCRITE,"!!! His own previous Pastor taught Trinity Church words of hate and racism while the Senator and his air-head-of-a-wife passed the tithe platter not giving even as 20 year members. He doesn't support any causes really, not even his own Church "just the views of Reverend Wright's anti-White; anti-Israel; anti-American points of view. The greedy Senator is what the Bible refers to as "HYPOCRITE,"!!! He's a Racist Elitist Marxist or the Antichrist reading his well written speeches. the *Wanna-bee* Washington Politician has in less then 12 months become a disgrace to Christianity- He's not a Christian man of his word; a poor excuse for one.

The Punchbowl National Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii is a sacred place for the many lying in Peace, Those US Military young and old, Men and Woman who gave their lives to this country will turn over in their graves at the sound of Obama's political performance if he speaks there. Punchbowl Cemetery it's not a place for a campaign rally "The Senator should keep his political performances with its Washington Socialism undertones to an area more suiting for "HYPOCRITES," Senator your always welcomed to rant at Neil Abercrombie's headquarters, but Punchbowl Cemetery is a resting place of peace and should remain so for those who rest there, - not an arena for your personal political agenda; Show some decency and class moron!!!

Posted by: Pineapple1 | May 19, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

A person who lives on a street corner posted, on May 18 at 6:55A:

"People like us would sacrifice our strength around the world so that the left wing wackos can win an election in this country."

That was in response to a poster called "Sally" who blindly lashed out at one third of her countrymen as "terrorists".

"nevadaandy", who has previously been rational, joined the "Republicans are terrorists" brigade of conversational banter.

Without "sign-in" this web log is doomed to grade school level discourse.


Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | May 18, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

'People like us would sacrifice our strength around the world so that the left wing wackos can win an election in this country.'

LOL -- yeah, right now, I'm sure you're writing from Iraq, right? If you're not STFU, chickenhawk.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 18, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

I am of the opinion this Knesset speech was CALCULATED to help Obama. All of us KNOW the Repubs consider Obama the weakest of of all the viable candidates from the very beginning, and along with The Media, have supported him to a great extent. I think we all KNOW, as well, that every speech given by GW is written by Pros, not him. Just another try to give support to him in their effort to stop Hillary, who most "FEAR" they cannot beat in the GE. I am somewhat surprised by a lot of Posters that doesn't understand how everyone wants to run against who they consider their weakeast opponent. This is Politics 101, and this is where Obama is getting so much help from the Repubs. I can only ask Dems to get together at The Convention and nominate Hillary, and by doing so, we will win back The White House.

Posted by: lylepink | May 18, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"the democrats are so fond of calling the republicans a bunch of war mongers and falsely attempt to claim some sort of wrecklessness and lack of legitimacy."

Well, in all fairness, the Republicans do have a long history of being appeasers (World War 2) and cut-and-runners (Vietnam, Lebanon), but times do change. That's what makes the history so irrelevant, because today's GOP bears little resemblance to the party of even 30 years ago.

Even when the party could be accused of warmongering, it was back in the Civil War, when the party was northern based and liberal. Maybe the Spanish American War too, but again, a northern based and pretty liberal, big government bunch.

Posted by: Spectator2 | May 18, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Sally


I have to say a posting like you made at 3:07 is completely inappropriate.


My only comment to you is I do not believe you have the best national security for this nation at heart.


Rather, you would rather gain a few points in overnight polling or win an election


People like us would sacrifice our strength around the world so that the left wing wackos can win an election in this country.


I do not agree with your venom and I do not agree with your hate.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 18, 2008 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Response to Sally


You are a hater

Posted by: you | May 18, 2008 6:50 AM | Report abuse

John Cole


Your blog entry deserves the tomatoe.


What are you talking about - there were not enough details in there ?


What there were not enough specifics so you could pick something out and make a massive divisive fight over that one detail?


It appears that your own little pathetic motives are at the heart of your complaints, not anything policy wise.

Your last comments are nothing but full of hate - they say more about you than policy - and they say nothing about the people you wish to tear down.

You are all about hate, not rational policy discussions.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 18, 2008 6:48 AM | Report abuse

Spectator2


Just want to give you some history of the parties - the democrats are so fond of calling the republicans a bunch of war mongers and falsely attempt to claim some sort of wrecklessness and lack of legitimacy.


You know everything is true.

It's the people who were initially for the war, not they are against the war, for motives which go not much further beyond a desire for domestic political position - those are the worthy of loathing.


The democrats have been for the war in 2002 and 2004, when it was easy for them to do that. 2006 well you can characterize their position that year.

The democrats have ACTUALLY poisoned the discussion in this country about the best course of action for national security for this country. Not only are their motives selfish and do not have have the nation's best interests at heart. But some of these people are willing to see this nation hurt abroad so they can win some elections here.

yea.

I am stating clearly, there are pathetic little people who do not care about the national security of this nation and simply want to stir passions here so they can win some elections or gain some advantage in overnight polling.

An aspect of that is a COMPLETE DISRESPECT fot the Americans who have died already in Iraq, because these people do not want to see the job through to completion - they want to throw away all our gains.

What are our gains?


We have created a young democracy in the Middle East - we have given people civil rights and a chance at a better future.


We have also shown the world that the US is about more than backing petty royal governments in the Gulf.


AND we have shown that the United States is willing to stand up and fight


- that was one of the major causes of 9/11 Bin Laden was convinced we would cut and run.


Well, he was right about some in the democratic party - however most Americans are willing to stand and fight.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 18, 2008 6:40 AM | Report abuse

The math simply doesn't add up for Obama. If he wins every primary from now until the convention, he still won't have enough delegates to win the nomination. I think he should drop out.

Posted by: rob | May 18, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Many of these "legitimizers" are the same dangerous loons who wouldn't mind seeing Israel turned into Palestine, after all the Israeli Jews are expelled!

You mean like the Secretary of State, Robert Gates, who said:

We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage with respect to the Iranians and then sit down and talk with them. If there's going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander with them not feeling that they need anything from us.

Another america-hater

Posted by: Spike | May 17, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Kindam off-topic, but very funny!

"Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is an American conservative pundit, a syndicated columnist, a best-selling author, a frequent television and radio guest, a self-described "polemicist," and a self-promoting dick. Best known for purveying hate, Coulter revels in the mass loathing she herself inspires, a delight so aberrational as to invite speculation that she may in fact be an alien life form. That, actually, would explain a lot."
(more here: http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Ann_Coulter

Posted by: eliana | May 17, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

This is my first - and last - time on this site. What a pathetic waste of time the semi-literate, spineless Liborats are! Of course, anyone minimizing the genocidal rantings of Adolf Ahmadingbat would gladly sit down with the little monster, if only to give him the image of legitimacy. Many of these "legitimizers" are the same dangerous loons who wouldn't mind seeing Israel turned into Palestine, after all the Israeli Jews are expelled!
Shalom (in the case, meaning "good-bye!)

Posted by: blackie | May 17, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

37th and O: your take on history is quite amusing.

The Republicans "got us out of Vietnam."

Eisenhower "stopped the war" in Korea.

Roosevelt "got us into World War 2."

Truman "got us into Korea."

These are some of the funniest statements I have ever seen on these boards. They display a simplemindedness that is breathtaking.

Posted by: Spectator2 | May 17, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Obviously the McCain spin was all about politics. But the substantive policy piece of this should not be ignored. As has been clarified on numerous occasions by Senator Obama, the candidates' policies are identical on the issue of Hamas--a terrorist organization with whom there will be no engagement. That symmetry is rather a shame. Current policy, including toward Hamas, is not working. It is not delivering security to Israelis or Palestinians, not advancing the peace process and not contributing to overall re-stabilization in a dangerously radicalized Middle East. Israel is currently in the midst of considering Egyptian-mediated ceasefire possibilities with Hamas. Very senior Israeli officials and ex-officials.

Is it a reasonable distinction for Sen. Obama to draw that Hamas is a non-state actor & therefore is not to-be-engaged with?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2420

.

Posted by: Frank, Austin TX | May 17, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Who's the candidate of Hamas?

Really, I don't see why we take statements from terrorists at face value. Hamas won the 2006 elections and seized control of the Gaza Strip thanks to the Bush-McCain policy. Now Hezbollah has taken western Beirut. These guys are pleased with how they're doing and they'd like to see the policy continue. Osama bin Laden pulled the same trick with his video release days before the 2004 election. People though he was supporting Kerry, but now even the CIA concludes that it was a calculated attempt to help Bush. Why would we fall for such a stunt again? The only way we're going to get things right is if we vote without fear.

Details and citations at: http://gawksquawk.blogspot.com/2008/05/whos-candidate-of-hamas.html

Posted by: Gawksquawk | May 17, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Wow. The election is really heating up now. But, you won't believe these poll results!

http://www.votenic.com

Posted by: John | May 17, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

No doubt, John McCain's attempt to lay out the goals of his prospective presidency was a worthy and honorable effort--but there was something deeply hilarious about it as well. Take his paragraph about Iraq:
'
By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.'

And the tooth fairy will spread giggle-juice throughout the land, and the Mets will win the World Series and I will lose 20 pounds while continuing to consume vast quantities of Chinese and Italian food.

Posted by: Joe | May 17, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Down The Rabbit Hole

Sullivan asks: "And did Bush's Nazi silliness unwittingly stomp on McCain's big speech today?"

To which I respond, if McCain is lucky. I briefly blogged about the McCain speech yesterday, asking why he chose 2013 as a good time to withdraw the troops, and after having some time last night to watch more of the speech and read the whole thing, I have my answer.

There is no answer. The whole speech is made up. It is all, every last word of it, pure fantasy. There was no outlining of plans, no presentation of facts that would lead you to believe all of the things he "sees" in his "vision" will come to pass- it was nothing but pure nonsense. Here is a partial list of things he sees in his "vision":

We "win" in Iraq. No mention of what "winning" actually means.

The Taliban is "defeated." How? Who knows?

We have a bigger Army and bigger Marine corps, and they are "better" trained and "better" equipped.

Bin Laden will be dead.

The economy will be "growing."

New trade agreements leading to increased exports. Who are the agreements with? Who knows? What are we exporting? Who cares?

Health care will be "affordable." How? FORCE OF WILL, BABY. Don't you know John McCain is a veteran!

And on and on and on it goes. He might as well have also promised to cure AIDS, give everyone a PONY, and promised time travel.

And what is so amazing about it is that most of the press seems to have taken this... seriously. Why was he not laughed off the stage? Why, after eight years of an administration making their own reality, is this buffoon offering us visions and people are not throwing tomatoes at him? This is insanity, plain and simple.

Posted by: John Cole | May 17, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

'Resident George W. Bush will join John McCain for a fundraiser in the Arizona senator's hometown later this month, McCain's campaign confirms. '

Isn't that sweet? the twins appearing in public together.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

what is wrong with these people's brains?

"As HuffPost's Jason Linkins reported earlier this week, the GOP's brand new slogan, "Change You Deserve", is also the registered advertising slogan of Effexor XR, an antidepressant drug.

Seeing as the GOP has scheduled a special meeting for next week to discuss their political slide, they may also want to consider coming up with a new slogan, especially as some in the party are questioning the wisdom of the current slogan. The New York Times reports:

Aides to Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said party leaders viewed the session as a continuation of their new "Change You Deserve" agenda and welcomed it as a chance for Republicans to provide feedback.[...[

Some lawmakers and Republican strategists have also asked why the leadership did not drop or refine its "Change You Deserve" message after it learned that it was also the slogan of an antidepressant drug, creating an easy punch line for Democrats."

Posted by: LOL | May 17, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- He was known as a presidential candidate with a sense of humor. But Mike Huckabee's joke at the National Rifle Association convention Friday was a dud.

Appearing in front of about 6,000 gun rights activists, Huckabee's speech was interrupted by a loud noise. The former Arkansas governor said, "That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He's getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he -- he dove for the floor."

The comment was immediately noted on news websites and by bloggers who found the crack about Obama getting shot at inappropriate."

no kidding.

Posted by: republican racist preacher | May 17, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

No question that repugs are terrorists, fearmongers, and liars.

Bush is the worst kind of human scum, but McCain may turn out to be just as bad--it's looking that way.

Posted by: Sally | May 17, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

nevadaandy, either you're 15 yrs old and secretly using the computer in mommy's basement, you're a complete idiot, or you're a troll, posting something insane to provoke a response.

So which is it?

Posted by: JD | May 17, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

McCain confuses his enemies again?

He told reporters that Hamas had called Israel a "rotting corpse."

Nope, that Ahmadinejad

http://swingstateofmind.com/?p=97

Posted by: Maassive | May 17, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Response to nevadaandy


AND the Weather Underground, and Obama's friends are not ???


Willima Ayers is not ???

With friends like Ayers EXACTLY what kind of administration does Obama want????


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

As a HC supporter I pray for the rapid and full recovery of Ted Kennedy as I am sure Hillary and the entire Clinton family and capaign will share.

We love you Teddy.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 17, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

The dictionary defines terror as "a state of intense fear," and terrorism as " the systematic use of terror esp. as a means of coercion."

Based on these definitions, the Republican party can be defined as a terroristic organization when they attempt to spread fear about the Democratic party in order to coerce votes for their candidate.

Posted by: nevadaandy | May 17, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

The dictionary defines terror as "a state of intense fear," and terrorism as " the systematic use of terror esp. as a means of coercion."

Based on these definitions, the Republican party can be defined as a terroristic organization when they attempt to spread fear about the Democratic party in order to coerce votes for their candidate.

Posted by: nevadaandy | May 17, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

The dictionary defines terror as the "state of intense fear," and terrorism as "the systematic use of terror esp. as a means of coercion."

Based on these definitions, the Republican party can be classified as spreading terrorism when they attempt to spread fear about how the Democrats would respond to terrorists in order to coerce votes for their candidate.

Posted by: nevadaandy | May 17, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"In elections past, Democrats have sought to avoid an extended fight with Republicans over foreign policy,"
But never has any administration fouled up foreign policy quite so badly as the Bush administration has.
Iraq, of course, is the epitome. but the Bush League has fouled up everything from abandoning teh Kyoto Protocol to sabotaging the World Court.
On 9/11, we had teh world's sympathy. Today, we have the world's disgust.

Posted by: Frank Palmer | May 17, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

ibsage


Is this the Obama campaign talking? The Obama campaign puts staffers on shifts here - does that limit apply to each staffer at Obama headquarters or to each shift or to the campaign itself?


ibsage Lets be clear here, the abuses on here are from the Obama campaign


And the Obama people.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

why doesn't everyone make a comitment to limit themselves to a max of three posts on any blog topic. if you can't say it in three tries, you probably don't have anything to say.

Posted by: ibsage | May 17, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Another state along with W Va for Obama to write off:

Rassmussen 5-17-08

Arkansas:

McCain 57% Obama 33% +24
HC 53% McCain 39% +14

Obama certainly is agreed to be better general election candidate as long as HC is willing to go to W Va and Arkansas and campaign for him.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 17, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse


OK nclwtk


(if you want to call that a name)


Say something useful and provocative


I dare you.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

The democrats are simply attempting to gain some extra points in the overnight polling - for that they are willing to sacrifice the national security of this nation.

Obama is weak on terrorism.

Bill Clinton was weak on terrorism - do I have to get the list of terrorist incidents that the democrats did little to counter.


- the first World Trade Center bombing New York 1993


- the Khobar Towers - US personnel


- the bombing of the US embassey in Kenya


- the bombing of the US embassey in Tanzania


- the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen


OK so the democrats did ALMOST NOTHING in response to these incidents.

What happened? They kept on coming at us until 3000 Americans were killed.

Yes, I am saying that Bill Clinton was WEAK on terrorism and that was in part a reason for 9/11.

NOW the democrats are OFFERING US THE SAME SOLUTION - WEAKNESS ON TERRORISM.

Somehow the democrats are attempting to convince the country that "if we ignore them, they will go away."

