Pajamas Media

70 Comments

1. A Stoner:

Let them eat rice cakes.

Aug 19, 2008 - 9:49 am 2. The Wizard:

The man is totally inexperienced, a pandering, naive idiot. And, a racist. Granted, he is a gifted orator, provided he has a script and a teleprompter — otherwise that is a hoax as well. He demands to be called a “patriot”, but his actions and deeds do not reflect his commitment to this country. He is a charlatan, an empty suit. Yet, the Democratic party and the MSM have blindly allowed him to elevate himself to this position. No one has truly answered all of the questions about Obama; they are serious and raise concerns with every American. As we near November, these questions will continue to plague Mr. Obama. Quite frankly, he is undeserving of our votes and any loyalty. His loyalty appears to be to himself and his strange collection of mentors…Wright, Ayres, et al. I find it interesting he has the audacity to call Clarence Thomas lacking in experience (he did correct himself) yet with careful scrutiny of Thomas’ resume verses Obama’s – I wonder who is lacking in credentials and experience. This man is not fit to be commander in chief of America and leader of the free world. Wake up, America!

Aug 19, 2008 - 10:05 am 3. Keith_Indy:

I know a few Democrats like those mentioned. Including one life long Democrat who was very involved in politics, including being elected Clerk Treasurer of a town. She just doesn’t see any “there” there. I don’t think she go as far as voting for McCain, but not voting for Obama would be a big change of norm for her.

Aug 19, 2008 - 10:24 am 4. Gayle Miller:

That is assuming, arguendo, that Senator Obama will actually BE nominated! Although it’s a problematic exercise, Senator Clinton could still have a change to finesse the nomination at the last moment.

It isn’t over until it’s over.

Aug 19, 2008 - 10:42 am 5. ST333:

Philosophically I’m a Republican and voting for McCain but as an observer, there is NO WAY the Dems abandon Obama for Hillary at this point. Nothing stirs up white liberal guilt more then racism….real or imaginary. Even if Obama was losing in the polls, he’d still be the nominee for the Dems. The article states it perfectly, the Dems love categorizing their people through identity politics and having a half black candidate currently has tingles running up the legs of more people then Chris Matthews. He’s the horse they are betting on without a doubt, the question is how appealing is the Maverick to the “rank and file” conservative Dems? Are the Hillraisers so mad that they’d sabotage this election by voting Maverick to get their girl in 2012 instead of 2016?

Aug 19, 2008 - 10:49 am 6. goy:

… in a year which, based on historical precedent, the White House should go to the Democrats …

Pam, I’m not sure which historical precedents hold in this case. Seems as valid as anything to go by the precedent set the last time a far-left candidate ran against a (nominally) conservative one, where the (Republican) incumbent had been attacked throughout his administration by a vindictive and mendacious mainstream media, and where the Democrat was declared the “clear front-runner” by that same fawning media early on: 1984. If that precedent holds, Obama and those who blindly supported him will be publicly humiliated.

This HopeAndChangely Obamaphoria is all great fun and games until someone loses an eye. And it seems like the adults among the Democrats are slowly beginning to realize this on two levels.

First, the more real public exposure Obama receives – as opposed to transparently scripted exposure he’s enjoyed to date – the more his ineptitude and unsuitability for the office is made apparent. It has to be obvious to any thinking Democrat that – even from a purely partisan standpoint – support for such a flawed candidate is just plain recklessness.

Second, responsible Democrats whose character transcends partisan considerations are just finally – thanks in large part to pressure from New Media – getting a glimpse of what an Obama presidency will look like, and what it will mean for America domestically and globally with someone like him at the country’s helm: we’ll be lucky if we only lose the national equivalent of an eye.

Imagine where we’d be today if the MSM were forced to ask real questions about Rezko, Ayers, Wright, Odinga and all the rest – the way they were finally forced to address the Edwards fiasco…

Aug 19, 2008 - 10:49 am 7. jdwill:

Agree with most posters here, the die is cast.

PS Hmmm: Live by …, die by … maybe a universal truth. Kinda like cholesterol in the arteries.

Aug 19, 2008 - 11:21 am 8. Gary Ogletree:

I just watched the Blessed One speak to the VFW for a few minutes. Can’t help but think he’s succeeding in spurring more vets to get active in defeating him. The Dems got what they deserved. I expect the country to be spared this particular disaster.

Aug 19, 2008 - 11:43 am 9. ic:

All of you must be racist questioning Obama’s suitability for office.

