« The Thing Is, You've Got To Consider Sustainability | Main | Or, I Could Focus on Men's Grooming Products »

08/25/2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

No, but the people reporting it see it as a compelling narrative since there are really no life or death foreign policy issues to discuss and our economy has finally recovered from the disastrous 90's under the last Democratic Administration.

Yeah, there's nothing more pressing going on in the world than the possible hurt feelings of 37 irrational womenfolk in Ohio who don't want to vote for a black guy because he's a stealth Muslim.

it's a great story, from the perspective of the media, because it requires no investigation or explanation of anything complex. Cardboard stereotypes make the best subjects for their narratives.

It must be easier than working for a living to make this crap up.

You could argue that it's not about WHO Clinton's supporters will vote for now in November so much as WHETHER they will vote. Someone may feel inspired enough to not go immediately home after work in order to vote for Clinton, but not feel that willingness for Obama. That's a real concern.

Still: overall, I agree, it's mainly a non-issue.

"Yeah, there's nothing more pressing going on in the world than the possible hurt feelings of 37 irrational womenfolk in Ohio who don't want to vote for a black guy because he's a stealth Muslim."

Personally, I just enjoy watching Democrats go after each other using the same tactic they've used against us for years.

According to the PUMAs, Hillary lost because of sexism, and now, according to some Democrats, those same upset voters don't want to vote for Obama because he's black.

It's really quite entertaining. I'm just sorry it's all got to come to an end soon.

In the end, I don't think there will be that many people who switch parties, and the vote will be nearly identical to what it's been the last two elections. One or the other is going to win by a razor thin margin. And if Obama loses, it will be blamed on two things:

1. Racism (of course)
2. Irregularities in the voting system. Because really they can't accept the fact that their policies just can't attract a majority of votes.

You know, Frank, I've got a question. It's a question I've been wondering about for a long time.

You seem kind of oblivious to the fact that Republicans have been getting elected since Nixon using an overt strategy of fear-mongering and...well, let's be honest: making things up. And yet you seem pre-occupied with Democratic outrages, many of which are utterly fictional. (Remember, on your own blog, how you posted about "assclown" Obama's refusing to visit American troops if the press wasn't allowed to go? Remember how that turned out to be completely wrong, according to the US Army? Remember how the post is still up on your blog as fact, and no doubt part of why you think so poorly of Obama?)

You somehow have the capacity to look out at the political landscape, dominated as it is by conservative personalities who are in sputtering, irrational rages about everything the Democrats do, and see only Democrats misbehaving.

Much of the time, you seem fairly rational, and yet you're utterly incapable of seeing what is obvious: John McCain, just to use one example, has been running an overwhelmingly negative campaign, and yet you're mad at the behavior of Democrats.

So my question is: Are you blind, or what?

Speaking as one of those die hard Hillary supporter's. I confess, I was hanging on for a miracle. (I always knew I would vote democrat) Until reality hit once again. The issue of choice. It's a deal breaker for me. I know that I want a pro-choice President picking our next Supreme Court justice. Warren made it easy for me. Thanks.

It all may be moot--if, as it is claimed by some, Obama is not a natural-born US citizen.

Here's the argument: According to his grandmother, half-brother, half-sister, and other paternal relatives, Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. Furthermore, at the time of his birth, US citizens could pass their citizenship on to their foreign-born children if and only if said US citizen was 19 years of age or older. At the time of his birth, Stanley Ann Durham Obama was just 18 years old, thus meaning he did not acquire US citizenship at birth, thus meaning he is ineligible for the office of president.

I would normally dismiss this as just so much wishful thinking, but there are irregularities surrounding his alleged Hawaii birth, to wit: he was born at two hospitals (Queen's and Kapiolani); there are no records for his mother giving birth in Hawaii; the birth certificate presented thus far appears to be a forgery, perhaps one originally for his half-sister.

Furthermore, apparently, Obama was adopted by his mother's Indonesian husband, and, according to some not-necessarily-reliable documents, he became an Indonesian citizen. According to then-current laws, the US did not recognize dual citizenship, and even if he had had US citizenship before that, he lost it as a child in Indonesia.

All this has caused a prominent Pennsylvania Democrat to sue in Federal court, seeking to bar Obama from running because he is constitutionally ineligible.

I don't know the truth here, but I do want to find out. If he's eligible, then let him run--but if he's not, and he somehow gets elected, then both Barack Obama and the Democratic party will be guilty of the greatest election fraud in our history: getting an ineligible man elected president.

All this could have been avoided if the Democrats had done their due diligence in the first place and made sure that Obama was eligible, way back when he first threw his hat in the ring.

I've been quite entertained by the Democrats this election cycle. And yes, McCain has been running quite a negative campaign, but you know what? That's how you get elected. That's how everyone gets elected. Everyone whines and complains about negative advertising, but the truth is that it works. No candidate is going to run ads about him/herself pointing out the idealogies they have that don't line up with main stream
America. And no one is going to run an ad pointing out that they have been associated with self-admitted terrorists for more than 20 years, so it's up to the opposing cadidate to point these things out.

Would it be better if two candidates could just stand toe to toe, spill out exactly what they believe and what they will do in office and let everyone vote on it? Hell yes. I would love to live in that world. But unfortunately, and I know this is a shocker, politicians have been known to say one thing while campaigning and then do something different once in office. So, it's helpful to have a voting record to look at to help us out.

The reason I haven't had much to say about McCain's campaign is that it has really been unremarkable. He's been around long enough that everyone knows pretty much everything there is to know about him and where he stands on issues. What's left to talk about? Meanwhile, the new kid on the block has something fresh every week to chew on, which makes for a much more entertaining campaign.

Plus, I have to admit to a certain amount of amusement when Obama tries to speak without a teleprompter. I really wish he would agree to more town hall meetings with McCain, because I think they would both provide plenty of grist for the mill.

The comments to this entry are closed.