Lets send Obama back to Hyde Park where he can hang out with Bill Ayers and keep Obama away from the White House.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Why do idiots get to post without giving a name? How can two people be allowed to take up all this space on the blog without having much useful to say, once, let alone the constant repeating?

Garbage in, garbage out especially when so many have so much useful and provocative things to say

Posted by: nclwtk | May 17, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Oracle


your post at 10:49 makes no sense


you said you looked it up and found I was correct


However you still claim I am wrong - why dont you simply admit you are wrong???

If you are so close, visit Robert E. Lee's house today and get some history.

This country is safer now than compared to 8 years ago.


8 years ago they were convinced we would not stand and fight -

bin Laden was right about one thing - the democrats do cut and run.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Oracle


your post at 10:49 makes no sense


you said you looked it up and found I was correct


However you still claim I am wrong - why dont you simply admit you are wrong???

If you are so close, visit Robert E. Lee's house today and get some history.

This country is safer now than compared to 8 years ago.


8 years ago they were convinced we would not stand and fight -

bin Laden was right about one thing - the democrats do cut and run.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse


Oracle I just want you to see your party for what it is


When they saw some electoral advantage in the Iraq war, they were in favor of it.

In fact, the democrats were afraid to go through the 2002 elections without supporting the war.


In 2004, the democrats were AGAIN in favor of the war

What are you talking about ????

The democrats turned on a strong national security policy for this country.


WHY? They see some extra votes in it - the democrats dont really care about finishing the job in the Middle East, they dont care about what the right foreign policy is for our country.


They just want a few extra votes - they dont care if that means taking a chance on the nation's security.

That is what INEXPERIENCE will do to you - make one willing to take chances.

I would rather see a leader who does not want to take chances with our national security.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Lol. It might be LISTED as a Civil war Cemetary. But make no mistake, its VETERANS Cemetary genius. Anyway, I grow tired. Your weak arguments keep getting shot down and you have no right to speak about making anybody safer with Bush and the last 8 yrs. period.

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Oracle

Then if you can see that, look up and see that house? That is Robert E. Lee's house. Arlington was his family farm.
They took over the property and made it a Civil War cemetery.

OK, why don't you go over there and get some information?

Then go get your voter registration and switch parties because obviously you are mistaken about Obama - he is not who you think he is.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

To be honest, I can almost see the Tomb of the UNknown from my post. Whens the last time you been their armchair patriot??

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Oracle


The democrats are weak on terror


William Ayers is a good friend of Obama.


Clinton pardoned some of Ayer's friends - see how close they all really are??


Obama is weak on national security and foreign policy

Why take a chance on this inexperienced kid who prefers to go on book tours to actually holding hearings on foreign policy as Chairman of a Senate Committee ???


The more you think about it, the more it is a joke.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Ya know.....As a matter of fact, I work there. Actually at Ft. Myer which is adjacent to Arlington Cemetary. I watch old Generals and young men from the Iraq war get buried there almost everyday.

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Lol. No Obama campaign man here. Just an informed voter watching you guys hate yourself into a hypocritical early grave.

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Oracle


Did you look up the Arlington cemetery and find out how wrong you are ????


Please do and get back to us.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Yea.....right. So....We shudn't have went into World wars 1 and 2?? Lol. Your arguments get less relevant by the post. Kennedy and Johnson did start the Vietnam war. I'm not a fan of it, but I could understand trying to stem the tide of Communism. But who kept it going when it was clear it was not going anywhere?? Yep, a republican. That war was at least started for a reason. But this one WAS NOT!!!! Care to go on??

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Oracle are you alone at Obama headquarters???

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

'You really are stupid - Obama's campaign PRE-PLANNED to take some relatively innocent comment from the Clintons and TWIST it around in order to pretend to be "OFFENDED" right before SuperTuesday.'

Bill Maher(sp) had a name for such tactics. He called it False Outrage.

Its typical Old School politics of the worst sort from the hypocritical campaign of supposed New Politics.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 17, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Oracle


The democrats got us into most of the wars in the past 100 years


Wilson

Roosevelt

Truman Korea


Kennedy Johnson - Vietnam

Eisenhower actually stopped the war in Korea


The Republicans got us out of Vietnam.

Who are you trying to kid ?


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Its a shame you've fallen into ill-bred preconceived notions. Look, he ran a better campaign. Maybe if she didn't run on a incumbent mantra, and she planned past super Tuesday i'd be getting ready to vote for her in Nov and not Obama. Oh well, Ce la vie!!!!

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Oracle


I suggest you start doing some research before start talking.


First, walk over to the other room at Obama headquarters and find out what really happened with the PRE-PLANNING of being "OFFENDED" by something right before SuperTuesday.

Then you can tell us the truth - just get the story because I really believe that you do not know - so ask someone else on the Obama campaign right next to you.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Ever seen Lions for Lambs?? That is your Republicans, and alot of their supporters.

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

They lower taxes for the rich and then send the lower class off to fight. Real patriotism there.

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Lol. If the Dems are weak on terror. The Repugnicans are are weak on the economy ans stupid on terror. Wheres Bin Laden?? Wheres the WMD?? You guys haven't a clue.

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

And this from a man who thinks Arlington Cemetary is a "Civil War" Cemetary?? Yea, okay, uhhhhhh. What ever you say man.

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Oracle


Thank you for bringing that up - the democrats are weak on terrorism.


The Weatherman were volunteering at the DNC during the Clinton years.


Thank you for pointing that out.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Oracle

Obama is not an elitist, but an elitist-wanna-be.

There is a big difference.

The difference is elitists are willing to criticize other elitists, because they are secure in their position, and they know that criticism and truth will not hurt their position.


Obama is an elitist-wanna-be.

Elitist-wanna-bes are pathetic little people who are afraid to say anything, criticize anyone for fear of the real elitists tossing them aside - Obama is a hanger-on, a pathetic little man.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

And for you well well well, look. The last Dog has died, we're buring it now. Give up, I know its just easier to blame other people for your woes. Be a man.

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

And lets turn this into a policy debate. Actually, taking Saddam out strengthend Iran. Iraq was Iran's mortal enemy. It also weakened our economy. It is now the most exspensive war in our HISTORY!!!!! Come on man, at least try to SOUND intelligent.

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Graytok


I believe you have issues with the truth when it does not support your side.

How about embracing the truth?

- Obama has been "pushed ahead" by affirmative action on practically every point on his resume.


- Obama has no experience.


- Obama has not held hearing in the only Chairmanship he has been given - ironically in foreign policy


- Obama instead of going to Washington and doing his job, went on a book tour.

- Obama DOES have experience with terrorists - his friend Bill Ayers.


The truth is out.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Actually you Dumba$$, its a veterans Cemetary. Did JFK fight in the civil war?? Who's Stupid??

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Oracle


You really are stupid - Obama's campaign PRE-PLANNED to take some relatively innocent comment from the Clintons and TWIST it around in order to pretend to be "OFFENDED" right before SuperTuesday.


It was in their campaign strategy.


They did not care that it made Obama a hypocrite with his campaign theme of a post-racial canidate, transcending the old politics of race.

Instead, Obama embraced the old politics.

I really think you are too stupid to make comments here.

Posted by: Well Well Well | May 17, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Oracle


Not sure what you meant by that stupid remark Arlington is a Civil War cemetery. Are you somehow implying you are against the Civil War which freed the slaves?

What is your point really?

Why don't you make your point and attempt to support it so we can shred your position to pieces????

Saddam Husseing was giving the families of suicide bombers $25,000 each as an incentive to kill civilians.


That pretty much makes him a war criminal -

yea


In addition, at the end of this we are going to have a stable democracy in Iraq.

I understand you want to throw away the democracy in Iraq - so that you can claim a few extra points on your overnight polling in the US.

The point is our national security is stronger because we are rid of Saddam Hussein who WAS giving money to terrorists who WERE suicide bombers.

We simply did not want him to start doing that here in the US.


It was smart to get rid of him.


NOW the democrats see some extra votes in turning yellow.


That is no way to run a foreign policy.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Hillary who? At least that is settled.

Insofar as "inserting" Iraq into the campaign dialogue.... bring it on. It is just one of the multitudinous policy stink bombs of the Bush/McCain cabal, a real softball for Obama.

The campaign against Obama will be VERY personal... the GOP has nowhere else to go.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 17, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Come on dude. You know that was the media who hyped up a dumb statement from Clinton. Why do ya'll love scapegoats?? I'll say this much. do I think it was a racist statement?? No. But whats good for the goose is good for the Gander. if you all can jump on the "bittergate" comment, why can't we speak on snap comments??

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

I must take issue with your comment that this remark was pre-planned by Bush.


That is illogical on several levels.


One is that the Republicans want to distance themelves from Bush - see the Al Hunt interview with Rep. Davis -

The other is I doubt Bush is now a surrogate speaker for McCain - where did you get that wacky idea?

INSTEAD - this was pre-planned by OBAMA'S PEOPLE, JUST LIKE THE ATTACK ON BILL CLINTON'S SUPPOSED 'OFFENSIVE' REMARKS AFTER SOUTH CAROLINA.

Chris I am not sure how you got this idea - sounds like you do not have a source in the White House - but you are repeating a talking point of Obama's campaign.

I would really like to see the media IDENTIFY the talking points of the campaign when they are repeated - too many times this year the media has been "reporting" the talking points almost like they are original ideas or even facts.

Hasn't anyone learn the lessons from Judy Miller and the aluminium tubes on the front page of the new york times ????


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 17, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

I don't look down on people. I just can't stand incessant crying, complaining, and hating. Get over yourselves. You go around voting for the people who pander to you. Instead of who tells you the truth. Then you attack a man for flimsy ridiculous connections, when the other candidates have Arlington Cemetary in their closets.

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

The stupid part of that comment is that is that you people truly believe that a man that was once on food stamps is an elitest. While the candidates you support are MULTI-millionaires. How simple minded can you be??

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Yep, while the Republicans attack Obama so fiercely, they are ignoring the ethics problems McCain is facing in his campaign posse--that one is going to blow sky high!--his obvious lack of knowledge about the economy that would push the US into even more debt if he were anywhere near the Presidency, his wife's tortured and twisted past (if the Reps make Michelle a target, Cindy is fair game and she is a heck of alot more vulnerable that Michelle to swift boating), McCains long record of double-talk, his sucking up with Pres Bush....the list goes on. For ever single petty objection you lob at Obama, there can be ten more incoming aimed at McCain. But if you want to be as delusional as your candidate, keep them coming.

Oh, by the way: any of you want to take on McCain's 'dream' that we will have won in Iraq by the end of his first term with his SERIOUS backpedaling on his bus once someone nudged him and told him what he had actually said? He was fighting his own words just hours after he said them.

Yep, that's a real leader for you. Waffling within hours of statements. The doubletalk express at its finest.

Posted by: Kitty | May 17, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

The Oracle - it appears that you "look down" on people which you do not agree with.


sort of like Obama looking down on people who are from small towns.

How pathetic you "faux elitists" you are.

I don't find Obama to be elite.

Obama is more like an "elitist-wanna-be" - There is nothing elite about him - and affirmative action kid who is way beyond his ability - so he simply continues to thrive on lies and twisting people's words around.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

I have to agree with Graytok.

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Gosh, the Republicans must REALLY be running scared to take over a blog and posst the same terrorist attack emails over and over again. Unlike the material you focus on, many of us open-minded folks are quite capable of reading the news and digesting it without spin, and the fact is that Obama is doing GREAT--ergo the McCain supporters desperate ploy to overwhelm blogs everywhere.

BTW, if you are going to attack every slip that Obama makes (he meant 57 primaries), I think you need to step back and understand that YOUR candidate is the master of all slippage, and you are indeed on s slippery slope that will end up doing much more harm to McCain in the long run.

Posted by: Graytok | May 17, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

So you shud be mad that Bill Clinton pardoned 2 of the CONVICTED Weatherman huh??

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Oh yea Obama is qualified to talk to terrorists - Obama has a great deal of EXPERIENCE TALKING TO BILL AYERS


That is ONE AREA OBAMA REALLY DOES HAVE EXPERIENCE IT.

I guess Axelrod IS attempting to highlight the areas of Obama's resume in which Obama actually does have EXPERIENCE.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

This is a very good point - what is Obama qualified to do beyond organize a bunch of latte liberals and win a bunch of caucus states in which the democrats are concentrated on the far left?


Oh yea.


The other thing Obama is qualified to do is pretend that comments are "offensive" - like when he united the black community behind him by twisting around some remarks by Bill Clinton.


Obama is also qualified to talk to terrorist like William Ayers - and work with him to win a State Senate seat in a district heavily populated by the black community.

Oh, Obama is qualified to go on a book tour as well - has anyone actually sat down, listed out the qualifications one would think a President would need - and consider whether Obama is qualified???


Posted by: Well Well Well | May 17, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Lol. I see the dumba$$'s are out......

Posted by: The Oracle | May 17, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

The truth of the matter is Obama is weak on foreign policy.


The democrats gave him the chairmanship of a foreign policy committee.


AND Obama did not do his job - he never held hearings - the one area which was handed to him - which he could build up his resume by actually doing something - he did not do his job.

Just like when Obama went to Washington as a Senator.

Obama did not do his job - he went on a book tour - collecting a paycheck everyweek along the way.

yea

Why Obama's team would seek out a foreign policy issue right now is a little stupid - why highlight a weakness?


Chris one has to wonder how good Obama's team really is - it appears they have been making some mistakes - I for one believe that Obama is not qualified in the foreign policy field.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Obama said, " I will meet with the leaders of terrorist nations without preconditions when I become President".

Now he says, "I never said that!!! They are lying on me Blah blah blah, blah...."

Can't this man get his act together? He is NOT READY to be Commander-in-Chief!!!!!!

I am so tired of hearing about his WHITE GRANDPARENTS....he never talks about his BLACK GRANDPARENTS or either of his fathers....the African or the man who was step-dad. Mom doesn't get a lot of play either. Maybe she too was "typical white person".

He needs to explain...REZKO, AUCHI, and so much more.............NOT TO MENTION MR SINCLAIR.............. AND WHAT HE KNOWS ABOUT THE MURDER OF THE GAY CHOIR DIRECTOR FROM HIS CHURCH.

Posted by: Ebonyflash | May 17, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Chris:


We are going to have to keep a close eye on Obama - manufacturing false issues. This is a trick basically - make an issue out of something someone said which really was not intended.

Obama's team is not very good.


Bush's comments were aimed at Carter, not Obama.


I am not sure why Obama decided to make this an issue at this point - on a subject which Obama is weak.

Observers will note that the comment was not about Obama - then Obama has the nerve to bunch Bush and McCain together - as if they have been best buddies for years.

Obama is a bit out of his element.


If Obama wants to tie McCain to Bush, Obama is basically practicing a deception - and once the American public gets the whole story, they will come to the conclusion that Obama is a liar just like Bill Clinton.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 17, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Obama said, " I will meet with the leaders of terrorist nations without preconditions when I become President".

Now he says, "I never said that!!! They are lying on me Blah blah blah, blah...."

Can't this man get his act together? He is NOT READY to be Commander-in-Chief!!!!!!

I am so tired of hearing about his WHITE GRANDPARENTS....he never talks about his BLACK GRANDPARENTS or either of his fathers....the African or the man who was step-dad. Mom doesn't get a lot of play either. Maybe she too was "typical white person".

He needs to explain...REZKO, AUCHI, and so much more.............NOT TO MENTION MR SINCLAIR.............. AND WHAT HE KNOWS ABOUT THE MURDER OF THE GAY CHOIR DIRECTOR FROM HIS CHURCH.

Posted by: Ebonyflash | May 17, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Obama said, " I will meet with the leaders of terrorist nations without preconditions when I become President".

Now he says, "I never said that!!! They are lying on me Blah blah blah, blah...."

Can't this man get his act together? He is NOT READY to be Commander-in-Chief!!!!!!

I am so tired of hearing about his WHITE GRANDPARENTS....he never talks about his BLACK GRANDPARENTS or either of his fathers....the African or the man who was step-dad. Mom doesn't get a lot of play either. Maybe she too was "typical white person".