A scenario: the Dems are racist. They sacrifice an inexperienced baggage-ridden black this time instead of wait four/eight years for him to be seasoned. From now on, they don’t have to nominate a black again: We have nominated a black, see what a disaster he was; or you cannot fight America’s racism, we cannot nominate a black if we want to reoccupy the White House.

Aug 19, 2008 - 11:49 am 10. Orlin:

test

Aug 19, 2008 - 12:37 pm 11. always right:

The Dems will just make up ‘the loss’ with even more (outrageous) voter fraud. I’ll give an example, a >120% voter turnout (than registered voters) in Philadelphia alone. And it won’t be reported/monitored, it has all been taken care of, sort to speak.

Even with the outright cheating, if Obama still loses, there will be riots in the streets until ‘the election is restored back to the people’.

Rodney King/LA riot is nothing compare to this.

Aug 19, 2008 - 12:44 pm 12. ycwhat?:

ic, anyone who questions Obama is a racist so Democrats nominating Obama is a racist ploy to bar blacks from running because “we cannot nominate a black if we want to reoccupy the White House.” So point 1 you admit Obama (”inexperienced bagge ridden black”) is not currently presidential material. Point 2 the Democrats are really a bunch of racist bigots because they nominated an unqualified black candidate to prevent any future black candidates. Point 3 why would you stick with the Democratic party in its attempt to “reoccupy the White House” when it is a cynical party of racists? Oh, that’s right you are a Democrat so you must be a racist.

Aug 19, 2008 - 12:54 pm 13. chitowner:

always right;
Remember Obama is from Chicago where elections, even national, think JFK, are routinely stolen. The Chicago Sun Times did an expose in the early 70’s showing thousands of dead people voting. But nothing has changed, the Democratic mantra in Chicago is “Vote early, vote often.” If Obama loses and riots do occur it would show how the Democratic party has been reduced to third world standards. I’ve long ago moved out of Chicago so I can freely own and practice with my semi-auto AR-15, 7.62×51 M-14 type rifle, even a WWII era carbine with high capacity magazines. Plus a good old 1911 .45 and a 17 shot 9 mm. I would love the opportunity to “get some”.

Aug 19, 2008 - 1:43 pm 14. Kirk:

I wouldn’t worry about riots. I didn’t used to think this before the campaign, but now I think most black Americans already believe they are in a racist, biased and jury-rigged country. It will only be further proof to them, reinforcing their preexisting worldview. The poor areas that riot usually riot in their own neighborhoods anyways, if I remember correctly.

Aug 19, 2008 - 2:15 pm 15. Self-hating boomer:

Even with the outright cheating, if Obama still loses, there will be riots in the streets until ‘the election is restored back to the people’.

There’s a very real possibility that Obama could win the popular vote by 2 points, and McCain wins the electoral collage. Having huge leads in highly populous states like California and New York makes that possible. If you think they couldn’t get over 2000, you haven’t seen anything yet.

Aug 19, 2008 - 2:32 pm 16. Donna:

However angry some blacks may be if Obama loses, I think race relations in this country would become even more embittered if he were elected and turned out to be a complete failure. And I think there is a very good chance he would be Jimmy Carter II.

Aug 19, 2008 - 2:45 pm 17. glc:

I’m a Republican voting for McCain.

But if I had to choose between Hillary and Obama, I’d want to lose to Hillary. I think she would do less damage to this country than would Obama. He is a socialist. He is a racist. He is not experienced enough. He is frightening. He wants to redistribute wealth in this country. He will destroy us.

I have been closely watching news reports about Hillary and the convention this past month, and everything I have predicted has come true so far: about Hillary getting a roll call, about Florida and Michigan getting their full votes counted at the convention…

We all know that Hillary and Bill will not do anything unless there is something in it for them. They are brutally competitive, politically astute, and ambitious to a fault. They want back in the White House. They want power. So I don’t see why Bill would speak Obama’s praises in a speech at the convention when just two weeks ago Bill was lambasting Obama. It just doesn’t fit–unless a deal has been struck and threats have been made by Clinton camp to Obamaland–threats that forced Obama into some kind of deal. Was the deal that Hillary would get the VP slot and that if she didn’t, that she and Bill would quietly and behind the scenes stab Obama in the back to ensure McCain’s victory? Or was the deal to give Hillary and Bill important positions? (Supreme court justice? Ambassador?)

Or, was no deal struck because they can’t stand each other, and Hillary is really going to stab Obama in the back by trying to get the nomination? She is getting that roll call, and Obama did (idiotically) ask for Florida and Michigan to be reinstated)? Would Hillary risk tearing apart the Democratic party just to get the White House? You bet she would! (Remember, Bill and Hillary care about–yup–Bill and Hillary.)