He needs to explain...REZKO, AUCHI, and so much more.............NOT TO MENTION MR SINCLAIR.............. AND WHAT HE KNOWS ABOUT THE MURDER OF THE GAY CHOIR DIRECTOR FROM HIS CHURCH.

Posted by: Ebonyflash | May 17, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Incidentally jnoel who is convinced that Sen Obama will win 49 states includind W Va, Ted Koppel said in San Antonio yesterday that it is McCain's election to lose so you Obama supporters need to wake up and get off of your high horse and stop presuming that you can just stomp your feet and that 48 per cent of the party will just line up behind your guy because you insist they must.

jnoel; 'I am absolutely certain that Obama is the strongest general election candidate.'

absolutely certain like every other Obama suupporter.

reality; today's Gallup Poll

Obama 45 McCain 45
HC 48 McCain 45

So much for that know it all absolue certainty.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 17, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Colin, Bokonon, and Blarg:

If you see this, pls drop me a note from a dummy email if you want - some of us want to hear from you.

mark_in_austin@operamail.com

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 17, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's plummets Obama in West Virginia and raises serious doubts over Barack Obama's ability.
It is a fact that no Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia, Obama lost West Virginia by more than 40 points, an enormous fall, voters who went against Obama -- white, rural, older, low-income and without college degrees -- don't just live in West Virginia. They live everywhere in the country, in places Obama needs to win in a general election. In anticipation of the West Virginia primary, college students for Obama were hurling insults at farmers and truck drivers. Now we hear pained remarks from the Obama camp that many white men won't vote for any black. Oh really? No one was complaining during the early races in Iowa, Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin, when most of the white male participants backed Obama. That was before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ugliness became public. Obama's inability to persuade working-class white voters to back him points to serious problem for him in the presidential election. A large percentage of voters who backed Mrs Clinton said they would not vote for Obama in the presidential race if he becomes the nominee. Disrespecting the nearly 17 million who have supported Clinton is politically unwise, but turning them into "the enemy" is insane. Bill Clinton presided over the longest peacetime expansion since World War II. His budget surpluses put his so-called conservative predecessors and successor to shame. Wouldn't a vow to build on the Clinton legacy, rather than dismantle it, be a better tack for the Obama campaign? More proof Obama is to inexperienced and as a political elite out of touch with everyday America, Obama received glowing, it's-over-he-is-the-nominee coverage for the past six days, and that amounted to nothing in West Virginia. One has to wonder if the giddy praise and tingling feelings jolting up the legs of ALL at CNN and the Chris Matthewses, Keith Olbermanns cable news "Wright-free zones" of the world amounts to a hill of beans. Voters have figured out the biased media and no longer relying on them for truth!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA LIES AGAIN AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA LIKE CNN HIDES IT!
VOTERS ARE SICK OF THE MEDIA EXCUSING OBAMA NO MATTER WHO HE OFFENDS!!!!

Sen. Obama referres to himself as 'a constitutional law professor on the campaign trail. TRUTH: He never held any such title! Obama changed website bio to reflect that he was a 'lecturer' rather than 'professor. Chicago Daily Herald

Obama gets 4 Pinocchio's for 100 Years War-Wondered why the national media won't call out Obama for his serial distortions on McCain's Iraq comments, the Globe tried to help Obama rationalize it. Michael Dobbs scolded Obama in today's Fact Checker


MSNBC-OBAMA: ANOTHER SUPER, EXAGGERATION
Washington Post caught Obama in a lie about the Kennedy family role.
The WashigntonPost Fact Check- Senator Obama CAUGHT LYING about Kennedy Role in Helping His Father Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were approached for support for the program a year later, July 1960. family responded with a $100,000 donation, which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

Judicial Watch:
By Klaus Marre-Obama 'intended to leave no paper trail' OBAMA REFUSES to cooperate in releasing 8 years of his state senate records. One main reason REZKO!

Politico reports, "During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than he acknowledges in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion- positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he's projected during his presidential campaign. The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group's detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his bid for a state Senate. In response to a Politico story, Obama's answers he never saw questioaire?

NBC- Aswini Anburajan
OBAMA LIES IN PENNSYLVANIA AD
It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. In his ad, Obama says, I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more. Obama has been the recipient of more than $220,000 from the oil and gas industry just since as of Feb/08. Two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per his campaign Web site? Obama needs to answer to VOTERS about his dealings with one of his largest contributors Exelon, a big nuclear power company that he cut deals behind closed doors protecting them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry. Exxon, Shell, and others are among his biggest donors

Obamas record shows he infact did support the war when he got to the senate, voted twice against bringing America's troops back home. He voted for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater where Texas woman, was gang-raped by her co-workers at a Halliburton/KBR camp in Baghdad, His latest bit of posturing S 433 allows the Bush Administration to suspend any troop withdrawal, if not suspended, keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come

Obama said he goofed on votes angered fellow Democrats in the Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed! Also announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote. He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said. Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said. But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside. The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

Obama Flip-Flops
1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support
2. Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.
3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."
4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."
5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.
Obama at Wright's church, signing books with Wright's praise, praying with his kids in the pews and more. see below. no wonder Obama is hustling those SDs and telling Hillary to leave the race so much. Tip of the iceberg?
Art3
http://www.newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2007/03/hallelujah_bara.html
watch video of Obama and HIS CHILDREN AT SERVICES AT WRIGHTS CHURCH...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7DGI_IqX24
CHICAGO MEDIA COVERING UP OBAMA WRIGHT FOOTAGE
During the recent media super storm: Obama's Pastor Disaster, CBS 2 Chicago has strangely not released video they have of Obama at Trinity United Church of Christ for a Book Signing / Church Service with Pastor Wright. According to a Chicago Tribune article, at the Service Obama spoke to the cheering congregation and the choir sang, "Hallelujah Barack". After the service Wright and Obama sat together, laughing , talking and signing books. Leaving one to wonder, if a republican candidate had this sort of controversy swirling around would the footage have found it's way to the national and cable news networks by now?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Reason Obama said he wanted to be President of ALL 57 states. Keep in mind U.S. doesn't have 57, but...ISLAM is what he is talking about!
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is an international organization grouping fifty seven states which have decided to pool their resources together, combine their efforts, and speak with one voice to safeguard the interests and secure the progress and well-being of their peoples and of all Muslims in the world.

BOYCOTT CNN & MSNBC for manipulating the Presidential election with the biased pushing of obama before researching.

http://www.dontvoteobama.net.

VOTERS DEMAND Obamas tell America about their relationship with Ayers, Gadaffi Syrian tycoon, Antoin Rezko, Saudi Arabian Scheiks and Nadhami Auchi, Iraqi billionaire, global arms dealer who was best friends with Saddam Hussein, and the main financial backer for Saddam's Iraqi -Saudi oil pipeline, and stood trial with Saddam Hussein for conspiring to assassinate Iraqi President Qasim. VOTERS are concerned why CNN & MSNBC refuse to question those relationships, coupled with Obama's 20 plus yrs with Rev. Wright shows a serious pattern, which Obama seems quite comfortable with people who really, really, really HATE U.S of America. If you question him or his values or policies, you're part of the "divisive, distracting" practices voters associate with Washington. Them's the Obama Rules.

Obama's chief political adviser David Alexrod on National Public Radio claimed white working class Democrats barely exist and hardly matter, white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, This is not new, WE don't need or rely solely on those votes.

Obama wants to impose 20% tax on cost of Barrel Of Oil Above $80 which again drives up Cost Of Gasoline On Americans! why doesn't Obama Acknowledge Fuel Costs For Truckers Hurt The American Consumer? Increasing Cost Of Everything Including Food, Retail, And Manufactured Goods.

Obama Claims That He Does Not Accept Contributions From Federal Lobbyists, records show he has accepted $128,000 From Lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Obama calls For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Investment Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As "Massive New Domestic Spending and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system.

Obama Pandered To MoveOn.org By Promising Not To Fund Troops In Iraq In The Future. "Eli Pariser, [MoveOn.org's] Executive Director, told ABC news but Obamas senate record shows he voted against bringing troops home, voted for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater, voted with Bush/Chaney posturing S433 to suspend any troop withdrawal which keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come.

Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption.
Obama Said The U.S. Needs To Focus On Afghanistan, Obama has held Zero hearings as Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs. "Doubts about Barack Obama's presidential credentials have crystallized over his stewardship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs, which has convened no policy hearings since he took over as its chairman last January.

Obama inconsistent explaining how Genocide in Iraq would affect his plan for withdrawal: Ambassador Crocker said that a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq could result in genocide and if that began to emerge as an issue, would you stop the withdrawal?" Obama: of course. Obama Previously Said Preventing Genocide Would Not Be A Sufficient Reason To Remain In Iraq.

Why Is Barack Obama Silent On SEIU Attacks After Denouncing Similar Independent Expenditures Earlier In The Primaries? Labor Unions And Other Independent Groups Have Already Spent Over $7.1 Million In Support Of Obama's Campaign for the presidential nomination, campaign records show.

Obama's racial stereotype of the 'typical White person' and his view of the 'typical small town person.quoted as disparaging residents of small towns in Pennsylvania as being "like a lot of small towns in the Midwest" where "it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Obama is unapologetic, even dissing of voters in Florida and Michigan one has to wonder what groups of Americans he really respects?

Racist wife, Michelle, saying she was proud of America "for the first time" only because of her husband's presidential run.

Obama explained he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin or hold his hands to his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance because it is a substitute for patriotism,

Obama loses to Hillary Clinton in a face to face debate in Phil, next day gives her the finger behind her back in a speech in NC. What a man! And the Obama fans were laughing with him, reminding me of the congregation in Reverend Wright's church cheering and patting him on the back during his racist sermons

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2008 8:26 AM | Report abuse

DREAM ON!

This is the guy who refuse to debate Clinton???

Mr Big Mouth Obama is an absolute WIMP!!!!

He is non-electable!

He wants to debate as he believes himself to be the Candidate!

The Audacity of Stupidity!!!!

Posted by: Steve Mc | May 17, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

DREAM ON!

This is the guy who refuse to debate Clinton???

Mr Big Mouth Obama is an absolute WIMP!!!!

He is non-electable!

He wants to debate as he believes himself to be the Candidate!

The Audacity of Stupidity!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

The thrill of seeing Obama move into general campaign mode and hit his stride is tangible.

This is a man who will be able to link McCain to the failed policies of the Bush administration with the strength, intelligence and honesty that we have needed for so long.

Now it's time for us to get *fired up*.

If you haven't been to an Obama speech or rally, or have, and want to take it with you, you can get the Obama iMix--the entire rally setlist--all the way from U2's "City of Blinding Lights", to which Obama takes the stage, to the Obama victory anthem "Signed, Sealed, Delivered" at ITunes, here:

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewIMix?id=273868596&s=143441&v0=575

Posted by: Cara Prado | May 17, 2008 6:57 AM | Report abuse

It's good to see the Limbaugh Republicans stop pretending to be Hillary supporters in their posts.

Posted by: drossless | May 17, 2008 1:59 AM | Report abuse

Reason:
WTF are you smoking? There are 154 EVs listed as being within the margin of error. Many of these states have a distance one-third the size of the margin of error? Do you understand what a "margin of error" is? Since you can't draw any conclusions about "who will win" from those numbers, this race is a dead heat right now.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Chris, it would be really useful thing if the people in your profession were even slightly motivated to use your incomparably influential positions to try to help to educate the American electorate into the 21st century.

There may be a subtle line between fighting for the truth and attacking error but it is of HUGE psychological importance.

Senator Obama has proven time and time again that he really gets that crucial distinction and uses it WISELY (as he did here). And America's foreign policy will be IMMEASURABLY better for that understanding once he's elected president.

(And America as a whole would be vastly better off if only our MSM could just get a CLUE about human relations.)

Posted by: Carmen Cameron | May 17, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

Obama has been holding back on the political attack, due to the primaries and his intrinsic regard, respect and deference to Sen. Clinton, and his Democratic rivals. It stands to reason that Barrack Obama been building up a head of steam.

Now that he has pivoted toward the general Sen. Mc Cain, Mr. Bush and Republicans down ballot better know
that a fast and furious political train is coming their way.
This Chicago guy likes to scrap and debate. He has some legitamate steam to blow off. His other party opposition and their media extremist allies have been hiding behind Hillary's skirt, while taking very nasty swipes.
Now, in fairness, its his turn to hit back.
This race will be one for the ages.

Posted by: empireport | May 17, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Obama - The Smart President.

"I will meet with the President of Canada."

"We need more Arabic translators in Afghanistan".

"I've been to about 57 states."

Sen Obama, I'm not Harvard educated but I know that Canada has a prime minister, that the two prevelant languages in Afghanistan are Pastun and Urdu, and that we have only 50 states (though only 48 of them count in your world).

Obama - George W. Bush Redux

Posted by: The Truth | May 17, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

McCaine should've just zipped the lip and stayed on the sidelines. Plenty of time to argue about this AFTER he's (tried) to put a little distance between him and Bush. "George Bush's Third Term"??

Posted by: DonJasper | May 16, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

As of now in that polling, there are a few close states.

Toss-up states: New Mexico, Colorodo, North Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina & Florida. 13 toss up states, and McCain leads in 11 while Obama leads in 2.

Posted by: reason | May 16, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

I encourage everyone to go to the site reason linked to. I doubt what you see there would make McCain feel good at all.

Posted by: Spectator2 | May 16, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

I see that the wingnut trolls and the race-baiting Obama haters have nothing better to do on a Friday night than spew. Carry on.

Posted by: Go figure | May 16, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

I think that if the MSM wasn't so lame, we would not be stuck with candidates that are so lame.

Posted by: Aaron | May 16, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

According to the most recent polling numbers, if the election were held today John McCain would win it. The order would go as following.

McCain wins: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin & Wyoming. McCain wins 32 states.

Obama wins: California, Colorodo, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania (that's right Clinton fans, Obama now leads McCain in Pa. handily), Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington & DC. Obama wins 18 states + DC.

McCain: wins 32 states with 301 Electoral votes

Obama: wins 18 states + DC with 237 Electoral votes.

New President of the United States of America: John McCain.

This is not my prediction or anyone else's. Many of these states are currently polling at 1% or less. Never the less, this is the current state of the race.

http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/polls08.htm

Posted by: reason | May 16, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

TO JOYCE

It seems that you have not read well my post.

IT IS NOT ME SAYING these Negatives of OBAMA, it was and is HILLARY, and by doing so, she is probably intentionally provoking
his loss in November, sothat SHE could become the candidate in 2012

IT THIS NOW CLEAR ??

TOM

Posted by: caminito | May 16, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Do the candidates know of the circle in the square?
Do that get asked to put a circle in the square with an eye or signal over it so that at times it sounds like the candidate?
And does the US government and the NYTimes record it with the birth of 101 SSA#, an article of birth and a following just like the candidate?
In my opinion the answers are:

a)probably not
b)most likely not again if they actually knew what it meant
c)defintely yes and I can prove it.


Sincerely
dePaul Consiglio
101------

Posted by: dePaul Consiglio | May 16, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

A Democratic candidate confidently and strongly standing up for himself? Is it Christmas already?

Posted by: aleks | May 16, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Dear Caminito....
You are NOT typical. From your post, it seems that you envy/hate - "conciently or inconciently" - people you think are "interlectual" elites. Me...I'll take the smart guy - Obama. I want a president who understands the middle class problems - which Obama does, he lived them. But, I hope to God the president is smarter than me or anybody I know. Bush wasn't. And McCain is not too bright either.

Posted by: Joyce | May 16, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

I want the Republicans to bring it on. I love when Obama fights, because he is so good at it. Believe me they really don't want to mess with this guy. He is so tactical until it's not funny. He knows how to let the challenger underestimate him and then he just trounces to the point they are so dizzy when they come to they have scurry away and wonder what happen to them. Finally, a smart President.

Posted by: Dee, Washington, DC | May 16, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

How to become the Democratic nominee 101:

Black politicians less gifted than Harold (Washington) discovered what white politicians had known for a very long time: that race-baiting could make up for a host of limitations. Young leaders, eager to make a name for themselves, upped the ante, pedaling conspiracy theories all over town-the Koreans were funding the Klan, Jewish doctors were injecting black babies with the AIDS virus. It was a short cut to fame, if not always fortune; like sex, or violence on TV, black rage always found a ready market. Barack Obama. - Dreams from My Father (Chapter Chicago, Pg 203. 1995. 2004.)

But in 2008, the conspiracy theory de jour is, the Clintons are racists.

Posted by: The Truth | May 16, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

DO NOT BLAME THE GOP BECAUSE THEY USE AGAINST OBAMA THE ARGUMENTS HILLARY SERVED
THEM ON A SILVER TRAY, STATING THAT HE IS UNELECTIBLE (HIDING THE FACT THAT SHE IS MUCH MORE SO!!)

She stated or implied:

- Being BLACK, he cannot ber the candidate of older white (also Latino and Asian
people, which conciently or inconciently are still racist (it increases with their age)
- Being an ELITIST, he could not represent Blue Collars and poor
- Being a LEFT WING interlectual, he is out
of contact with the typical citizen.
- Wanting to meet with anti-US dictators without preconditions, shows INEXPERIENCE
AND INNOCENSE (Compared by Bush by the entrappment by HITLER of UK's Chamberlain,
one of the causes of WWII)
- Being ANTI-AMERICAN (Wright, Pin, Michelle's misstatement)

SADLY, THIS WILL COST THE DEM'S THE PRESIDENCY

tom

Posted by: caminito | May 16, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama takes on a president whose approval ratings are in the high teens when he says something that the entire Democratic party denounces as ridiculous?...Wow. I'm impressed.

-------------------------------------

Nobody care whether you are impressed or not - - you are definitely not impressive, you do not even have enough respect for yourself to provide a name to your unimpressive comment.

Posted by: Dee, Washington, DC | May 16, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

I think it is in Bush, Cheney, their pals the Saudis and all the other oil profiteers' best interest to keep the OIL WARS going. Follow the money! Look who is making the big bucks...Chevron, Exxon, British Petroleum, ets. are raking in HUGE profits. Wake up America!

Posted by: John | May 16, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

charko...I guess you forgot who was president when we won WWII.

Posted by: Joyce | May 16, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Our current president is such a dullard it is embarrassing.

1. Applying Bush's statement to recent world events, he himself is an appeaser. During his tenure, our government has negotiated with Libya, Iran and North Korea.

2. Obama was right to go after Bush and McCain. Bush administration officials have confirmed it was an attack on both Obama and Carter. And McCain obviously seconded the remarks. Even if Bush didn't mean Obama, McCain did.

3. Bush obviously doesn't know the difference between terrorist organizations and terrorist states. Whether we like it or not, the president of Iran was elected by the people. Iranians don't care much for our country's vote in the last two elections either, but that doesn't mean they pretend he doesn't exist.

Posted by: Ann | May 16, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

George Bush Redux?

I watched Obama's speech today and came away with an unerving feeling of deja vu. This, supposedly "articulate" candidate cannot form a sentence without interjecting "uh(s)" between every phrase. It seemed as if he was tugging at his brain to get the next words to come out of his mouth. It's creepy to watch someone who can deliver a practiced or teleprompter speech so well struggle like this.

Could he be just another idiot like George Bush? Someone whose brain has been damaged by the overuse of drugs. He sure sounded like it today.

A look into his background doesn't dispell the possibility. His associations alone would make anyone question his intelligence, but it goes further than that. Sure, his grandparents sent him to a bunch of elitist private schools so he knows a lot of big words. And yes, he did graduate with honors, but again, he seems to have a gift for retention of practiced material. Yes, he was selected as editor of the Harvard Law Review in a sort of affirmative action election if one reads the circumstances, but unlike his peers, he never published anything.

Again, in a fit of brilliance, he left Harvard to go back to Chicago and pick up his old job, "community organizer" AKA street person who gets money anywhere they can, ala Saul Alinsky.

Somewhere along the way, he did decide to at least seek a part-time job in the Illinois Legislature. He didn't work for it because, by this time, he'd met Axelrod who eliminated all his opponents.

Just think, when Obama entered the US Senate in 2005, he was beginning his first fulltime job. And he's done a miserable job there, solely sponsoring and passing only two bills in three years (one to name a post office). And not once convening the subcommittee he chairs and which has oversight of Afghanistan. Hello? Isn't there a war going on there?

So the parallels with Bush are stunning! A guy in his mid forties, who's never had a fulltime job and is obviously lazy, is going to change Washington, says he is a uniter, has an amiable personality, has no clear policy positions but lots of platitudes, and is the clear choice of party insiders. Oh, and let's not forget, Obama has already started taking vacations and we're just in the primary!

Change we can believe in? Yeah, if you're an idiot too.

Posted by: The Truth | May 16, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Integrity , truth and principals matter. So do duty and loyalty based on the obligations of one's position... in this case the President! If George Washington and the rest of our great Presidents had George Bush's attitude, we would have lost our constitution long before the last 8 years, when we did lose it.

On a basic level, what George did is equivalent to a guy making obscene jokes about his wife with his buddies. Maybe good for a laugh and short term gain, but it irrevocable erodes the marriage and the guys' reputation.

John McCaim, you've got one heck of a mentor with the Boy King. These silly fools keep listening to the Neocon echo chamber... keep doubling down.... Only a dry drink would follow that advice.

Today, McCain lost the traditional main street base of the Republican party along with Independents.... But Joe Lieberman will vote for him twice and give a speech at his Convention.

Posted by: Evensong | May 16, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

The republicans have lost their way. In the absence of leadership, vision, and fiscal responsibility, they deserve the wholesale change that is going to come crashing down in November.

NOTE: Fiscal responsibility for republicans means buying on credit and dumping the debt onto our children and grandchildren. It was that way under Reagan and both Bushes. The national debt always skyrockets under republicans because their "trickle down" theory is complete garbage

Posted by: Wake Up America | May 16, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama not afraid to engage ....what's so great about it? Isn't he supposed to do it? Why is the press so mesmerized by every step he takes? Kind of a Truman show?

Posted by: Subrato | May 16, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

"I heard that McCain & Bush had discussed WHY they weren't supporting the new GI bill...because it makes getting OUT of the military too good!?!"

Yep, ol gramps was afraid of losing his cannon fodder.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the next President of the USA, get used to it.

Yes WE Can!

Posted by: jpAcosta | May 16, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

I think George Bush and his government are the greatest appeasers of all times!....Did he not cozy up to Ghaddafi for his oil instead of having him arrested for war crimes because of the Libyan Leader's role in the training and arming of warlords as well as the financing of wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone?

Posted by: red27 | May 16, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

McCain's problems:

- Voted for Bush's Failed policies 95% of the time (more than any other Senator)

- Even though he, himself, has stated that he would prefer a 'Christian President' he is NOT a Christian! Personally, I don't care what religion the president is...but since McCain has stated a preference then maybe he should vote for the Dem Nominees. Both of them are Christian.

- Flip-flops on the issues (taxation, Military & Veteran support, lobbyists' influence, political ethics)

-Wife's business dealings are so shady she stated she would NEVER release her tax records (must be pretty bad!). Does she not realize that the American public has a right to know if their possible leader gets income from ANY source? She is married to him & even though they file separately, they have lived together & he has benefited equally by her vast fortune & business dealings!

-McCain's shady political dealings over the years to benefit his 'heavy-weight' supporters. In the Keating Five dealings, he pressured other politicians to help out his 'friends' while sitting on the ethics committee. On land deals he has repeatedly shown his determination to help his friends get land deals that make them HUGE profits (often at the expense of Conservationist's efforts & that go against public support).

Example 1: Initially reluctant to support the swap, the Arizona Republican became a key figure in pushing the deal through Congress after the rancher and his partners hired lobbyists that included McCain's 1992 Senate campaign manager, two of his former Senate staff members (one of whom has returned as his chief of staff), and an Arizona insider who was a major McCain donor and is now bundling campaign checks.

AND

Example 2: When McCain's legislation passed in November 2005, the ranch owner gave the job of building as many as 12,000 homes to SunCor Development, a firm in Tempe, Ariz., run by Steven A. Betts, a longtime McCain supporter who has raised more than $100,000 for the presumptive Republican nominee. Betts said he and McCain never discussed the deal

AND

Example 3: In the late 1990s, McCain promoted a deal in Arizona's Tonto National Forest involving property part-owned by Great American Life Insurance, a company run by billionaire Carl H. Lindner Jr., a prolific contributor to national political parties and presidential candidates

AND
Example 4: Despite John McCain's presidential campaign pledge forbidding official favors for top donors, the Arizona senator has introduced legislation and heavily intervened to acquire lucrative deals for a wealthy longtime friend who has raised a quarter of a million dollars for him so far.
A major U.S. newspaper has documented in a lengthy piece the decades-long relationship between the 2008 Republican presidential candidate and a powerful Arizona developer who has made millions of dollars thanks to the senator's efforts on behalf of the deals.
Without McCain's aggressive intervention, millionaire Donald Diamond could not have made the deals, which, in a few instances involved beneficial public-for-private land swaps and the actual re-mapping of public lands. McCain helped his friend acquire the valuable properties by introducing legislation in 1991 and 1994 on his behalf. The senator's efforts led to multi million-dollar profits and the acquisition of thousands of acres in Arizona. McCain has sponsored a third similar bill that currently sits before the U.S. Senate.
In 1999 McCain helped Diamond purchase highly-sought yet forbidden California land owned by the Army, which he immediately sold for a $20 million profit. Then McCain got his buddy a lucrative contract to develop a resort hotel and luxury housing in 2005. These efforts certainly contradict McCain's vows not to intercede with the government on behalf of a donor or take any action on their behalf that doesn't serve the public's interests.
FUNNY how every example above shows McCain 'reluctantly' helping them out....yeah, right. I haven't found a single time a 'friend' got turned down! This also leads me to wonder what kind of 'kickbacks' got funneled to Sen. McCain through his WIFE's business dealings! It would certainly explain WHY she refuses to open her tax records up to public scrutiny! And this type of stuff is exactly why it is important to know more about her financial dealings!

Posted by: McCain is Toast | May 16, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama, aka the American Idol contestant, your foreign policy experience is based on your grandfather being a "sheep herder". It's going to be fun to watch you crash-and-burn in November.

Posted by: Toxic Avenger | May 16, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

The sad truth is that it is the REPUBLICAN party that has changed over the last 3 decades. Republicans USED to stand for responsibility in Government by minimizing federal power. It USED to stand for FISCAL responsibility. It USED to stand for 'Capitalism at it's best'. However it now stands for something else, I'm not sure what (because it is still mutating)...but lately it seems to stand for:

Irresponsible Gov't spending (recent CC scandal is but ONE small example)
BIG Business - businesses USED to care about their workers & their products...now they ONLY care about $
Taking Care of Friends is more important than taking care of the country
Restriction of personal freedoms (ie religion, sexual preference)
Demeaning Science & Technology - we USED to be the home to world-class scientist, now they go to china, Japan or even Europe...because our Gov't restricts their research & demeans their findings (ie that modern humans are causing accelerated Global Warming is an UNDISPUTED FACT in the world science community, but the US Govt keeps putting doubt out there like it will change the facts.)

I'm upper-middle class with fiscal responsibility and a conscience. I'm finding it practically impossible to vote republican anymore.

Up until this year, I was going to vote McCain...seemed like a good choice: ex-military & not too hooked into the 'modern' republicans. However now that he has changed his mind on taxes (it doesn't effect me that much, but just a couple miles away...those poor & getting poorer folks are going to turn to crime soon) and the fact that he won't support Vets (I'm a vet who went to school on the old GI bill - but it didn't pay nearly enough even back then) I have become disaffected. I have to admit...it really did throw me when I heard that McCain & Bush had discussed WHY they weren't supporting the new GI bill...because it makes getting OUT of the military too good!?!

Posted by: Wake up America | May 16, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

McCain said: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy toward Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so ... But it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

MCCAIN is making a spectacle of himself on this one! Maybe Bush was talking about McCain!

Posted by: Our Only Hope | May 16, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

McCain's problem is he has to keep the ultra right wing to have any hope of getting elected, he has to keep the ultra right wing of the party involved and that means alienating the independents and the shrinking moderate Republican base.

His other big problem is his embracing the Bush policies.

Posted by: Oscar | May 16, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse


Everyone knows that the democrats have always and I mean "always" been weak on national security and defense issues. Obama is on the record validating every word President Bush said in Israel---Obama is flip-flopping...flip,flop,flip,flop,flip,flop,flip,flop,flip,flop,flip,flop,flip,flop,flip,flop,flip,flop,flip,flop,flip,flop
If the shoe fits-wear it!!! Whether Obama likes is or not the shoe of appeasement and weakness fits him reeeeeeaaaaaaalllllll snugly...

Posted by: charko825 | May 16, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama's strategy to debate with McCain:
1) Tie McCain to the Iraq war and shamelessly make the false claim he did not "vote" for the war;
2) If cannot find an answer to a hard question, accuse the questioner playing old politics;
3) If nothing works, accuse the opponent playing race card.

Posted by: God Father | May 16, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Amusing to see the reporter crediting Bush with some kind of savvy political instincts. The guy Bush in reality will just read whatever is put in front of him, as long as you promise him a Happy Meal and a video game for later. Obama should also not be shy to point out McCain's permanent state of confusion about which bad guy is who, what, and where. We have had enough stupidity in the Oval Office. Reagan set the standard but Bush outmatched it by many miles.

Posted by: Tom | May 16, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Oh My.

Little George really does think in comic book terms... good guys and bad guys, and guys like himself-- rich stupid guys that are bored and just pissed off that he has to listen to details like body count deaths and stuff like that. Much better to go for a bike ride or to bed after popping one of his wife's Oxicotin, now that he is just a dry drunk.

What a pathetic loser fool, and an unmitigated embarrassment for the Republicans, America, Western values and his family.

McCain, you are toast and a fool tying your hopes on little George, eternal President dunce and loser, and the ridiculous, un-American and unpatriotic ideology of the NeoCon War Mongers

Posted by: Bret | May 16, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

BAN THE KERFUFFLE

Can someone get into the editor's style book at the post and ban the words "kerfuffle" "bolster" and the phrases "it's a wash" and "burnishing his (fill in the blank) credentials."

how many times in the past 30 days has the post used bolster, bolstered or bolstering in headlines and stories?

And I thought the juvenile fascination with kerfuffle was over.

Guess not.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

An epic battle in the making!

The snake oil peddler versus the Dubya!

If ever two wrongs don't make a right, this is a prime example!

Posted by: William Phillips | May 16, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Yes, he is trying to sale the G I bill. Do you really believe this idea came from Obama? Read his books and look at what he listened to for 20 years! This is another Campaign stratagy to throw Americans off the track of who he really is or isn't. Would the REAL Barack H Obama please stand up!

Posted by: Real Obama is ? | May 16, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Couldn't agree more! CNN is out of control!! They are Nobama's personal babysitting service. 99% of their coverage is either defending or in direct support for Nobama. I've almost completely quit watching CNN. They are shameless. To think they are the most prevalent news source in the world and they, more than anyone, should be practicing responsible journalism. What a joke.

Posted by: Chance | May 16, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

You have to admit Bush/McCain have shown their true genius on foreign policy. We should listen to them carefully and heed their advice.

They had the keen foresight to invade Iraq and save the middle east from low oil prices just when our allies German, France, Russia, Canada and Mexico said it was a bad idea.

Posted by: Maxwell | May 16, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

jesus puts his money in the first national bank; jesus puts his money in the first national bank; jesus puts his money in the first national bank; jesus saves, jesus saves; jesus saves.