So, it’s either going to be one of two things: Hillary is the VP; or Hillary works like Hell to get the nomination.

I’d like to see her fight like Hell to get the nomination.

Go Hillary!

I’d rather have Bill padding about the White House in his socks looking for some “skirt” than have Obama in the White House letting socialists and communists sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. At least then I’d know that someone–either Bill or Hillary–would be there for those important and to be expected 3 a.m. emergency calls!!!

glc

Aug 19, 2008 - 2:55 pm 18. Paul M Hupf:

Senator Obama is out of his element. He says Clarence Thomas lacked qualifications for the position of justice of the Supreme Court, obviously unaware of the credentials of Clarence Thomas, all acquired before the latter’s nomination. Those credentials put to shame what Senator Obama is offering on his own behalf in his campaign for the Presidency of this country. What Senator Obama is doing is simply giving voice to statements which he thinks will appeal to the uninformed. His positions are shallow at best.

Aug 19, 2008 - 3:05 pm 19. j.philpot:

I grew up being a yellow dog democrat, thanks to LBJ and Jimmy Carter I became a Republican. Before you vote in November, vote for the man that we know loves his country, and we are absolutely sure he is the one to protect us from the crazies in this world. And after the election the poor will still be poor, and the rich will still be rich, as someone said in the past the more things change, the more they stay the same. John MCcain all the way.

Aug 19, 2008 - 4:02 pm 20. Dan Collins:

Rank and vile?

Haters!

Aug 19, 2008 - 5:10 pm 21. willnotwin:

where was obama born???

Aug 19, 2008 - 5:20 pm 22. Carol:

Speaking for the “older” white crowd, I know of NO Democrat voting for McCain or not voting. Even the former Clinton supporters I know are voting for Obama.
I am amazed at the racists comments being made here. Most of us don’t look at Obama as a color, but someone who will bring good changes to our country. The Republicans had their chance and look where we are.
By the way, there has been no bigger voter fraud than was done to elect our current person posing as President.

Aug 19, 2008 - 5:26 pm 23. Typical White Person:

“always right:

The Dems will just make up ‘the loss’ with even more (outrageous) voter fraud. I’ll give an example, a >120% voter turnout (than registered voters) in Philadelphia alone.”
——————-

Possible, but did you hear “Fast Eddie” Rendell (PA Gov.) will be voting for Hillary at the roll call? Anything he is involved in can be looked at with suspicion. Can’t stand him as governor, but would love to see him and the Clintons pull a fast one on the Barry “The Titanic” D’OHbama!

Otherwise, I have found many Dems who have no intention of voting Dem this fall. They just don’t trust him. Country first and all. Some may vote McCain, others may not vote for president. McCain has a great shot at winning Pennsylvania. When the high rolling governor doesn’t vote for the “presumtive” (presumptuous?) nominee on the first roll call, it sends quite a powerful signal to the other party stalwarts and the rest who are just watching the show, that it is a vote of “no confidence” in D’OHbama.

Very interesting.

Aug 19, 2008 - 5:45 pm 24. Dave Miedema:

Remember, the terrorist group Hamas has already gone on record as supporting Paris Obama for president.

Does any more need to be said?

McCAIN 2008!

Dave Miedema
Berwyn IL

Aug 19, 2008 - 6:15 pm 25. RLT:

I am a consertative independant and am not happy with either choice. Barack Obama is a clear and present danger to our nation. I am a “whitey, carry a gun and Bible” and cherish every freedom that our Constitution gurantees. Our politically correct, Godless, policians make me sick. Right is clearly defined in the Bible and so is wrong. The choices made today will have far reaching consequences in the future. Forget about skin color and check out the morals of the candidates.

Aug 19, 2008 - 6:21 pm 26. ILBlue:

Life long Dem -40yrs IL. vote Obama once, never again. Will vote McCain if not Hillary. My husband also. Friends also. StepMom PA. 78 yrs Dem. voting McCain. Not racist , just won’t vote for inexperiance at this time with all that is going on in the world. Don’t trust and no longer even like Obama.

Aug 19, 2008 - 6:34 pm 27. Lisa:

This Hillary support sure as hell isn’t voting for Obama. I may not vote for McCain in November but I won’t, under any circumstance, be voting for that sexist, racebaiting pig.

Aug 19, 2008 - 7:06 pm 28. Typical White Person:

Dave Posted: “Does any more need to be said?”

Yes, Manuel Noriega, Louis Farrakan, Chavez…

Aug 19, 2008 - 7:28 pm 29. John in Washington State:

Carol, Please speak for yourself. I too, am an older white voter. I have voted Democrat for over forty years. I am also a Viet-Nam veteran. I am a strong Hillary supporter, but she got screwed by Pelosi and Dean.
What I am is someone that will not vote for a person just because they were the one the party chose for me.(My Primary vote didn’t count)Thank you Mr. Pelz
I can not vote for Obama. The man scares the hell out of me. He is a liar and a crook. I will not vote for someone I don’t trust. Vote McCain 2008

Aug 19, 2008 - 8:33 pm 30. chicago:

Obama is not a reformer and never will be:

Obama and the Chicago Machine
by Editor
http://www.obamascon.com/2008/08/19/obama-and-the-chicago-machine/

One of the more puzzling developments in Obama’s career is how he has been able to position himself as a reform style politician – as an outsider who can come in and clean up the mess politicians have made. This simply doesn’t match reality. And yet the media seems uninterested in exploring and explaining Obama’s past.

At the start of his career you could make the argument that this is the kind of politician Obama was seeking to become, but his ambition seems to have quickly pushed this idealism aside. Making his career in Chicago, and Cook County Illinois, gave Obama the chance to put some substance behind his words. But at practically every opportunity he has chose the safe route rather than the route of reform; of challenging the system. Back in July Michael Van Winkle, a Chicago resident, offered a quick rundown of this rarely talked about aspect of Obama’s career:

He has a track record of putting party over principle.

In 2006, he endorsed the re-election of Rod Blagojevich, despite very real concerns about the Governor’s ethics. Since the endorsement, Blagojevich has come very close to full blown indictment, so close that some Illinois Democrats tried to have him recalled. But Obama’s voice has been silent on the matter.

In 2007, incumbent Cook County Board President and long-time Machine candidate, John Stroger, faced a tough challenge from a reform candidate in the Democratic Primary. Obama refused to make an endorsement.

When John Stroger was incapacitated by a stroke two weeks before the election, Obama was silent. When the Machine told us Stoger was fine and only admitted the seriousness of the stroke once the deadline for candidate filings had passed, Obama remained silent. And when the Machine replaced John Stroger with his inexperienced and unimpressive son, Todd, well Obama endorsed him.

Since Obama’s endorsement, Todd Stroger has gone on to break promises, lie to the public, and raise taxes to support six-figure salaries for his family and friends.

Even now, Obama is putting politics over principle in Illinois. Illinoisans have a chance to reform state politics by voting “yes” for a consitutional convention on a November ballot question. But Obama’s own campaign mastermind, David Axelrod, has been hired to oppose the effort.

I’m not blaming corruption in Illinois on Obama; let’s be clear. But he’s done very little to stand up for principles and good governance in a state that deperately needs principled and bipartisan leadership.

Tom Bevan provides further details on the consequences of Obama refusing to take a stronger stand in the Cook County Board election:

Whether Obama’s endorsement would have mattered or not is beside the point. Endorsements are, as a matter of practical politics, mostly symbolism. By choosing to stay neutral in the race and to not go the extra distance to endorse Claypool, Obama signified that he was for reform and change – but only up to a point.

As it turned out, there was a bizarre epilogue to this race – and one that proves these kind of decisions have real world consequences. A week before the primary, Stroger suffered a severe stroke. The resulting outpouring of sympathy played at least some part in the final outcome: the reformer Claypool lost by six points, 53 to 47.

Stroger stayed out of sight for weeks and eventually it came to light that after recognizing he would not be able to stand for re-election, he engineered a deal from his hospital bed to install his son, Todd Stroger, on the ballot.

The move was decried by many, including Claypool, for what it was: a bald act of nepotism. Despite Todd Stroger’s youth, inexperience, and his reputation as a corrupt, machine-style ward boss, Obama not only endorsed Stroger in the general election but heaped praise on him as a “a good progressive” – a claim that no one who knows him could make with a straight face.

In the end, Todd Stroger won election in November 2006. Since taking office as Cook County Board President, however, he has been an unmitigated disaster. With runaway tax increases and the county hospital system in crisis, Stroger has been busy packing the County payroll with allies at the expense of taxpayers, including more than a dozen friends and relatives making more than $100,000 per year.

As I noted yesterday, Obama likes to talk about his stance against the war in Iraq as difficult and courageous when it was really just smart politics. Here was a true chance to be courageous, to put real political capital on the line, and Obama refused to stand up to the political machine. And there were real world consequences in the form of continued corruption, nepotism, and bad government.

Only those who view Obama through rose colored glasses, however, will be surprised by any of this history. Obama’s political mentor, and the politician who gave Obama what little legislative accomplishments he has, was a member of the Chicago machine and continues to treat public office like a family business.