Posted by: ibsage | May 16, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Who wrote that speech for Bush? Is Rove pulling his strings again? Barack Obama is front and center to answer attacks as they come. And why not? We all remember the hatchet job they did on John Kerry and other democrats who served their country admirably. They even demeaned the Purple Heart...remember the purple bandages at their convention. You veterans should keep in mind that John McCain did nothing to object as his fellow Vietnam vets were disrespected. You should also know that Obama helped draft and is pushing the 21st Century GI Bill, that will improve healthcare and education benefits for the people who serve our country. McCain is opposing it because he says "it's too generous."

Posted by: Joyce | May 16, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

"Yeah right and if he/or the Democrats hadn't said anything you would have said that they were too "scared" or "weak" to reply."

Reply to what? He did not mention Obama nor did he make any reference to the campaign or the Democratic Party. One would be foolish to think that a candidate is weak because he/she fails to respond to comments NOT directed at him/her. It was the media that directed the comments at Obama and the Democrats. Furthermore, it was a Republican Senator that W quoted: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." But of course the media won't report that because it's not consistent with what they want to portray.

"Wonder what you people will say when Obama picks someone like vietnam Vet Jim Webb as his VP."

The same things the left says about McCain. Read some of the comments posted here to get an idea.

Posted by: politicohispanico | May 16, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

CNN Headlines their news program with Campbell Brown tonight as "Obama Under Siege". This is NOW TOO FAR! When was it ALL about protecting Obama. QUIT taking up for this man when anyone calls him out on anything and make him answer for himself! No speech writers, no chanting audince, no David A, no media. But Obama. He is an empty suit becuase NOONE expects him to have to fill it. Not in Chicago and now not in this country! If he wants the most powerful job in the world, as President of the Best place you could possibly have been lucky enough to be born in, then make him answer! Make him responsible! Make him tell the American people that he is qualified and why and what exactly he is going to do and why and how he plans on acheiving it and at what cost. There is no such thing as just "change" unless it is the coins in your pocket. What is he going to change exactly? A new person in office is not the answer we want! We want specifics and solutions. He has done nothing to date for America or the American people. He did not help Americans after 9/11. He was not in Louisiana after Katrina. Right now, the answer to Obama for President is NO WAY! NOONE knows where he stands! And the media and the Obama campaign wants to keep it that way. This is truly concerning. Truly.

Posted by: Obama is for | May 16, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

I's rather be for change with someone who wants to change the same old tired politics and greed of the big Corporations anything less is the true wimps who cry pain over the pumps but do nothing about it but complain Go Obama!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/EDIR10N3RR.DTL

Posted by: grdn_nell | May 16, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse


From the books, The god of truth and The judgment of the nations.
-
-
-
Part 2 w / 144 vs. -------- Pleading with the heathen
-
1 Now, as concerning my (god) promise, as it is seen, as it is found in the christian bible--in the book of Joel 3:12:
-
2 "Let the heathen be awakened, and come up to the valley of Je-hosh'-a-phant: for there will I sit to judge all of the heathen round about".
-
3 In these days, I (god) do plead with the heathen, for Israel' sake and for my (god) sake. And this pleading, it is for my (god) inheritance, that is found as Jacob, forever.
-
4 And that, eternal, true inheritance. It is forever seen, and is forever true, and is eternally forever true, as I have declared it to be true, forever.
-
5 And I (god) am the true Father, and I (god) am seen forever true, in Jacob's seed forever. And in my (god) pleading, it is that you all ( heathen) may awake and consider and understand, whom I (god) am forever,
-
-
-
9 End of the days, eternal just judgments. They are given of me (god), in (in means the word through) christ Jesus, as eternally forever and ever true, of me (god) forever.
-
10 And those just judgments, they are called life and death, forever, and they are even found of me (god), as found spokenly spoken by me (god),
-
-
-
16 And as I (god) thunder, I the lord god of heaven and earth, do plead for my (god) heritage, that is called Israel, in these true days of the fallen true earth, forever.
-
17 And I (god) do plead with all the heathen, who are gathered in spirit, all about (the word about, it means the word around) Israel to destroy Israel,
-
18 That thou o heathen, thou must repent quickly, now in the earth and forever, for if thou will not repent in christ my (god) eternal true son, forever,
-
19 Then thou and thy seed, shalt perish forever true, from off the land and forever.
-
20 And that decision, is to be made by you, o heathen. And it shall be, unto you forever, as a valley of decision, found given of me, unto you, forever.
-
21 That decision, is to be made, by you, now in the earth, forever true. And is, most surely, to be found, now in the earth, forever.
-
22 And is to be found, in this time period of the earth, that is called "The end of the days", as mentioned in the christian bible, forever.
-
23 And if, thou shalt not repent, and will not encourage Israel to seek her faithful fulfillment of true promise, that is given by me, unto Israel forever,
-
24 And is seen as Israel found in all of her true biblical true land forever,
-
25 Then I (god) shall remove thee in death and great destruction, from of the land of Israel, yea, it is found unto all biblical true land, forever true, saith god, eternally forever and ever so.
-
-
Roger wallace author of THE GOD OF TRUTH", found at: i-proclaim, isbn 978-1-60585-521-9.
-

Posted by: roger wallace | May 16, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

god is dead.

Posted by: ibsage | May 16, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Just like anyone outmatched in a fight, Obama claims he's 'not a fighter, but a lover.' Typical. His complete lack of experience forces him to take a path of avoidance. All you suckers being lured by his 'passionate' speeches should realize you're experiencing first hand what it's like to be in a Southern baptist church in a black community on any given Sunday. Obama should be a pastor - not a President.

Posted by: chance | May 16, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Hey Hold_that_tiger, if your buddy Bill "the sexual predator" Clinton and the democRATS weren't sleeping with the environmental wackos, we wouldn't be needing to ask for more oil. Just another little reminder of what's good for the DNC is bad for america. Sux to be a liberal, eh?

Posted by: Toxic Avenger | May 16, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Ebonyflash: If you honestly believe that this nonsense was NOT aimed at Obama and the democrats, I have a statue of liberty to sell to you for a good price. Heck, even administration officials were confirming this blatantly obvious fact. How naive can you possibly be to doubt that?

And even if you give the benefit of doubt to a crew with zero credibility: It doesn't change anything. Obama is simply factually right with his retorts, and would still be if he decided to defend those "unnamed" that were addressed by Bush.

This was a pathetic hit job by Bush, and it's backfiring badly. I know alot of Democrat-leaning people who are excited that FINALLY someone has the guts to stand up and contradict Bush, McCain and cronies. It will also help to heal the rifts in the Democratic Party, that is very visible.

But please carry on like this by all means. It will only amplify the incoming wipeout. Like the last 3 special elections which were Dem pickups from deep-red districts.

Posted by: Mentar | May 16, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

What some here may or may not realize is that shortly after Bush made those remarks about WHOMEVER, John McCain seconded Bush's statements and chimed into the debate with this quote:

"I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That's what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people."

If Bush's Knesset weren't about Obama, then why would McCain quickly respond the way he did. This was a stealthy, orchestrated attack by Bush, McCain et co.

Israel is becoming the foreign policy wedge issue the GOP has been using for weeks now to try to smear Obama or to exploit weakness.

First. The Hamas guilt-by-association. The twisted "constant wound" quote. And now this guilt-by-appeasement-analogy.

The reason Obama HAD to raise his voice is because McCain quickly threw his pennies into the conversation.

Posted by: TRL | May 16, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama needs to be engaged with his own words and agenda. He has advocated that he will meet with the leaders of Syria and Iran with no preconditions. Then he protests his own position saying he "never said he would meet with Hamas".

His response was not reasonable engagement, it was backpedaling and repackaging.

Even more alarming is that Obama was displaying this behavior in a response to George Bush. His anxious over reaction to the worst president ever reveals a lot more about Obama than it does about anybody else.

Posted by: Mary | May 16, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama needs to be engaged with his own words and agenda. He has advocated that he will meet with the leaders of Syria and Iran with no preconditions. Then he protests his own position saying he "never said he would meet with Hamas".

His response was not reasonable engagement, it was backpedaling and repackaging.

Even more alarming is that Obama was displaying this behavior in a response to George Bush. His anxious over reaction to the worst president ever reveals a lot more about Obama than it does about anybody else.

Posted by: Mary | May 16, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama needs to be engaged with his own words and agenda. He has advocated that he will meet with the leaders of Syria and Iran with no preconditions. Then he protests his own position saying he "never said he would meet with Hamas".

His response was not reasonable engagement, it was backpedaling and repackaging.

Even more alarming is that Obama was displaying this behavior in a response to George Bush. His anxious over reaction to the worst president ever reveals a lot more about Obama than it does about anybody else.

Posted by: Mary | May 16, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

From the short version book, by roger wallace, "LITTLE BOOK OPEN".
-
-

1 Ch. 1 w/ 36 vs.
-
2 These now opened, unsealed scriptures. They are now being openly declared, by our true christ (christ Jesus is the angel of all that is and is called god, forever), on the sea and on the land. And they are now being preached, by the body of christ, eternally forever.
-
3 This is seen by the world, as the spiritual feet of our true and wonderful, eternal christ.
-
4 And our true and kind one, who is called christ. He is declaring those things, through the body of his saints, which are the spiritual feet of our christ, and who (christianity) are the anointed pillars of smoke,
-
5 And that smoke proceedeth from god, and is found as eternal truth, that is spoken forever, and is eternally forever, as unsealed and unclosed spiritual true interpretation. That interpretation, is eternally forever true interpretation,
-
6 That is given and found unto us in christ forever, and is spokenly spoken true interpretation. That is given unto us, through the anointed heavenly true fire,
-
7 That is a fiery true interpretation, that cometh from god through christ Jesus, forever. And doth come, as interpretation from unknown tongues, and is seen, as heavenly forever true of me (god), forever.
-
8 Fiery spoken, true prophesy. It is even spoken without the gift of unknown true tongues, and it is even seen, as being eternally forever true of myself (god), in christ, forever.
-
9 And both, eternal fiery true prophesies and secondly: "Eternal true prophesying true interpretations through unknown true tongues. They are found given of myself (god), through christ, as christly true interpretations and true prophesies, that are found in the gift of eternal true salvation,
-
10 That salvation, it is seen and is called: Jesus christ, and doth proceed from me (god), the most high god, and who is eternally forever and ever true.
-
11 And, through christ Jesus forever sure, unsealed and unclosed eternal true interpretations, they are most certainly found in the fallen true earth, as forever true.
-
12 And I roger wallace, I do say, that those things are given unto us forever, as given inspired true interpretations, from our kind, eternal, true christ. And is given unto christ Jesus from our true god forever. And it is true of god, as forever sure of god, and is most surely, forever true in god, forever.
-
13 And eternal, true salvation, it is called christ Jesus, and christ is given from god forever, unto the entire true earth, forever.
-
14 And that true salvation. It is christly and is christ in the eternal true Father, as being eternally forever sure of god forever. And it is given forever true, from god forever,
-
15 And that salvation, it is seen as heavenly forever true in and of god, and is for all of given true eternity, and forever.
--
Roger wallace author of: The god of truth, found at i-proclaim, isbn 978-1-60585-521-9.
-

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

George Robertson stated:
"As both sides engage in a food fight over foreign policy, I hope they realize that we can attribute at least one success to Bush in that we have not had anymore attacks on the US homeland since 9/11."
------------------------------------
Success? Hmmm, that's debateable. Have you noticed that al Queda has killed and wounded thousands more of our people, as well as Iraqis, since Bush opened the door for them in Iraq?
Barack Obama's judgement based on facts will be a welcome change to the "Decider" who only listened to facts that conformed to his whims.

Posted by: Joyce | May 16, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a wimpy man. Bush did not mention his name at all. Bush said. "there are some",,,he do not say. "Obama". Why would Obama want to cahllenge the President at a moment like this. It does not make him (Obama) look tough. It makes him look like a "girly man who wants someone to kiss his boo boo.

Posted by: Ebonyflash | May 16, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Well George, the God given right of the Israeli people to steal Arab land is a really big deal. The more they "settle", the more hardened the Arab position on the destruction of Israel becomes.

So far, the American position has been to sigh, roll our eyes and focus on how nasty the terrorists are. But can Israeli growth be stopped? I doubt it. Their right wing politics are at least as dangerous to their center and their left as ours.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 16, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

"They had their typical knee-jerk reaction to something the President says and now they look like fools."
=============
Yeah right and if he/or the Democrats hadn't said anything you would have said that they were too "scared" or "weak" to reply. Wonder what you people will say when Obama picks someone like vietnam Vet Jim Webb as his VP.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 16, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse


Obama should annouce that he plans to send Bush to Gitmo...

Posted by: Urban Endeavors | May 16, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Smart move from Obama to directly confront Bush and McCain like this. The detractors on this blog would have ripped into him no matter what he'd done. Had he stayed quiet, they'd call him a pussy, and the same nonsense would go on until it sticks. Had he remained defensive, they'd call him unsure and weak. Now that he very rationally sticked it to them, they're also howling. Well, let them.

McSame trying to run as a duet with Dubyah in 20-something approval ratings? While 70% of all Americans want plans for withdrawal? With an endless list of clearly visible policy failures? Sure, any day. Good luck!

Look at the last election results, and you'll know what will await you. The curtains are falling, no matter what you're yakking.

Posted by: Mentar | May 16, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

"Bush makes statement about Carter interference in the peace process, and gurly Barama gets spooked!"
=========
And how "gurly" was it for Bush to go begging the Saudis to "please King Saud" pump more oil to make me look like I'm actually doing squat about the cost of Gas. I guess no amount of holding hands with the King, or playing "kissy face" with him helped, he turned Ol Barbeque Bush down flat.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 16, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Well, we all know who Hamas has endorsed. God D-amn America.

Posted by: Jermiah | May 16, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama "doth protest too much, methinks."

Why does he get so defensive? For all he knows W could have been referring to Jimmy Carter, or the left wingers in Israel who prefer appeasement over their own survival, or leaders of other European nations, or even the libs in the U.S. who tend to blame America for the plight of the Palestinian people. All this flailing about by Obama and the pacifist left isn't helping.

When CNN first broke the story the headline read something like, "Bush calls Dems appeasers, likens to appeasement of Nazis." Then I read the portion of the speech they were referring to and realized that they had done a magnificent spin job. They instinctively came to the defense of their party and their candidate. They had their typical knee-jerk reaction to something the President says and now they look like fools.

Posted by: politicohispanico | May 16, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

i thought america was the chosen country. i thought americans were the chosen people. apparantly dubya doesn't.

Posted by: ibsage | May 16, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

"Mr. McCain, who spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton"
=========
Admirable, but how does spending time as a POW in Southeast Asia in the 60's prepare McSame for the challenges of dealing with a whole new ball of wax: the complexities driving International Terrorism in the MODERN World; specifically in the Middle East? All the Candidates will have learned "advisors" about Foreign Policy up the ying-yang, the President's sound judgement will be the key to an effective foreign policy. Bush had Cheney who had decades of experience and look where that got us. Granted McCain is about 150 years old...but the fact that the guy doesn't know a shiite from a sunni makes me nervous, the fact that he was "joking" that he would "bomb,bomb,bomb Iran" is a bit scary...if we get into War on another Front will McGeezer bring back the Draft?
==========
"When he says "blah blah I was the first proponent of the surge.. we won! Blah blah blah" simply point out how the Sunni Awakening was made possible. It was by talking to and negotiating with people who were bombing and killing US troops. Yes, by negotiating with terrorists."
==========
Negotiating and BRIBING them...just look up "The Sons of Iraq" the US Government has been paying hundreds of thousands of Dollars to Sunni fighters to not fight or attack our troops.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 16, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

so obama isn't afraid to stand up to ... who exactly? a president with historically low rating said his remarks weren't even geared at anyone ... leaving obama to make a nice, but empty, play.

impressive.

Posted by: yeah, that | May 16, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

The experience argument is always so overrated, no matter who makes it. That's what the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense are for. A good president needs to be a good manager and a good leader, and surround him/her self with the best and brightest advisors. And then listen to what they have to say.