Nobody expected Obama to become a one issue crusader against corruption in Chicago. Even most anti-machine politicians attempt to work within the system. But it is one thing to remain silent and another to use the system to climb the ladder and then claim to be something different. Obama’s record is the record of a politician accommodating himself to the system not challenging it. But of course, it is hard to win elections running as just another politician.

Obama’s reformer image is an illusion and a dangerous one because it hides his real record and masks his real character.

Aug 19, 2008 - 9:04 pm 31. Mike Shuster:

This is the kind of piece that, if it was on a real political website like, say, National Review or Politico or Talking Points Memo, or even Townhall.com, might include an actual fact or poll figure or piece of reportage other than emails from the writer’s friends.

Aug 19, 2008 - 9:09 pm 32. Tom:

Carol – pretty sure where you live there is an anger mgt course you can take to get over what happened during the last election; I supposed you are still mad that you got slapped on the butt when you were born.
Don’t forget Alan Keyes is running – if you were really color blind HE is the candidate you should be supporting.

Aug 19, 2008 - 9:21 pm 33. SAF:

Obama may or may not win. But a last minute switch to Hillary would ensure she lost. There is no scenario that she gets the nomination and democrats become united behind her. So IMHO Obama will be the nominee.

Surely if she gets the nomination we will see race riots on a scale never seen before. The democrats know this and won’t allow it.

woman may be pissed that she lost the nomination but they won’t riot.

Aug 20, 2008 - 4:25 am 34. Brian G.:

The Donkeys thought they could dress up a radical leftist and make him out to be some transcendent figure and America would fall for it. Nice try. When McCain wins, and he will, they’ll cry racism. And if it makes them feel better, so be it. The fact will remaint hat America will not elect a far-left Socialist to its highest office. They choose the old geezer who puts America first everytime.

Aug 20, 2008 - 6:45 am 35. clyde_m:

carol and mike, who was that in 1972 that said something to the effect of, “i have no idea how nixon won in a landslide. i don’t know anyone that voted for him”?

this piece is obviously a personal reflection based on discussions with the author’s friends. seems to me to be simple social discourse. why set some high standard of polls and data, et al.? why the under lying angst in your posts?

Aug 20, 2008 - 6:46 am 36. upetrovska:

The main lesson of the Edwards incident is that unvetted candidates are a big risk, and that the mainstream media consistently underinvestigates unvetted Democrats. It should send chills up the spine of the superdelegates who, in Denver, can still choose Hillary.

Aug 20, 2008 - 6:51 am 37. Joseph McNulty:

When the choice is between losing witn Obama, a manifesrly unfit candidate, or throwing him over for Hillary, a white woman, the Democratic Party would rather lose the White House. Without the monolithic black vote, the Democrats could not be elected to anything. They do not want to spend the next four years listening to the Rev. Al Sharpton alleging in outrage that the Democratic Party snatched away the nomination from a black man to give it to a white woman. They would much rather lose and maintain the black vote. The “victim” status of blacks within the Democratic Party means thata the Democratic Party must treat black voters like petulant chindren.

Aug 20, 2008 - 7:01 am 38. Michael P.:

We’re on vacation in Florida and met with a friend of my wife, who is a staunch Democrat, and he told us flat-out he is not voting for Obama. I think there is something to the idea that many Dems won’t vote for him.

Aug 20, 2008 - 7:13 am 39. bdog57:

Roommates turned on the TV just as McCain started speaking at Saddleback forum last Saturday (not on purpose, they just happened upon it). Sorry, but Obama’s toast. Absolute grand slam. Anyone who wants to say that McCain wasn’t in the “cone of silence” (conpsiracy theory BS) need to realize that even if he heard all of the questions, it has been stated for YEARS that his best campaign format is the Town Hall. This being the first time that I’ve seen him in action, I would definitely have to agree. [BTW, McCain couldn't have heard all of the questions anyway as Mr. Warren stated that he was able to ask McCain more questions than Obama]

All of the anecdotes and specific policies point to somebody with a broad depth of experience and character. No amount of intellectualizing will cover up this simple fact.

Reading some of Obamas responses on Monday, it just gets worse. Again, egg-headed responses to simple questions of right and wrong, good and evil. What really did it, though, was the “above my pay grade” response. This has effectively ended all hopes for his candidacy. As is mentioned elsewhere today, if answering questions about his pro-choice stance is “above his pay grade”, wouldn’t the job of being the guy next to the red button be above him, too?

Despite Gang of 14, CFR, Comprehensive Immigration, and Gitmo, I am now voting for McCain without reservation.

Germane to this topic: one of my roomies pronfesses a total lack of confidence in Obama’s abilities/experience and I’m pretty sure that by her stances on feminism and big government that she’s totally Left wing.

clyde_m:

Pauline Kael, movie reviewer for the NYT (IIRC).

Aug 20, 2008 - 7:16 am 40. rrr:

Carol proves the point. Criticism of her savior is racist. Period. There is no other reason to not bow and worship.

Aug 20, 2008 - 7:20 am 41. ZEITGEIST:

[...] MEISTER: Will Rank-and-File Democrats Vote for Obama? It’s not too late to nominate Hillary! She’ll even seem like a fresh face after all the Obama [...]

Aug 20, 2008 - 7:21 am 42. habeas:

While I respect all this insecurity and knashing of teeth, even the worst prognostications on Obama could not even come close to what the current idiot has done in 8 years, and McCain is just 4 more years of the same. If China decides to dump all those treasury bonds that are financing that $400-700 billon a year deficit, we’ll be a third world country so fast it will make your head spin. Wake up folks, this is all muck-raking spin the donkeys have used for the last 20 years. What foreign policy experience did Bush have? And you elected him.

Aug 20, 2008 - 7:28 am 43. Wayne:

In my neighborhood (northern Virginia, was centrist, now shifting slightly left) there were two houses that sported Obama signs in the front yards (one of which was quite large). In July, both were removed. Both neighbors now seem loath to discuss politics, but I don’t think they’ll be voting for Obama.

Aug 20, 2008 - 7:33 am 44. BobNC:

Don’t count Hillary out yet! As shifty and devious as she is and as experienced and sleazy as her buttonmen are, she still has a chance.
Most of you seem to think that this is purely a philosophical contest. It is not! There are powerful constituencies in the dem party who simply wan’t to win; there is money in winning. First, the unions. They pay most of the bills and probably account for most of the street money. They want millions of new dues payers. Second are the trial lawyers (like Edwards). They want more opportunity to steal from corporations and insurance companies. Finally, thhere are the political machines including the black political machines. The black politicians in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Detroit and other cities certainly want Hussein to win but they also want to protect their revenue streams. Sure, Code Pink and CUSA will put on the shhow but the money guys still own the democrats and their convention.

Aug 20, 2008 - 7:36 am 45. MarkJ:

Howard “Screamer” Dean needs to “do a Corleone,” and pronto, if he wants to avoid a train wreck in Denver:

“I want no inquiries made. I want no acts of vengeance. I want you to arrange a meeting, with the heads of the Five Families. This war stops now….but look how they massacred our nominee!”

This is what he SHOULD do. But he won’t, will he?

Aug 20, 2008 - 7:40 am 46. J_Story:

Don’t think the Party will boot Obama in the face of perceived unelectability? Just think of four familiar words:

Senator Frank Raleigh Lautenberg

Aug 20, 2008 - 8:02 am 47. David P:

Steps to Overcoming Cognitive Dissonance:

1. do not abandon or compromise your principals

2. place your beliefs ahead of the actions of the crowd

3. measure the pro’s and con’s to factor out a balance

4. place the heaviest weight on the variables closest to you

Aug 20, 2008 - 8:03 am 48. b:

haebeus, you state how horrible Bush was and note how little experience he had, and seem to think that you are making an argument for Obama.

Aug 20, 2008 - 8:07 am 49. Sarah Rolph:

I think the analysis in this article is very good. I think it’s really very amusing in a sad sort of way that identity politics has caught the Democrats in a snare. The silver lining, though, is that this does seem to be waking some people up to the foolishness of identity politics. It might wake up a lot of people, which could be an extremely good thing.

I won’t be shocked if Hillary gets the nomination, but I don’t see it happening without a carefully orchestrated strategy to blunt the racial criticism. I’m not sure such a strategy is possible, but I assume the Clintons are thinking it through.

I will be very surprised if Hillary emerges as VP candidate. I don’t see why she would want the job or why he would want her in that role. I think it might very well be the best bet for a Democrat victory, but I doubt that either Hillary or Obama cares more about the party than about their own ambitions.

What seems most likely to me is that Hillary has decided that Obama will lose and that she will have a nice shot against McCain in 2012. If this is her plan, then it would seem to explain why she and Bill are acting like Obama supporters. Key word: acting. Appearing to be a loyal Democrat is part of the game, right?

Aug 20, 2008 - 8:19 am 50. Emerson:

On talk radio this morning they were putting down McCain for running negative ads. Well jeez, I think you have to when all Obama will admit to is Hope and Change, and the media worship him like the new JFK.