How much foreign policy experience did Ronald Reagan have as governor of California? And yet the wingers tout him as the greatest foreign policy president of all time.

Posted by: Experience | May 16, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Bush makes statement about Carter interference in the peace process, and gurly Barama gets spooked!

Posted by: Geraldine | May 16, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Went to England."

Naive is a state of mind about what human nature is capable of, fundamental to the conduct of foreign affairs which as a foreign affairs "expert," you well know. And if we're splitting hairs, Mr. Obama touted his foreign policy experience as being superior to Ms. Clinton's "occasional trips abroad" as being based in his having lived in Indonesia as a child.

Posted by: Malafry | May 16, 2008 7:46 PM

**************************
Well, if we are speaking of naive, how does McCain's fantasy speech of a 2013 troop pullout WITH a victory, Osama Bin Laden dead, Al Quada on the run, and the economy being peachy keen? You blather on about experience and naivety and this piece of whimsy is allowed to air unchallenged. I bet if Obama stated this, you would be the first in line to call him naive.

Posted by: Rocking the Green Zone | May 16, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

As both sides engage in a food fight over foreign policy, I hope they realize that we can attribute at least one success to Bush in that we have not had anymore attacks on the US homeland since 9/11. That probably doesn't have anything to do with his policies on Iraq or Iran, but it should be noted as an accomplishment in and of itself and I'm actually more interested in hearing what each candidate would do to keep this success going instead of things like Iraq or Iran that affect Israel more than the United States. I realize that there are people in our foreign policy establishment who seem to value an Israeli life higher than an American life, but I guess I'm just silly enough to think that American politicians should be first and foremost concerned about American security first, then Israel second. It would also then help if they could move to the next step, which would be understanding that there might be some things which Israel would like to do- like continuing to expand their settlements- which are not in American foreign policy interest and should therefore be opposed. There are those whose beliefs endanger our lives just so some religious fanatics in the US and Israel can achieve their goals of pushing all Arabs out of historic Palestine. The real appeasers are the ones who cave to people like that, not those who are willing to negotiate in good faith with anyone who will sit down and talk.

Posted by: George Robertson | May 16, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

While most of you dopes think Obama would not be the front runner for the US Presidency if he were white...

one thing is plain as day...

the sole "qualification" McSame has for trying to inherit the Rumsfeld-Cheney agenda is his prisoner of war survivor status.

How will you deal with a black president?
Will you riot in the streets? Drink more beer? I can't wait to see what happens to all of you when a really smart and very tough person becomes your Commander in Chief.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 16, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

"Went to England."

Naive is a state of mind about what human nature is capable of, fundamental to the conduct of foreign affairs which as a foreign affairs "expert," you well know. And if we're splitting hairs, Mr. Obama touted his foreign policy experience as being superior to Ms. Clinton's "occasional trips abroad" as being based in his having lived in Indonesia as a child.

Posted by: Malafry | May 16, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

i thought america was the chosen country. i thought americans were the chosen people. what is dubya thinking anyhow.

Posted by: i.b. sage | May 16, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

My apologies. Sorry that I am such a stupid racist and sexist bully. I am a loser and have a small member. I have been drinking for 6 hours.

Posted by: Toxic Avenger | May 16, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

And finally it is surreal for Mr. Obama to call Mr. McCain, who spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton, and whose credentials make Mr. Obama's look like a footnote on Wikipeida needing authentication, naive.

Posted by: Malafry | May 16, 2008 7
************************
Okay, he was a POW, not a diplomat. He was locked away and tortured, not making policies. That is like saying if I got held in a Turkish jail for five years, I am a foreign relations expert. And besides being in government and on a committee for so bloody long, what are McCain's creds in foreign affairs? His trips lately have been full of confusion and gaffes, and his Mary Sunshine reports on Iraq do not match up.

Posted by: i went to England once - can I be president? | May 16, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

"Not afraid to engage".....as long as it's not FoxNews. Hey Obama, do us all a favor and shut your Fuc*in wife's mouth up, she sounds too much like Reverend Wright, but he couldn't have had an impact on her, since the two of you where never there during any of his hate-america speeches-yeah right, tell us another black lie!

Posted by: Toxic Avenger | May 16, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

"In the 2006 midterm elections, Democratic candidates fought their Republican opponents much more proactively on matters of national defense and foreign policy, a recognition that ceding that coveted political ground to Republicans was a recipe for success.'

good column, CC, but don't you mean that 'ceding that coveted political ground' to Republicans was a recipe for --failure?

hello, freudian slip.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

"Please Obama supporters, please tell me what Obama stands for and how he feels about the economy and foreign policy other than bashing the Republican administration. After all this time, I still am unable to articulate or understand his positions on just about anything of significance."
=============
Will do, but you have to promise to return the favor by letting me know what Flip-Flop McBush "stands for" and what in god's Name is his "real" policy toward Iraq...you see gramps has changed his "ideas" and "plans" so often that I am truly confused.
==============
OK, here is a short breakdown: Obama has plenty of detailed information about his positions and plans on his website: Universal Healthcare, Lower taxes for the MIDDLE-class, improved educational standards, renewable energy sources (Nuclear Power, etc.), giving tax incentives to businesses to NOT take their jobs overseas, give small businesses access to low interest loans and tax credits for start-up and expansion, are among the issues that Obama goes into in almost boring detail on his website...I assure you that Obama is "the man with a plan." And of course Obama has his plan for "getting our troops out of Iraq as carefully as we were careless getting them in."

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 16, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Not afraid to engage? If I had his credentials I'd be wary of saying anything on the topic. Don't they check credentials for applicants to this job? They do for everyone else. Should he even have had an interview? Any way, best comment I've heard on this so far is Mr. Romney's; "toss a stone over a fence and the dog who barks is the one you hit." Mr. Obama has absolutely no foreign policy experience, not to mention domestic, but he might begin to get up to speed by showing some respect for the office he hopes to occupy. He may thoroughly dislike Mr. Bush, but so long as he's president respect for that office is the first tenet of American foreign policy, as President Truman underlined when he fired General MacArthur for his comment on "temporary residents of the White House." And finally it is surreal for Mr. Obama to call Mr. McCain, who spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton, and whose credentials make Mr. Obama's look like a footnote on Wikipeida needing authentication, naive.

Posted by: Malafry | May 16, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

McCain debating Obama will make Hillary debating Obama look like a stroll in the park ... McCain will knock him out!!

Posted by: Jesus Francisco Cardenas | May 16, 2008 5:19 PM

*****************************
what is he going to do? Beat Obama over the head with his flip flops?

Posted by: Sister Mary Elephant | May 16, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Pssst! Obama! Ask McCain if he remembers about the surge, and the "Sunni Awakening" that helped cause it's tactical success.

When he says "blah blah I was the first proponent of the surge.. we won! Blah blah blah" simply point out how the Sunni Awakening was made possible. It was by talking to and negotiating with people who were bombing and killing US troops. Yes, by negotiating with terrorists.

McCain is against his own policy. On that point, he is very consistent lately.

Posted by: steve boyington | May 16, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

well said, joe-ie.

nice name

Posted by: Bill Clinton | May 16, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

"Obama not afraid to engage." (W)ow! He didn't waste any time jumping on the gay marriage bandwagon! Who's the partner, Barney Fink?

Posted by: E. Raleigh Pimperton III | May 16, 2008 6:43 PM
**********************
jealous?

Posted by: E.Raleigh: Charles Nelson Reilly called from heaven - come out of the closet! | May 16, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Let's see what Veterans Against the Iraq War (VAIW) have to say.

THEY are the true Patriots, not the chest thumping wimps that line up to support the Republicans.

VAIW is against the Occupation, are exposing lies up through the chain of command (Including Gen. Petraeus), and do NOT understand why Bush has not been impeached for his multiple Failures and Lies.

Who do they blame?

The American People.

Why?

They ALLOWED this to happen.

Impeach Bush.

End the War.

Restore the Constitution.

Posted by: Lot of Tough Guys Tapping Away Today | May 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Just the same old Republican tactic of trying to score cheap political points by abandoning all pretense of truthfullness and just making stuff up. It's those moral values at work.

Posted by: Same old...same old | May 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Not afraid to engage??? He's even afraid to debate his Deomocratic opponent. Not a good sign. If he is afraid of her, no telling how he would be as President.

Posted by: joey | May 16, 2008 6:54 PM

**********************************
there were numerous televised debates between Clinton and Obama, as well as the democratic debates. Since you chose to surf the net for porn, Jo-ey, you must have missed them.

Posted by: Jo-ey, I gotcha debate, riiight here!! | May 16, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

"You snobs in the drive-by media can try all you want, but the american voters are not fooled by his love for anti-american protestors."

You need to tell your own "drive drive media" the ex-drug addict and draft dodger, rush Limbaugh that he needs to go on another diet.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Sam, you need to stick with Fox. Sean Hannity is your type, you'll see him as a fair and balanced journalist.

Meanwhile you should be ashamed of yourself for voting for Bush. There is
blood of innocent people on your hands.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 16, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris, are you a far left liberal, synchophantic supporter of Obama working in the guise of an unbiased journalist? You don't have to answer that question. We already know the answer.

Posted by: Sam | May 16, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

It's absolutely hilarious that Bush has the nerve to call Obama an appeaser when George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The evidence also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Project much Bush? I'll be glad when good Americans (NOT your brown shirt Bush voters, you don't count as anything but swine) see Bush standing before The Hague.

Posted by: Khoreia | May 16, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Chris, Mr. Obama "whined" when President Bush called him out for exactly what he said he'd do, in regards to talking with Iran. Mr. Obama is a liberal punk who is going to get destroyed in Nov. Being a liberal wimp is not going to get you anything in November, unless you live in Boston or California. You snobs in the drive-by media can try all you want, but the american voters are not fooled by his love for anti-american protestors.

Posted by: Toxic Avenger | May 16, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

It's just really good to see a Democratic candidate for president who is not a wussy, and who will take on the right wing fear mongers without hesitation.

Of course, given that 80% + of the American public believes that America is on the wrong track, Senator Obama's responses to these two losers really just write themselves. Every time Bush or McCain open their mouth, it will give Obama fresh ammunition.

Posted by: Helena Montana | May 16, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

"but remember that Team Bush managed to get their man elected president and then reelected in the face of growing concerns about the war in Iraq and declining popularity numbers."

"Team Bush" means Rove and "managed to get their man elected" is just a round-about way of saying "voter fraud".

Posted by: No More Spin | May 16, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Anyone remember the 80s when Republicans used the "soft on crime" label against Democrats to paint them as liberal wimps who didn't care about rising crime?

So, how did Democrats respond (once they caught on)? They got tough on crime and we ended up with all the Three Strikes laws and the largest prison population in the world. The nation shifted from rehabilitation to raw punishment, and now we have millions of bitter ex-cons on the streets who were treated like animals in prison and they can't get jobs.

Since 9/11 Republicans have worked hard to smear Democrats with the "soft on terrorism" label. It worked at first, and it's still working a little today, and they're hoping they can stretch it out to November. But it appears more likely that the Dems and Obama have caught on, and they're firing back.

What I hope doesn't happen, is that Democrats allow Republicans and their negative and arrogant agenda to persuade them to continue pushing our arrogant bluster around the world in order to prove they can be just as tough as Republicans.

At some point, intelligent, calmer heads must prevail and all the fear mongering must come to an end. I hope Obama represents a new kind of leader - someone who truly cares about diplomacy and dialogue over unilateral action and peremptory wars.

Posted by: Bill Randle | May 16, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Anyone remember the 80s when Republicans used the "soft on crime" label against Democrats to paint them as liberal wimps who didn't care about rising crime?

So, how did Democrats respond (once they caught on)? They got tough on crime and we ended up with all the Three Strikes laws and the largest prison population in the world. The nation shifted from rehabilitation to raw punishment, and now we have millions of bitter ex-cons on the streets who were treated like animals in prison and they can't get jobs.

Since 9/11 Republicans have worked hard to smear Democrats with the "soft on terrorism" label. It worked at first, and it's still working a little today, and they're hoping they can stretch it out to November. But it appears more likely that the Dems and Obama have caught on, and they're firing back.

What I hope doesn't happen, is that Democrats allow Republicans and their negative and arrogant agenda to persuade them to continue pushing our arrogant bluster around the world in order to prove they can be just as tough as Republicans.

At some point, intelligent, calmer heads must prevail and all the fear mongering must come to an end. I hope Obama represents a new kind of leader - someone who truly cares about diplomacy and dialogue over unilateral action and peremptory wars.

Posted by: Bill Randle | May 16, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

IND is correct.

Nothing more annoying than, lets say the New York Times, where comments are not only chosen, but edited by their Dilbert cube staph.

We can scroll past all the Caps Lock spammers ourselves, thank you very much WaPo.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

"Senator Obama's idea of engagement on issues is simply to engage in name calling. "

and then he goes "na-na na=na boo boo"

Obama is related to bush... and it shows

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

To THE WASHINGTON POST, and Chris, and All Post Journalist,

I do not always agree with your articles. But no matter what, you allow me to voice my opinion on your thread.
Thank you for doing that.

I think I can speak for all supporters of whichever candidate, this is is not always the case. So Thank You for allowing us to have our Freedom of Speech on your posts.

Posted by: IND | May 16, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Not afraid to engage??? He's even afraid to debate his Deomocratic opponent. Not a good sign. If he is afraid of her, no telling how he would be as President.

Posted by: joey | May 16, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

If George W. Bush feels free to stretch the facts by attempting to link Barack Obama with Nazi appeasers, then it is only fair to look at who Bush can be compared to. Adolf Hitler pre-emptively invaded a country (Poland, Sept. 1939) that did not present an immediate threat - just as Bush did with Iraq. Like Hitler, Bush has authorized torture, held prisoners without trials, set up concentration camps like GITMO, and whose orders resulted in the deaths of countless civilians. There may be differences in scale between the two men, but that's arguably a matter of perception.

Posted by: chancher | May 16, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

"Appeaser" is a term the Repubs have been using against the Dems for years now. What's different this time is that the Dems are NOT appeasing the Republicans by just letting these outrageous comments, in a foreign country, go unanswered. No more.
Bush's accusation of "appeasement" isn't limited to just the Democratic front runner or to a former President, it is aimed at ALL people who believe the neoconservative militaristic formula for success has been a catastrophic failure.
So, in a sense, here is the President of the United States turning on his own people. How many people in America want the Iraq War to end? How many people in America believe that the Republicans have led us over a cliff? How many people in America WANT to give actual diplomacy a chance to work? How many people in America believe we can just bomb our enemies into submission and a new day of democracy will arise?
This is a great blunder on Bush's part. One more in a series lasting oh, these long and terrible, eight years.
Bush is wounded. He doesn't llike it. He will become more aggressive. All Americans must be especially vigilant right now and I am proud of the Democrats who are standing in unity and repudiation of these outrageous remarks made in Israel.

Posted by: cms1 | May 16, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Please Obama supporters, please tell me what Obama stands for and how he feels about the economy and foreign policy other than bashing the Republican administration. After all this time, I still am unable to articulate or understand his positions on just about anything of significance. His ultimate downfall will come to be if he can't get beyond the "change" and "hope" slogans. Americans will start to demand specifics. They were willing to grant him a pass and give him the Democratic nomination but it is time to deliver the goods or goodbye. We all know that Obama will stall giving specifics on issues to prevent experts from criticizing his policies and making him look inept. Obama hasn't got the guts or the backbone.

Posted by: Allat | May 16, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

"Obama not afraid to engage." (W)ow! He didn't waste any time jumping on the gay marriage bandwagon! Who's the partner, Barney Fink?

Posted by: E. Raleigh Pimperton III | May 16, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see your bias isn't showing, does the term moron mean anything to you, it should as only a moron would believe what you said ....

Posted by: steve4 | May 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama's idea of engagement on issues is simply to engage in name calling.