All I know about Obama are some of his failures and associations. The Annenberg Challenge and his Chicago housing project were failures that lined the pockets of his friends. Then there’s his associations – Tony Rezko, radical race-baiting preachers and domestic rick kid terrorists.

Hope and Change! That’s all we need to know about Barry Soetoro!!

Aug 20, 2008 - 8:20 am 51. Brad:

“This HopeAndChangely Obamaphoria is all great fun and games until someone loses an eye.”

Goy,

My God that’s funny! Thanks for making my morning. At the risk of stealing your intellectual property, I’m gonna use that in my circles–it’s great.

Aug 20, 2008 - 8:31 am 52. Richard:

Interesting topic. My better half and I almost always cancel each other’s votes in major elections. She is a moderately liberal democrat, I’m a moderately conservative republican. This year, she jumped to McCain before I did.
Many of her democrat friends seem ready to do the same.

Aug 20, 2008 - 8:43 am 53. MayorOmalleySuxs:

carol and mike, who was that in 1972 that said something to the effect of, “i have no idea how nixon won in a landslide. i don’t know anyone that voted for him”?

That was the way I felt on a Wednesday morning in ‘92, except in my case I knew next to no one that would admit to voting for Clinton. The problem was, I knew a lot of folks that vote for Perot and most of those would now admit that they made a mistake.

Aug 20, 2008 - 9:09 am 54. AlanC:

Hillary gets to speak first so if there’s to be a “coup” she will drop the other shoe of scandal right on the messiah’s head.

Whether it’s Ayers or Rezko or birth certificate or something else that’s what she’ll do. Then she’ll look at the super-delegates and tell them “This is why you’re here, to prevent this kind of disaster. Now let’s vote!”

I doubt that there’s more than a 20-1 chance this will happen, but, it could. My guess is that she’ll sandbag Barry so that he loses big time to McC and plan on running in 2012 against a very old McC or a newbie like Jindal or Romney.

If she does try a coup and it succeeds I predict that ‘68 WILL be recreated in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Peoria, etc.

In anycase it’s time to lay in the pop-corn.

Aug 20, 2008 - 9:23 am 55. Achillea:

“I am amazed at the racists comments being made here.”

Carol.

Cite two comments and explain /how/ they are racist. For your edification, the definition of racist is here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racist. So no, simply because a comment points out Obama’s many, many flaws will not suffice.

Put up … or shut up and wise up.

Aug 20, 2008 - 9:24 am 56. Andrew Ian Dodge:

A recent party near DC I encountered one such Democratic activist. She was female, a Clinton supporter and not very happy. And Obama’s little rally in Berlin really rattled her…

Aug 20, 2008 - 9:33 am 57. Dodgeblogium » Will Rank-and-File Democrats Vote for Obama?:

[...] and worrisome personal connections will have some real soul-searching to do on November 4. read more | digg [...]

Aug 20, 2008 - 9:37 am 58. porta:

Clinton was the first non-American president, should Obama be elected, he would be the first actively anti-American to hold the office.

The day will come for an Obama but not yet. The destruction of education continues apace but there’ll have to be a die off of older people who still think in terms of nationalism before this fat corpse of a country can be deconstructed by our socialist left.

Slavery is man’s natural state, America has been an historical aberration.

Aug 20, 2008 - 9:44 am 59. Moultrie:

My oh my, what happens when attempting to deceive. IMO the Democrats have successfully deceived themselves by propping up a failed candidate for their Party Leader.
Obama may well be the nail in the coffin of the Hate America Party and the Hate American Media!

Aug 20, 2008 - 9:49 am 60. John Calomiris:

I wonder why it took so long for the King Makers of the Democratic Party to order B O to resign from congressional black caucus sometime after the anointing?

Aug 20, 2008 - 10:21 am 61. Two Dogs:

I honestly believe that Obama will win and set race relations back about fifty years. Having the first black president become a complete and utter failure will be devasting to the great divide. But, that is what is going to happen. It will certainly help Jimmy Carter’s legacy though.

Mike Shuster, Talking Points Memo is a real news site? Wow!

Aug 20, 2008 - 10:24 am 62. Dennis:

My hope is that Carol and her ilk keep on banding about the term “racist.” The more people she alienates the fewer votes Obama will get.
Please keep calling everyone a “racist” for it will take any meaning of the word away and be seen for the race hustling it is. The motto of the Left is: “When you lack the intellectual capacity to defend your position or your candidate yell Racism, sexism, et al.”