Instead of speaking of policy he simply names the policy,blusters and uses hyperbolic words like "horryifing comments" "McCain is Naive" "Outrageous comments" while never ever dealing with the underlying policy questions.

Today when Hugo Chavez was revealed by Interpol to have been secretly funding and training terrorists from Columbia his response was Obamaesque "ridiculous" shouted Chavez with a scowl.

The tactic is from the community organizers' manual circa 1969. It says never ever address the issue instead ridicule your opponent instead.

Posted by: Mike in Reno | May 16, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama can no more take on McCain in foreign poicy than Michelle Obama can take on ANY First lady that has EVER been in the White House on Patriotism. And Obama, if he is not indicted before he is given the Democratic nomination, loses in a big way come Novemebr!

Posted by: IND | May 16, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

It is a shame that Bush still thinks he has any role to play, as if politics is some sort of game. He has very nearly killed the United States with his congressional synchophants, and if he were a humble person he would remove himself completely from the political field and ask his party to stand down as they quietly take their lumps. They can come back in the future, but the damage he has caused is way beyond the fighting of political parties. He needs to hide, stop moving the levers of government, and seek absolution for his sins in some way. Lashing out at our only hope - a weak hope - of saving this project, the Democrats, is to cut off one's nose to spite one's face. What good is winning the battle if you lose the war? Takes a leader to stand down, which Bush has never been, but perhaps some of his confidentes can give him some direction - and be credited a national hero too.

If McCain wins, I will need to leave to ensure my family's future health and longevity - and with our departure goes our responsibility for $150,000 in national debt. I can't see another way, if McCain is elected, to wipe the stain and humiliation of torture, Abu Ghraib, Katrina response, dangerous toys, illegal wiretapping, and so on from me. If enough Republicans can be shamefully humiliated and tried in international criminal courts, that would wipe the stain as well.

Please, America, kill the Republican party with your votes.

Posted by: djt | May 16, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

I am with most of the USA population when it comes to Bush..but I think it is pretty bad when it is even obvious to EVEN Bush all the terrorists implications Obama has with his never list of terrorist associations.Rezko, Farragon, anti american Rev. WRight.I THINK AMERICA REALLY NEEDS TO TAKE ACTION AND PUT A STOP TO PUTTING A TERRORISTS ASSOCIATED PERSON AS OBAMA in the WHITE HOUSE It is plain ignorant.!Obama's muslim father was part of the most corrupt organization in Africa where they killed, raped and were arsonist, Obama's Muslim step father put his step son in the Terrorist Jakarata Wahabbi school where they are taught to wage Jihad on the rest of the world.Obama's cousin Raila Olinga is causing a horrible uprising in KEnya where l,000 people have died..and schools are burned???ARE WE SUPPOSE TO BE IDIOTS HERE??DO WE NOT SEE A BACKGROUND LIKE NO OTHER CANDIDATE IN THE HISTORY OF ANY PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES?? See THe Political Forum
Campaigns andELections by Latisha..and US Veteran Dispatch l2/2006 OREGON STAND WITH PA.WEST VIRGINIA, OHIO>DON"T VOTE A TERRORIST ASSOCIATED OBAMA..VOte Hillary Clinton as the Clintons had the longest peace keeping time in the History of the USA and the biggest economic growth..this is a no brainer..THOSE ARE THE TWO BIGGEST ISSUES TODAY!

Posted by: STOP TERRORIST | May 16, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Wow. This is going to be a walkover.

McCain's candidacy is a laugher.

If you trolls and right wing nuts fail to kill him, you will have a black president who is a lot smarter than you.

The Clintons made lots of mistakes, but painting Obama as soft was certainly one of them. McCain is the soft candidate.

He is emotionally fragile and he changes his positions to anything he thinks people might want to hear. We know people like you John McCain; you will never be President.

Get back on the Double Talk Express and retire next to her golf course in Arizona, that is where you belong.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 16, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse


OBAMA THROWS ANOTHER GUTTER BALL

When President Bush said in Israel that people that negotiate with terrorists are appeasers and comparable to those fools that tried to negotiate with Adolph Hitler, the Barack Hussein Obama political machine went into high hysterics in response:

Here is what President Bush actually said:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

The Barak Hussein Obama "south Chicago shuck and jive" political machine was quick to respond (no "the US gave Aids to black people" howls and barks this time, but similar).

BHO said:

President Bush/John McCain are "FAILURES," HOWL, BARK, WHINE! "THEY MADE IRAN MORE POWERFUL," SNARL, GROWL, SHOUT, "ANY DAY ANY PLACE I WILL DEBATE MCCAIN ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY" BLUSTER, PUFF, AND ROAR!

"What we need is CHANGE! CHANGE FROM THE BUSH DOCTRINE - WE ARE NOT SAFER! WE NEED CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE . . . AND CHANGE! HOWL, BLUSTER, SNORT, AND ROAR, SAID BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.

Then one of his "sweeties" in the Press Corps asked him the following question:

"Mr. Obama, if after you become President and you could speak with the President of Iran, what would you say to him?"

BHO replied with: (I am paraphrasing).

"I would sit down with the President of Iran and offer him incentives to (1) stop his nuclear program and to stop his attacks on Israel, and (2) stop supporting terrorists."

SAY WHAT???? Where in the hell is the "CHANGE" from the Bush policy in such a statement? Has not the Europeans, the Asians, the Girl Scouts, the Egyptians, the Saudis, the Modocs, the Martians, all with the backing and sponsorship of the United States and the United Nations ALL offered that very same precise offer to Iran about ten thousand times so far and counting? OF COURSE THEY HAVE! And what has Iran done in response? Thumbed noses at all offers, said they were increasing their nuclear weapons' program, again vowed to wipe Israel off the map, and increased their training and support of terrorists murdering Americans and civilians in both Iraq and in Afghanistan.

So BHO calls "change" a simple repeat of the Bush doctrine and tactics with Iran? You have got to be kidding!


With all the hype and shucking and jiving about Barack Hussein Obama coming from his supporters I was sure I would hear some incredibly insightful revelation, some mind enhancing epiphanies, some high philosophical insight that would be wondrous and mind moving to behold, and that would in its forced epiphany on the President of Iran convince the Iranians to bow their heads in shame, shed a tear for their past evil deeds, and turn a new leaf praising Barack Hussein Obama's genius while all the time asking the world; "can't we just get along?"

But no, just like in the Wizard of Oz, it seems there is a little man behind the curtain pulling the levers and blowing all the smoke and howls. And this little man behind the curtain blowing all the smoke knows no more than President Bush, and has no more insight on how to stop Iran than his mentor and close political advisor for twenty years; the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Talking with the Animals

When you talk or negociate directly with terrorists you provide them with credibility - you convince their population their tactics are winning, and that the President of the United States, hat in hand, has come begging for Iran to stop punishing the USA for its evil deeds against Allah.
The day BHO sits down with Mahmound Ahmadinejad and whines for peace, the radical Muslim Mosques' throughout the Muslim world will all proclaim victory, and will thereby, recruit more suicide bombers, insurgents, money and financing such as the world has never seen before.

BHO suffers some kind of delusion that Iran actually wants to avoid war with Israel and the USA, and nothing could be further from the truth. Iran is building nuclear weapons to give them to its various terrorist factions it controls, such as Haamas, and the Palestinians, the Jerusalem Brigade, and the Shiite Militias, and of course Al Qaida. All of those Iranian backed terrorist organizations have sworn to destroy Israel and the USA or die in the process - and there are hundreds of thousands of them ready to "die for Allah."

BHO also seems to suffer the self-serving delusion that if our Congress had not approved the liberation of Iraq and the removal of Saddam, the radical Muslim insurgents and terrorists would have not entered Afghanistan in the same force as they entered Iraq. The BHO crowd wants the world to believe that Afghanistan is a "good war" and Iraq "is a bad war." Yet ask any General, or other expert on this issue, and they will tell you that both Afghanistan and Iraq are the same war! Had we not liberated Iraq our forces would be fighting the same amount of terrorists in Afghanistan as we are now fighting in Iraq. Only we also would have a hostile Saddam Hussein and his Republican Guard Army on our flanks, and Saddam would have been helping to train and financing even more terrorists and insurgents for entry into Afghanistan.

Nothing in the world short of pre-emptive military strikes, or the complete covert overthrow of the Iranian theocracy, is going to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons and giving them to their terrorist militias. Sitting down and having tea with these monsters is NOT the answer - a good and effective bombing mission is the only answer at this point in time - and if Mr. Binyamin Netanyahu is elected Prime Minister in Israel, I suspect that is precisely what is going to happen - then what will BHO do? Offer more "Tea and Crumpets" to our enemies as the bombs start to fly?

Where in the hell do these dregs and idiots come from that would be King of America? South Chicago? Peanut Farms? Please, wasn't one Jimmy Carter enough?

Doug Grant (Tm)

Posted by: dggrant | May 16, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

George W. Bush and his aged clone John McCain have no clue what to do about foreign affairs and national defense. The past eight years have been a total and absolute disaster. The failure of the Bush/McCain foreign policy extends from a total failure to capture and kill Osama Bin Ladin and his chief henchmen, to lose the Taliban in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan, to blunder through 8 long years of Isreali/Palistinian stalemate, to fail to unite our allies in either Iraq or Afghanistan, to send a hopelessly overmatched Secretary of State on one wild goose chase after another and to mismanage our war effort in Iraq in every imaginable way - including buying off the Sunni and then claiming the surge worked.

The Republicans own Bush and they will own McCain when his foolish old worldview is foreclosed by the American voters in November. The Republican party has mortgaged what was once its proud legacy -- and they have George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to hold accountable for the grievious blow ther party will suffer this fall.

Posted by: ScrewABunchof Flag Pins | May 16, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

John McCain has offered to join the Messiah in a town hall style event to discuss topics in an unscripted way. Wouldn't this be a great topic for them to discuss in such a venue? Not going to happen, of course. Obama gets the vapors when he has to face someone willing to confront him, as we all saw the the last debate. His style and no substance works best in front of the (blind) faithful and fawning media types, like Chris.

Posted by: guido28 | May 16, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Good for Barack Obama. At last we have a Democrat who is willing to challenge the basic assumptions of George Bush's war on terrorism. Bush is ignorant of history by equating diplomacy with appeasement. Was Richard Nixon an appeaser for going to China or starting detente with the Soviet Union. No Nixon realized that diplomacy is a vital weapon in dealing with brutal regimes as long as the agreements we have reached with them are enforced. President Bush and apparently John McCain do not seem to realize this. They believe that only military force and tough guy rhetoric are necessary in dealing with the world. This has proven to be a failure because all it does is put countries like Iran in an all or nothing position that escalates tension. This leaves the U.S with no options other then surrender or military force. This is prescription for bankruptcy because it would require a much larger military than we can afford.

Posted by: stevenG | May 16, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Bush is a loser. Look at the Iraq mess. As to Iran, Ahmadinejad is laughing at Bush's stupid lies.

Posted by: M. Stratas | May 16, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

How's the fit in the tank, Chris? Getting crowded?

Posted by: guido28 | May 16, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama did the right thing to chastise Bush for his most unbecoming behavior as President of the United States. Bush's foreign policies were all failures, the most egregious is the quagmire in Iraq. Bush is actually an embarassment; he is like an simpleminded boy who does not know how to act among adults. Since Bush started it, Obama has the right to call him out even while he is still abroad. Bush is a weak leader who goes Riyadh to beg the Saudis to increase their oil production so that prices will go down. Obama can engage effectively these (2) Republican dunces.

Posted by: M. Stratas | May 16, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Mainstream Media: We Demand Barack Obama Be Vetted. Who is Barack Obama?

Mainstream media has failed the United States of America.
The media favoritism for Barack Obama and the lack of investigative journalism and simple truth reporting on Barack Obama is disturbing millions of Americans. It appears there are two realities: the Mainstream Media Barack Obama and the World Wide Web Barack Obama. The internet is on fire with mass amounts of articles, videos, blogs, photographs, and commentary that expose a very different version of Barack Obama than that which is mysteriously depicted in MSM on a continual basis. This contrast is forcing many Americans to ask: Who Is Barack Obama? MSM: We demand Barack Obama be vetted. Vetting a potential American president to inform voters is ethical journalism's responsibility---it is your role, and this trust between the News and the People has been betrayed.

Democrats, Republicans, Independents--Americans ask: Who Is Barack Obama?

wiki: Vetting: Broadly, vetting is a process of examination and evaluation. Specifically, vetting often refers to performing a background check on someone before offering them employment.

Americans have many questions about Barack Obama that are not being answered. It has become a communal mission to try "to get the truth out about Barack Obama." Actually, if the news had covered Obama as business as usual, I doubt most people would have even looked him up so much. Here is a conglomeration of Barack Obama concerns which can easily be found ALL OVER the internet. I am not going to include every American concern, nor am I going to go into extreme detail, and I am not going to provide every link to every website because there are far too many. We Americans expect that responsible and ethical journalists with integrity will explore and verify or debunk these concerns and report on the truth. We Want The News. We demand Barack Obama be vetted. I want to give you an insider's look at what people are feverishly discussing about Barack Obama on the internet. Look up almost any thread on any political forum and you will see the questions being asked. Here is an example of a plea for investigation that is commonly found on the Internet, look at the images, and then read the posts: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2003860/posts So many Americans have been forced to start blogs in an attempt to compensate for Obama biased news. There are plenty of YouTube videos made by Americans sharing this precise sentiment, and it deserves notice. Ignoring it is making it worse.

Also, of note: there has been extensive web scrubbing and mysterious disappearances of posts, blogs, and articles concerning Barack Obama and his ties. Also, established Obama dissent blogs are being hacked, and information is being destroyed. It has been rumored that bloggers, commentators, and pretty much anyone who attempt to question Barack Obama, including journalists, is immediately threatened or warned in some fashion. Actually, there are even stories of super delegates and caucus goers being threatened if they do not go for Barack Obama. Furthermore, anytime anyone questions Barack Obama and his associates, his affiliations, his judgment, or his entire HISTORY, someone jumps out and screams: McCarthyism! or Lies! or Racism! or Negativity! It is all a scheme toward censorship and oppression. That needs to stop. Right now. This is America and Americans have every right to know who their potential American President is. How dare anyone think otherwise? In light of this, copy and save the body of this article for future reference in case this article disappears from the internet.

Now, here is more on the Barack Obama internet firestorm:
http://investigatebarackobama.blogspot.com/

Posted by: jpp350 | May 16, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a liar .. I dare all the Obama supporters to read this article ..

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/?page_id=15

Posted by: kty | May 16, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama has a phone bank in Hamas lead Palestine helping his campaign.

It may be hard to believe, but working in this tiny Internet cafe in Gaza City may just be one of Barack Obama's biggest fans.

Before every U.S. primary, 23-year-old Ibrahim Abu Jayyab gathers 17 of his friends to try and rally support for Obama's campaign in the U.S.

Ibrahim and his friends call random numbers in the U.S. before every primary to deliver one simple message: Elect Senator Obama.

http://coldheartedtruth.com/politics/index.php/2008/05/15/another-endorsement-for-obama-1?blog=15

Posted by: tdl62 | May 16, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

I like the look of this. Obama taking on Bush on his foreign policy disasters with McCain holding Bush's coat for him. I would have thought after McCain's backpedaling on the "100 year war" yesterday that he would have avoided getting snared in this trap. I can't wait for Bush to fire his appeasing Secretary of Defense who just called for talks with Iran - not to mention his North Korean negotiators and, um, himself, for reaching a diplomatic deal with North Korea.

Posted by: Chuck | May 16, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

There were plenty of appeasers right there in the audience at the Knesset. The framing of the argument is nice, though. Take an erroneous swipe when it was intended for the audience seated. How overreactive on Senator Obama's part. Those who doth protest too much!.

President Bush was addressing the Knesset. The speech was to remind members of the Knesset that voted to appease the Palastinians by handing over Gaza that they received nothing for it. President Bush was echoing the many statements of Israeli statesman over the years. Giving terrorists anything, as proven yet again by handing over Gaza, always results in the same thing. "We want something else next". It was clear that he was comparing the appeasers in the Knesset to Neville Chamberlain. But if the shoe fits on the Democrats, then the truth hurts, huh?

You might be able to take one part of the speech, where he talked about a US Senator in 1939 that remarked, "If I just could have talked to Hitler this could have been avoided". If Obama just could talk to these 'nut job' leaders, he could talk them out of their wrong ideas. That comes from his website.

Validating the tactics is always bad. Giving in is validating the tactics. It is not complicated.

The fact that Senator Obama felt it was directed at him is probably he saw his Iran/Syria policy from his website as to the origin of the remark. On the website, he claims to be the only candidate that will have direct presidential talks with Iran's leader with no preconditions. The only precondition we have right now is the compliance with UN resolutions regarding uranium enrichment.

Please let me know about any other preconditions I might have missed.

Oh, BTW, The site of the nuclear reactor in Syria, that was destroyed, was cleared in 48 hours. No outcry from Syria was forthcoming. I wonder why? Does anyone think Iran might have funded this project?

Silence from both of them speaks volumes as to the purpose of the reactor.

Posted by: thelaw | May 16, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

chris c.
i'm watching you on hardball and you are way off. yes, i imagined 3 mos. ago that HRC would be vanquished. Obama and the Dems have already won! the GOP is headed for the sewers. all the fearful talking points...war on terror, gay marriage, immigration, et al. there are NO VALID GOP arguments. none.
not to rag on you chris, but pay a little closer attention to David Axelrod. Axelrod is the center of gravity in this campaign.

Posted by: steveinnc | May 16, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

My guess is that John McCain will move with desperate and deliberate attempts to "dodge" and "avoid," at all costs, any debate with Barak Obama. John McCain will find himself frustrated and embarrassed, stuttering and stammering with no answer for the Republican failures during the past 7 years.
One failure in particular is the statement by McCain concerning our "enemies that exist in the world today." Seven years after 9/11 the leadership of the Republican party has not reduced the number of "enemies" of the American people, in reality the number has been steadily increased by thousands upon thousands.
Entering a debate with "patched and bandaged" Republican policies of the Bush administration and years of Republican leadership in Congress that put this nation on the brink of disaster will leave John McCain leaving the debates broken and possibly in need of medical assistance.

Posted by: motiv8ed | May 16, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Way to go PCM!!! We are getting ready to storm the castle and Bush and Mc C and every Republican who dismissed Democrats and Independants who weren't "their kind of people" are going to be hoisted on their own petard. I am so darn excited to hear Barack stand up and say no - this is not how it's going to be anymore - and I think I can even hear the world applauding!!!

Posted by: Wyoming Woman | May 16, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

alance

What you miss is the fact that people are soo unsatisfied with the Republicans and unimpressed with hillary that Obama has become a front runner at least 4 years before we imagined he would. Dont blame him because the bush administrations has screwed up soo much that an little known like Obama can get more people behind him with no experience than than the ones with so called experience can. Its a reflection on how bad they are, not him. McCain comes of as a bush retread and hillary missed the boat and allowed Obama to steal the message she should have been using which was change. How could she be soo stupid? That tells you something about all of them. The guy least likely to win is winning. You have to give him some points for that.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama's genuine change taking on more of the GOP's "change that you deserve":

From: Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/change-that-you-deserve.html

Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The Change That You Deserve

From the Chicago Tribune:

"The slogan unveiled this week by House Republicans - "Change you deserve" - is already a trademark used by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals to market its antidepressant Effexor XR."

Black Screen.

Fade into:

Scene of a thin grey haired man standing in a green field. Behind him we can see the sun is rising.

"I got the change I deserved with GOP"

Cut to a small child, in a sun dress, who looks up at him and smiles.

"I was tired, listless. I had lost interest in my usual activities--creating false attacks, acting as if I had been unfairly attacked about issues created out of whole cloth, drawing specious historical parallels, fawning over ideologically bankrupt manufactured father figures. Sure, I sent emails claiming that Obama was a Muslim, but somehow...it had lost the spark, the enjoyment of everyday life."

Cut to a child who rides by on a bicycle, and throws a newspaper on the front porch.

"That's when I found GOP."

Cut to man rowing in a scull across a still river. He turns to the camera, smiles.

"In clinical studies, GOP has been found to increase aggressiveness in the absence of actual provocation in 8 out of 10 users. In most users, the desire to gleefully attack returns in 1 week. Full enthusiasm for invented ideas in two. "

Cut to image of porch swing.

"With GOP, my attention to minor distractions fully returned, until I was again building them into major accusations of flawed character. Once again, my intense focus on pins, buttons, sentences fragments and remote relationships as absolute indications of personal virtue and ability was at its peak. For an entire weekend, I could one again choose the right moment to accuse a candidate of treason without cause--when I was ready, when the time felt right".

Cut to a series of blurred images: long, stringy haired teens in torn jeans and ironic 80's t-shirts lounging by the Washington Monument; picture of John Kerry in a Swift Boat during Vietnam;
Eiffel Tower. Plate of Arugula. During these images, rapid voiceover in female voice:

"GOP may cause monosyllabism, inability to consider two differing concepts at the same time, memory loss or inaccurate recall of recently and repeatedly presented intelligence information, focus on size of automobiles or koro, sequential nicknaming, knowing mischaracterization, hooting. If you have a desire to read the collected works of Ann Coulter that lasts longer than four hours, this may be a sign of a dangerous condition and you should contact your physician immediately."

Cut back to man standing in field. American flag waving in the distance behind him, below a risen sun. A woman walks up beside him, puts her arm around him, and smiles.

Man:

"So get the change that you deserve. Talk to your Doctor about GOP. Soon, you'll be walking by the homeless on the street again and saying "Let them get a job!"

Or better yet--let them get GOP."

Woman smiles.

Fade.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/change-that-you-deserve.html


Posted by: Robert Hewson | May 16, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

I saw keep Bush & McCain buddying up together. The longer McCain wears that albatross necklace, all the better for Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Considering that the president never mentioned Democrats or Sen. Obama in his remarks, I found it interesting how histrionically he and others jumped over the comments. Maybe the president was referring Jimmy Carter's recent visit with Hamas? Maybe he was referring to any number of examples in history that show appeasement never works (including some of Bush's own dilly-dallying with N. Korea and Iran).

Obama's reaction tells me that (1) he is incredibly full of himself (thinking "it's all about him")-- or (2) he's incredibly thin-skinned -- or (3) Bush hit a little too close to home for him and the other Democrats who have been denouncing the comments. Or maybe a combination of those. In any case, the bottom line is we don't need Obama in the White House

Posted by: Chris | May 16, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

alance Wrote:

"All Mr. Obama has to offer when it comes to national security is well-articulated bravado."

------------

Even if that is true, it beats the heck out of poorly articulated bravado, which is all McCain and Bush offer.

Posted by: MCook | May 16, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Yet another reason why the Democrats are going to ROMP in '08. Republicans CAN'T win a debate on foriegn policy against a Democrat who is willing to fight on it. Throw on the Republicans votoing against the GI Bill of rights and you will see clearly that the Republicans wear lapel pins while Democrats TRULY support the troops.

Posted by: pdxgeek | May 16, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

NOBODY knows what Obama will or will not do! WE DO NOT KNOW HIM AND HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE OR RECORD TO EVEN TAKE A GUESS! But what we do know about Obama in Chicago, his associations, Wright, his wife's comments, his own comments, and his own words in his own books is that Americans should not trust him with this country. Period.

Posted by: DEM to IND | May 16, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Just because George Bush attacks Obama, (indirectly I might add), does not mean that Obama is the winner of the primary.

I missed that in the primary rules. "When your sworn political party enemy recognizes one of your candidates as the front runner, that's the winner."

I guess Obama is standing up to Bush.

Why not really hit him and call him a war criminal or something. Not simply, "you've got alot of explaining to do" or "meet for a debate at the corner".

Posted by: Comment | May 16, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza should know that historically the pendulum swings back and forth between the Democrats and Republicans for members of Congress.

All Mr. Obama has to offer when it comes to national security is well-articulated bravado.

He never met a leftist or radical leader he didn't like. He can't wait to give away the store if he gets elected. Our current friends will become enemies and our current enemies will become our friends. This is the change he has been promising America.

Posted by: alance | May 16, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Thank G*d for George Bush and his idiot policies. I hope he continues to stay in the public eye and continues to be his old goofy self all the way through the November election.

Heck-uv-a-job Bushie.

Posted by: egc52556 | May 16, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Wow. The election is really heating up now. And these poll results say everything!

http://www.votenic.com

Run by a kid.

Posted by: votenicdotcom | May 16, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

pvogel88 wrote:

Obama will fight the republicans at every issue.


No sweetie, Obama promise to get rid of partisanship and work with the repubicans on every issue.

.... those of us with a brain know it won't work.. you seem to believe it won't work, so you must not support obama.


Posted by: Tonka | May 16, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

colin, bokonon, blarg, blert, and novamatt:

pls email me at

mark_in_austin@operamail.com

use a throwaway address of your own for your convenience.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 16, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

This ain't no John Kerry here.

Posted by: Max | May 16, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Now we are talking.
Obama vs McCain is the ticket.
Let's rumble.
Mr. Mccain will be retired before November.
A new generation of politicians will lead us into the future.

I am enjoying every minute of it. This is the superball of the political world.

Posted by: PCM 01 | May 16, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

President Bush is being totally consistent here. In Iran's 2005 elections reformist and possible appeasor former president Rafsanjani was ahead in the polls. Spotting an appeasor President Bush publically got involved in the elections, with speaches critising and lecturing Iran in the weeks before the elections- doing his bit to help hardliner & fellow cowboy Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pull off a surprise victory.

Posted by: mickcheney | May 16, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

geez, what is shows is Obama's ego.... everything is about him...

The "brilliant" obama fell in the the boob's bush's trap.

They are related you know..kin,

Obama looked like a fool, ASSuming they were talking about him

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats are just mind-numbingly tone-deaf to where voters are on this issue. Tying McCain to Bush will only go so far, at the end of the day the narrative will be the naive Liberal, "Barack Dukakis", against the centrist/maverick with tons of foreign policy experience.

The Dems are "fighting the last war" -- the war reasonates as an issue among the Dem base, but for security moms and other centrists President Obama is a frightening prospect in times as unpredictable as these.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"Obama not afraid to engage..."

Geesh. You're all but confirming that he is a week and worthless--yet kinda sorta ready to fight the GOP.

I cannot believe we are about to have a nominee who needs, of all people, Cillizza and the Post editors, to beef-up Obama on paper to leave the perception that he has got some gonads.

I can't see why I'd vote for him in November. Too many questions.

Oh, and thanks to all Democrats for nominating a more liberal Kerry-clone. Great, thanks.

Posted by: Lazy media | May 16, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

As a Jew, I find it incredibly offensive for Bush to imply that someone with a different approach would endanger Israel. Many of my friends at synagogue and I agree that his policies and this terrible war has actually made Israel LESS safe. Bush has stirred up the region and radicalized a huge proportion of the Islamic world. I had hoped, at least, that removing Saddam Hussein would reduce the number of suicide murderers (he gave the surviving family of such a creep $25,000). That didn't happen; the bombings continued.

There probably are more Jews who'll support McCain than there are who continue to support Bush's policies. As for me and my friends, we'll vote for Obama in November.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | May 16, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama will fight the republicans at every issue.

Posted by: pvogel88 | May 16, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm very surprised that the media is not highlighting the contradiction between GW Bush's speech against appeasement while the President was simultaneously negotiating with North Korea and agreeing to give the Axis-of-Evil member an eye-popping 500,000 METRIC TONS of American food.

Posted by: tom | May 16, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

McCain debating Obama will make Hillary debating Obama look like a stroll in the park ... McCain will knock him out!!

Posted by: Jesus Francisco Cardenas | May 16, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

I think Mr. Cillizza might be giving a bit too much credit to the Democrats. I think the Republicans' aggressively misinformed foreign policy has done a great deal to undermine their stance as the foreign policy party. They've been "preemptive" and they've been wrong. So much so that even the less sophisticated voters can recognize it. The Dems deserve credit for using the tactic that has traditionally done them in - restraint. For a change, its been the Democratic party that sat back and watched the Republicans self-destruct.

Posted by: Patrick Huss | May 16, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

mike234,if bush won bashing gays in 04 then the california court action can't be to good for dems.

Posted by: gunclinger | May 16, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I love this line: "McCain and Republicans are certain to work to frame the national security/foreign policy debate in their favor..."

Only because the mainstream media is too lazy to do their work.

The GOP, the party that that brought us over 4,000 KIA, 30,000 WIA, and $500 billion wasted in an unnecessary war that they proudly lied us into in Iraq, that made us the object of world scorn, that can't catch bin Laden, that can't prosecute "the 20th hijacker" because they beat and tortured him, that wants to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, that spends more in three weeks in Iraq than it has in SIX YEARS in Afghanistan, the party of K Street fruad, graft and corruption...THIS is the party of national security?

Quit insulting us with this idiocy.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | May 16, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Get a room. What drivel.

Is he afraid to engage the enemies of the United States is the question. Not whether he can talk back to George Bush. We already know he can talk.

Posted by: Chicago1 | May 16, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

I agree fully.

Obama has the right strategy. He needs to be very aggressive. The Rs have owned the "keep America safe" issue for far too long (especially given their track record).

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I agree with your assessment that Obama is not afraid to engage. The way the upcoming primaries will probably play out (Hillary wins Kentucky and Obama wins Oregon) and the superdelegate support Obama is now enjoying (34 SDs per week), Obama will reach the needed 2026 delegate count by May 29th!

Obama has 8 years of Bush and McCain facts to go on which are very unpopular with the American public!

Posted by: AJ | May 16, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

McCain has just raised the ante on Obama's double down ;-) he came right out and said that Obama's position proves that he doesn't have the strength, judgment and (something else I forgot) to lead the country. this is just starting to get good. Obama can hit that softball out of the park if he thinks about it.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 16, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Bush is actually the appeaser; 15 of the 19 hi-jackers were Saudi citizens. He gave the speech to the Israeli legislature on his way to Saudi Arabia to ask for more oil. Looking forward to January 20, to put his sad administration of our government into the past.

Posted by: chuck | May 16, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

obama is not afraid because he has no experience. he probably will stand down the nuclear forces that protect our country because the age of obama is here.

Posted by: Dwight | May 16, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Chris, A possible correction?

You write "a recognition that ceding that coveted political ground to Republicans was a recipe for success". I think you mean "a recipe for failure" -- or else you did not mean "ceding". It looks to me like a typo where you revised part of a sentence and not the other part.

Cheers and happy Friday.

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | May 16, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Let's not reinvent history. Bush won in 2004 bashing gays with Rove's "marriage" amendments in key states.

Posted by: Mike234 | May 16, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

You wrote: "This was a pre-planned strategy by the Bush campaign...." I assume you meant "administration," not "campaign." But hey, what's the difference?

Posted by: Peter | May 16, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Simply using the facts Obama is going to roast Bush and McW like we haven't seen in American politics a long time. I can't wait to see the debate unfold as Pooh Bear and McW are simply on the wrong side of the facts, and Obama knows how to throw their BS right back at them. For their lying, distortions, and hypocrisy W and McW both deserve a fate far worse than losing the 2008 election by a landslide. But that will be a start!

Posted by: cjburke | May 16, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama takes on a president whose approval ratings are in the high teens when he says something that the entire Democratic party denounces as ridiculous?...Wow. I'm impressed.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Bush may indeed have "an unmatched ability to drive the political dialogue in this country," but as usual, given the opportunity, he'll drive it into the nearest ditch.

Posted by: FlownOver | May 16, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"The second lesson of the Knesset Kerfuffle is that the Democratic presidential nomination race is over."

'zactly

Posted by: 2bars3stars.com | May 16, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company