Aug 20, 2008 - 1:08 pm 63. Michael In Seattle:

Here’s the only way the Democrats can win the Presidency:

Hillary gives the most eloquent, and glowing endorsement of Obama anyone, anywhere has ever heard in Denver. Next Obama takes the podium, does his ‘Yes We Can’ shtick, and then declines the nomination citing inexperience, handing it to Hillary. They both take the stage, the crowd, punditry and MSM swoon, and the Clinton / Obama ticket waltzes into November on rainbows and pixie dust.

If Hillary attempts a coup, the Dems loose. If Obama runs, the Dems loose. If Hillary accepts the VP slot that *may* salvage some of the disenchanted Hillary supporters, but I think McCain eats Obama’s lunch in any live debate format here on out. I really don’t see any other winning scenario for the Democratic Ticket in November other than Clinton/Obama.

Just my $0.02

Aug 20, 2008 - 2:31 pm 64. Believer:

I think Dems have to really begin questioning their party’s leadership. And begin questioning themselves.

It took me only a few hours some 18 months ago to discover all the disturbing facts about Barry’s history. It became abundantly clear that this was a man — so far left of center — that, should a fraction of his associations become known, he probably couldn’t get a security clearance, much less be elected President.

I do wonder how much of Barry’s history is known by Democrats and their leadership. If they’re fully informed, then they are a supremely stupid bunch. If uninformed, they’re equally stupid.

The Dems I know don’t make the best life decisions, so it doesn’t surprise me that politically they’re foolish as well. They close their eyes to unpleasant things, preferring to live in their world of fantasy. Emotionally, they’re not the healthiest.

I’ve concluded the majority of Dems must be one of these: stupid, flaky or corrupt. They’ve chosen to nominate this loser out of sheer stupidity or because they’re emotional, in-denial flakes. If not either of those, then – if they’re determined to win – they trust in their ability to corrupt the system.

Barry’s pals at ACORN have some experience in this. As recently as last year. Just yesterday, I read a quote of his stating very firmly that he would definitely win. I know politicians often state such confidence. Hillary did. But this one gave me the creeps.

Money is buying alot of votes for him. American Thinker has at least one article on this. We can’t depend on the biased MSM to inform us on this either.

I think Barry might bring us corruption on a scale not seen before in America. He is, after all, a product of Chicago’s polluted system. Is this what we want? America’s values so corrupted we’re in a hellhole so deep – that to get out – it would take probably decades. Not to mention the nightmare we’d be living until sanity returned.

But it’s legitimate to ask if this is what Dems would willingly engage in, in order to win — so that a man who is completely unfit to lead this nation – one whose values few Americans share – be elected President.

Dems, you better start asking questions. Don’t be stupid.

Aug 20, 2008 - 2:37 pm 65. Judy, NYC:

…And Obama’s little rally in Berlin really rattled her…Andrew Ian Dodge

it didn’t rattle me. obamamaniac’s rally in berlin, even with a rock concert he always drags along to put asses in front of the camera, was nothing special. heck, hitler turned out millions. so many admirers, in fact, if not for the uplifted arms they could not have all fit in. barry, shamed, will have his chance at the stadium to get that difficult hitler thing just right. convention delegates will be treated to one more fine example of his innovative thinking.

Aug 22, 2008 - 4:35 pm 66. L.Carlin:

Maybe they will noit get a chance:

Obama Sued in Philadelphia Federal Court
On Grounds He Is Constitutionally Ineligible For The Presidency
by Jeff Schreiber
America’s Right.com

A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission. The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.

Philip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit–just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver–for the health of the Democratic Party.

Aug 22, 2008 - 7:56 pm 67. Believer:

Well, Barry’s now “correcting” a report he made to the FEC regarding some $800,000 that actually went to ACORN rather than some other group and was used in a different manner than originally reported.

Red flags are going up.

Aug 22, 2008 - 10:17 pm 68. Believer:

Well, Barry’s now “correcting” a report he made to the FEC regarding some $800,000 that actually went to ACORN rather than some other group and was used in a different manner than originally reported.

Red flags are going up.

I encourage everyone to go to “michellemalkin.com” to follow her reporting on ACORN and BO. She’s doing the work few others will do. ACORN has been convicted of voter fraud. And at one time, BO was its legal counsel.

I, for one, don’t want to see this man lead our nation. As I said earlier, he gives me the creeps.

Aug 22, 2008 - 10:24 pm 69. Pajamas Media » Madonna’s McCain Tantrum:

[...] the desperation is indeed deserved, as even rank-and-file Dems are suddenly re-thinking whether they’ll support Obama on Election Day. As I’ve said at my own blog, in this [...]

Aug 26, 2008 - 8:33 am 70. Oh my:

McCain got all ya’ll brainwashed!

Oct 21, 2008 - 6:59 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: