I hope we can put to rest that McBush is a moderate....Now, if I can only convince GA Gambler to vote for Obama!....

"Today, McCain calls himself a thorough-going conservative, and he's got the statistics to prove it. He has voted with his party almost 90% of the time this term, which puts him ahead of 29 other Republicans. According to data analyzed at VoteView.com, McCain's voting record in 2005-06 would place him second in the contest for America's most conservative senator in the 109th Congress and eighth in the 110th Senate. McCain supported Bush in 95% of his votes in 2007 and has managed to achieve a perfect 100% score so far in 2008."

After scanning through several paragraphs of political rhetoric I finally found something meaningful about your link. The very last paragraph indentifies the author.

"Eric Alterman is the author, most recently, of "Why We're Liberals" and is the media columnist for the Nation,"

Geez, no bias here.

The main point he tries to make is the McCain is loved by the liberal press. The truth of the matter is while McCain is not completely hated by the liberal press, not a small feat in itself, the media is in fact in love with the Obamasiah. The press is already coronating him as the greatest politician ever, even though he hasn't actually done anything. Which if you listen to JackO is the biggest reason to vote for him.

Even the biggest Obama supporters can't point to anything he has done yet, and the only plans he's put forward so far is to raise taxes.

Moose, you are an Obama supporter, name a single thing he has done or a single thing he has proposed that would give me  reason to vote for him. I doubt that you can come up with a single one, much less come up with enough postives to outweigh his many negatives.

-- Modified on 6/20/2008 7:07:01 AM

(and EVER there was a Kool-aid drinker, I think we'd totally agree it would be Moosey) is that they "conflate" Libbies love big words, Republican issues and conservative issues.

I think even my SimpleCountryLawyer friend, (who in another life claims to have been republican) that there in a discomnnect between Republican performance and conservative principals.

The screaming, Bushhating pantswetter who wrote that steaming heap of cowcrap Moosey calls probative does'nt seen to understand that...no wonder as you point out

he prolly misses the point on O'Apostate's lie about campaign money as well.....but hey, when you're sucking ether, what's that worry?

Just curious, what do you think happens when he runs up bills (say in Iraq) and doesn't pay them?   You get off free, right?

So does it occur to you that the problem might be total spending, or even financial management?  

Do you think the war in Iraq has been a good investment?

Can you explain why?   It's probably the reconstruction effort that's been trashed for several years by failure to plan or even understand the problem - right?

Obviously, pumping ammunition into Iraqi sand dunes is a much better investment than repairing Mississippi levees.   You can trust George's instincts on that.

One thing that bothers me is, what happens when McCain tries to carry out George's policies without his instincts?  Maybe we can find a little room in the White House for George.  You know, just deliver him a couple 6-packs and carton of chips every day, keep the TV running, he should be OK.

Instead of answering my question, you respond with four of your own. I guess that means you have no answer to my question.

Mac would be like Daddy Bush and get Japan to  pay for all the bills . Ya know the US did not spend a dime on the first Gulf War.

-- Modified on 6/20/2008 8:39:50 AM

maybe something like the 'glory of Jesus'?

Principles that you might point to in say the Bill of Rights or Adam Smith are themselves ideas about how to make things work better, that is build a stronger community.  

If the principle doesn't make things work better, it's going to get replaced and forgotten, one way or another.  Obviously, there's always the question of, "better for WHO?"

Groups that get stuck in preconceptions wind up sucking hind tit.  That's exactly what happened to the Bolsheviks, and it's precisely the reason that the Chinese aren't having problems with their communism - their principle is, fuck principle, get results.

So if you get a situation that your principles aren't working, it's time to re-think those principles.   For example - every capitalist struggles to be king of the mountain.  But dominating an economy (eg thru monopoly) usually destroys the economy - if nobody else can buy your shit, where are you, what's the point?  It's like fucking - you have to give her room to wiggle and squirm.

Comparably, no constitutional principle is absolute - it always depends on the situation.  You can't exercise your free speech by waving a pistol at somebody, telling the commies our military secrets, defaming my ATF, yelling fire in the theater, pirating DVDs, or jamming a crowd into the capitol bldg.

The problem with the 'Republican principles' is that they are stuck in the conflict between the authoritarians, and the cultural happy days folks, and many or even most Republicans want both of these, and don't understand the conflict.   Bush himself is a classic example of this.   Authoritarianism requires a larger, more intrusive govt, which defeats their vision of a country of Jeffersonian farmers, and they've got their noses too deep in their own asses to realize that they can't have their cake & eat it too.

So what Bush - who is IMHO a mainstream republican - has tried to do is make govt go away by increasing the size of govt.   That is to say, he says whatever he wants, and is probably the most authoritarian executive we've ever had.  Fortunately for American democracy, he's also the least competent.

Now - the Democrats will get to authoritarianism by a different route - probably by swamping us with regulations and drugging those of us who want to go 85 instead of 65.   But for the foreseeable future, the Republican 'principles' of waste and mismanagement are a way bigger threat than the Democratic principles of silliness.

Now I think Obama's decision to bag public financing is an auspicious decision.  It shows he's willing to look out for himself, and recognizes the GOP would eat his lunch with PACs.  If he behaves the same way w/r/t Al Qaeda, we're going to be alright.   (Lawyers are often like this, asking w/out reference to principle, 'how is this really going to work?')

We are never going to get back to a country of 100M people, or financing govt thru customs revenues.  (In principle, I'd like to see custom revenues disappear - I don't see the value in protectionism per se.) Get used to it before reality bites your ass right off.

Bad news for you lib ladies out there: Bush is not running.

If McCain were running against Kerry or Gore, or even Pretty Boy John Edwards, the Dims might have a chance. Hillary would beat McCain like a drum. But Obama?

McC could be a decent Prez but he is a horrible candidate(he is a worse candidate than GWB) but he couldn't lose to a flat out socialist agitator, racial grievance monger like BO. NFW is Obama going to win, I don't care what the polls say. Dukakis, BushI, Gore, Kerry, were all way ahead at one time or another in polls. Polls don't mean shit and mean less with a black guy. Almost everybody wants to SAY they're voting for Obama, but not half of them will. I'm going to LV to put money on it.

an envelopment, there are times to fake them out, and there are times to sit still & hold your fire.

Life is easy.  All you have to do is guess right the important times.

will come, and you won't be blindsided.

There's really not much that pisses me off more than some fool who rushes in, gets hammered, AND THEN SQUEALS HOW UNFAIR LIFE IS!

Listen up, look around, try to figure out what you are doing before you risk something you can't afford to lose.

And if you can't do that, at least don't cry like a little girl.

we can see that already.  If he's elected, we will have a much weaker GOP continuing to pursue divisive and unpopular Bush policies.

Obama has the potential to (a) hammer the GOP in the fall, and (b) then co-opt (buy them out) in January.   And he seems smart enough to understand that.

Which is what Bush should have done in 2000, except that he (ie his RNC) was way too fucking stupid.   You can't run a nation by splitting it against itself.

More mindless drivel. Are the other 18 JackO personas coming out in support of the other 2 now?

Just how stupid does that make the DNC?

Four dollar gas, an unpopular war,an unpopular incumbent, and the Dems still don't stand a chance of winning in November.

The Republicans nominate the only Rep that could possibly win and the Dems nominate the only Democrat that could possibly lose. Bunch of fucking losers.

Suit yourself, you just charge on in there.  

Just don't be coming back and crying how fucked up it is.

First, contrary to your belief, the press really isn't that favorable to Obama..Sure, some outlets are, but McCain has gone ALOT more postive stories/favorable coverage....

Why I'm I voting for Obama?....Perhaps I lean slightly towards any Democrat in a general election, but I simply cannot stand how McCain tries to project a moderate image when he is NO moderate...He's much more of a social conservative than you think..He believes Roe V. Wade should be overturned (even Bush thought the country wasn't ready for a total ban on abortions)...He also favors (and I've talked about this before) far right Supreme Court justices (Scalia, Thomas, etc.)....I don't want a president to formulate social policy with the Dr. James Dobson's & Tony Perkins (of Family Research Council) of this world..

Obama has also shown in his short senate career to be able to work w/the other side, as he has already worked on legislation with Senators Lugar, Hagle, & Imhoffe....McCain is more of the same in that he'll like govern for 50% + 1 & "F" the other 49%...

Besides, after these last seven years, ANY Democrat (whether its Obama or if it would have been Clinton) deserves a chance...In the 2000 election, Gore lost about 10 states that Clinton won in 1996 (ie; MO, TN, OH, etc.) - people wanted a change....And sometimes that is enough...

The funny thing is I think Clinton would have been a stronger GE candiate because I think she would have won PA, OH, & FL. - easily...Anyone wins those 3 states & it's game-set-match....

You cannot name a single specific thing he has either done or proposed that would prompt me to vote for him.

The fact that he is black, or a Democrat, or that he is not McCain is not a reason. None of you libbies have been able to point to a single accomplishment or brilliant idea he has had to justify your almost fanatical support.

partly because it's narrow.  And that's the weakness of the DNC, a wide and fractious party.

I think you're right as far as McCain being the only Republican who can win, because people are so fed up with the GOP.   But instead of letting McCain be McCain, they are keeping him on a VERY tight leash, and that shows in his flipflopping, as well as his finances.

IMHO - McCain has NOTHING to prove.  He's got it all, especially the hot wife with the beer distributorship, and apart from his policies and sucking up to assholes (a skillset every soldier and sailor learns) he can go anywhere in the country and people will stand him for a couple rounds.

In McCain's shoes, there is NO FUCKING WAY I'd let anybody, let alone the party of Bush, jack me around.

But however it goes down, I think you are way premature in your belief Obama is the only one who can lose, or that he will.

My prediction is that (1) presidential elections are NEVER sure until the last few days, and I won't bet at reasonable odds until the last week.  Yes I will bet, but the odds will fuck you for sure.  I'm not quite as dumb as I look.   (2) Linear extrapolation of the present situation seems to show Obama getting a decisive victory in November, and a Democratic congress.  I don't see McCain doing anything unpredictable, I don't see Bush pulling the economy out, or catching bin Laden by November.  In those circumstances, all Obama has to do is keep an even keel.  (3) Even if McCain wins, what's he going to do with a Democratic congress and a pissed off Republican base?

I disagree that any other Democrat would have been better.  Obama is much more conciliatory than Hillary - he doesn't have to put plastic nuts on the back of his pickup, like she does.  And the others - sheesh.

What I want to see is who his VP will be.  My vote is either Sam Nunn or Jim Webb.  Webb pisses too many people off, and is too new.  While *I* like that, I can live with the alternatives.  Nunn is still a good choice, and Webb does fine where he is.

The one and only way McCain could lose the election is if he tries to pander to the right wing of his party, which is looking more likely.

McCain has up till now been smart enough to realize the far right are not voting Obama no matter how little they like McCain. McCain strength is his ability to get the swing voters, the Latino vote, and the Hillary supporters. He could easily lose any one of the three and still win handily, but he can't lose all three.

Hillary would of beat any Republican easily, before her bloody fight against Obama, I do agree that even if she had won the nomination she would be facing just as much an uphill battle as Obama. My point really was that any Democrat could have beat any Republican, pre-primaries, that is no longer the case.

As far as McCain winning and being saddled with a Democratic Congress and a pissed off Republican base, that's my best hope and sincere belief about what will transpire in November. Gridlock is not a bad thing, it beats every other option by a mile.

IMHO, the present economic course - which is heavily influenced by directionless wars - is bleeding us out very quickly.  I want to see a lot of DC bureaucrats out begging change in the streets, even if it means they're replaced by midwestern ward-heelers.

Bush sent us straight into bin Laden's trap of taking on the entire (ie enough of the) muslim world to drain our resources in wars that have no specific or immediately acheivable goal.  At some level, he's incredibly thoughtless & reckless.  At another level, the RNC knows that this works great for their constituency and goals, even if it trashes much of the USA.

And now they're trying to control McCain financially to make him into a Bush clone, and so far, it seems to be working - except that course will probably get him beaten in November.  IMHO, he has to convince voters he's not Bush 3, and he seems to be going the opposite direction.

I disagree that Hillary would have beaten any Republican.  I think she's precisely what would have motivated the NASCAR dads to come out in force.

One of my biggest fears is that a President Obama in his haste to look effective would pull out of Iraq immediately without regard for the consequences. You already know my prediction for that reckless action.

You are absolutely correct that McCain cannot win as BushIII, and you are also correct that is the direction he seems to be headed in. McCain must realize this could very well cost him the presidency, if he doesn't he doesn't deserve to win and the country will pay the price.

If Hillary did not have to contend with Obama she would have swept into the white house easily, do you really think the "NASCAR dads" detest her less than they loathe Obama. Let's face it, there a millions more racists than sexists. Many if not most of the people who suffer from white guilt are under the surface nothing more than closet racists. They may come out for Obama in public, but once it comes to the moment of truth they are not voting for a black man, not yet anyways.

Bin Laden's trap?

"I know, Ay-man! Let's let them kick our ass in Afghanistan and Iraq and chase us into caves. Let's run and hide and run some more. Let's have them embarrass us and kill our guys. That'll fix them."

What does "the entire (ie, enough of the) muslim world" mean.

What does "directionless wars" influencing our economy mean? Give us one fact, just one little fact, and leave out the emotionsl gibberish.

Other than high gas prices (Thanks to Nancy P. & The Dims) exactly what horrible economic issues are preying on your mind? Seven years of economic growth? 5.5% unemployed, despite 12-20 million illegal workers loose in the land? Falling house prices? (If they were going up, you'd whine about that.) The stock market at historic highs? Stable interest rates? Virtually zero inflation?  


Falling house prices are due partly to a market correction, which happens every ten years and partly to the Dims insisting that credit be given to people who could not afford to pay for the homes they wanted to buy. Guess what happened? They couldn't make the payments. What a surprise.

Oil is high due to increasing demand. Oil prices are up all over the whole fucking world. It's not George Bush's fault. It is partly due to childish clowns worrying more about reindeer in ANWR than poor people in the northern states being able to heat their homes. Drill and build nukes and work on conservation and alternative energy, all that the same time. That's what the adults would do, if they whiny Dims would let them.

Or are you unhappy about the fact that we haven't been attacked since 911? Or that more Americans have been murdered in NYC in the last five years than have died in Iraq? Are you upset that Libya has quit the terrorist game? Are you scared because things are going well in Iraq, and the US may have a stable democratic ally for the next 100 yrs.?

All the left does is toss bullshit out with not one hard fact. "The war is draining us,"  "oh things are so awful!" "the economy is horrible" and my fave:

"Everybody hates us!"

Good! Too bad they don't hate us so much they'd stay the fuck home, and not try to live here illegally. I wish they'd hate us at least that much.

historically more afraid of being accused of being soft.   Truman went into Korea against JCS recommendations because of that; JFK went into the morass of RVN and nearly Cuba - and also there is tremendous bureaucratic inertia.

What I hope Obama WILL bring is a more thoughtful approach, starting with defining an objective publically, and as noted, if we ask the questions, they tend to answer themselves, even if they lead to many others.

I don't know that a bloodbath can be avoided.  The various Iraqi groups have done more of a job on each other than Saddam and the Americans combined.

What SHOULD have been done is to line the situation up IN ADVANCE like so many dominos, then US forces simply push the 1st one, and get the hell out of the way.  It should have been easy enough to balance the interests and see what would be self-enforcing.  The idea of act 1st and think later has us in a situation where Iran has more regional influence than they did with Saddam, and we're paying the cost.  

As far as your theory of resource security is credited, we would (a) have to get more oil than the cost of the security, and (b) also secure adjacent fields in Iran, Saudi, etc.  I don't see either of those happening, nor an immediate prospect for either.

What Bush has done is behave and indeed announce that he is The Decider.  When you do that, you better make damn sure you don't fuck it up.  My view is that there is some combination of massive stupidity and mendacity that has truly fucked things up, and the 1st thing we have to recover is accountability in gov't.  

Maybe it would be irresponsible of Americans to refuse to go to war for oil.  But that is what democracy is about, I think, is treating voters like adults, because any way you cut it, they WILL live with the consequences.

IMHO, this problem is one of "don't get into something you can't get out of".

Few people think of themselves overtly as one or the other, and I won't say there isn't 2 sides to any coin - that is, I would not want Cathy McKinnon or Al Sharpton in the White House - and yes, there are pattern behaviors that rightly piss others off, and its simply a matter of who is going to pick up the tab for what.

Wright, for example (like many preachers) pisses off a lot of people.  Obama (like a lot of politicians) talks a great line instead.  

But Hillary felt she had to sound like every man's ex.  That may play well with Gloria Steinem, but it scares the shit right out of many men, and many women too.   Who wants a gynocracy?  Shit, we already have half American boys on Ritalin instead of playing baseball.  

So Obama can back off and let the other fellow look like the aggressor - but Hillary acts like an aggressor, even if that's a judgment call.  Same with McCain.  I like the "speak softly & carry a stick that doesn't have to be big because you're good at using it" approach.  

And so when a voter decides who he dislikes least, I think that personality issue may come up.   Among the 3 of them - Hillary, Obama or McCain - which do you think most likely to settle a fight over a poker game?

I think that's the way Joe 6-Pack is likely to see it.  I don't think prejudice is a clear thing at all.

we see amazing reversals in (1) economic trickle-down, and (2) the wars.

I don't see the economy coming around, because I think it's rooted in the combination of GOP laissez-faire ideas, and the costs of the wars, at a time that the entire world is emerging, we're stalled.  I can't think of a 6 month patch.

The most likely rabbit out of a hat would be the capture of Osama bin Laden.  Yes, that's purely a symbol, but a powerful one.   It would still leave us bogged down in Iraq, and by bogged down, I mean we can't succeed until we define a goal.  Defining the goal will make the necessary means obvious.

We are doing the exact same thing in Iraq as we did in Vietnam, that is, moving the goalposts every down.   We don't know and can't define what we want there in a way that the JCS can accomplish it.

What SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE was figure that out up front, THEN tell the troops to do it.  You don't send people out to mill around in a kill zone of your own creation while you're thinking about WTF you're doing.

I think even the capture of bin Laden might not save McCain.  OTOH, there's nothing to say that Obama or the Democrats might not crash & burn.  I'm sure we'll see swiftboat PACs, but I think most people discount that.

But what's the difference anyway, I vote straight Democrat in every election, & I bet you vote a straight Republican ticket every time....We're probably both too partisan to vote for the opposite party - fair enough?...

And PLEASE read the link below about experience, it is NOT always the best judge of who will/will not be a good president....

"Before becoming President, Buchanan had served 6 years in the Pennsylvania state legislature, 10 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, 4 years as ambassador to Russia, 10 years in the Senate, 4 years as Secretary of State, and 4 years as Ambassador to England. Talk about experience, Buchanan did just about everything except serve on the Supreme Court, a job he was offered by President Polk and refused. Yet by any measure, he wasn't up to the job as President. In contrast, Abraham Lincoln served 8 years in the Illinois legislature and one term in the U.S. House (1847-1849), a decade before becoming President. The rest of the time he was a lawyer in private practice, a bit thin one might say."

-- Modified on 6/20/2008 4:24:39 PM

His "moderateness" and experience will actually get him many of those concervative and moderate Dems that voted for Reagan.

Your guy (unfortunately for you) is another Mondull.

Obama is winning very comfortably with that group..

"A new Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May shows Obama winning 62% of Latino registered voters nationwide, compared with just 29% for McCain. Others have found a wide gap as well. The pro-Democratic group Democracy Corps compiled surveys from March through May that showed Obama with a 19-point lead among Latinos. And a Times poll published last month showed Obama leading McCain among California Latinos by 14 points".

on the back and ranting at their opponents how bad they are going to lose.   Sounds like an epidemic of small-dick syndrome to me.

Polls are just polls until the last week, and anything can happen.   I agree that Latinos are generally culturally conservative, but they also have to deal with the economic issues and are likely to be pro-labor, etc.  

I think that Obama may be too smart, and his staffers too experienced, to be swift-boated.  I think McCain has some scruples there, and perhaps also some vulnerability.   I think the Republicans are running McCain as a parting shot, a sacrificial lamb, and their attitude may be 'après moi le deluge' - they've had their run.

But anything can happen.

O'Dumbshit does'nt have a thoughful approach to nothin'. the tool has learned to speak like he's got brains...... all those....... pauses.....
but when it copmes right down to it, the fucker is an empty nutshell.

Take the "windfall profit tax" charade...

he tells his imbecile sychophants he's going to take money from XOM and give to "ordinary Americans" to help pay thier bills and they clap like peasants catching crumbs of bread

Yet in another speech, he says he's going to take that money and invest in new energy technologies...

Now, either the idiot does'nt realize you can't spend the same dollars twice OR he's smart enough to realize it but thinks your too fuckin stupid to realize it...

seriously dude, get on the right side of this one....when the shit hits the fan, he'll be reaching for a barfbag..

1)won't let fellow muslims sit in the background.
2)tax plan sucks(will raise taxes).
3)foreign policy sucks(would sit down w/ heads of terrorist regimes w/o pre-conditions).
4)doesn't have any experience.
5)voted more than 100 times "present" on senate floor, instead of saying "yes" or "no".
6)mentor of 20 yrs hates america.
7)wife just recently became proud of being an american.
8)will not allow OCS or ANWR oil exploration saying that it will take around 10 yrs before it'll affect oil prices to go down(it was 14 yrs ago when bill clinton, a democratic president, vetoed this republican proposal.
9)now uses race as a reason why he won't get elected as president in his recent speeches(it's like saying..."i'm black, and that's why no one would vote for me").
10)just full of WORDS. remember that ACTIONS speak louder than words.

Please see video from the link below for further info, and please feel free to forward to your friends who don't know the TRUTH. The TRUTH will set you free...

They have a distinct propensity for argument ad hominem, using every derogatory epithet and simplistic fear mongering jingoism they can muster so as to play to the most base of voter constituency.

doesn't have an established history of AWOL, like Bush did.  So you really can't guess whether he might blow off a CIA briefer, then panic like a deer in the headlights when bin Laden drives a couple airplanes into the WTC.

He COULD be a flake.  It's not already a sure thing that he IS a flake, like the incumbent.   He seems to be running his campaign as if he were pretty savvy, but who knows?

So I'm sure that weighs heavily on your mind, and I suppose that's a chance you'll have to take.

but I am glad to hear you finally admit that you are. but in answer to you. NO, nor fair enough. I don't have a party, so there is no opposite party for me to vote for. I detest both parties, but not equally. That's how I determine who I vote for, unlike those of you that swallow your party of choice's platform, hook line and sinker.

You still have not answered or even accurately acknowledged my question. I asked, and I repeat my question for you and I quote verbatim my original question.

"Moose, you are an Obama supporter, name a single thing he has done or a single thing he has proposed that would give me  reason to vote for him. I doubt that you can come up with a single one, much less come up with enough postives to outweigh his many negatives."

I didn't ask for his resume or years of experience in comparison with McCain. I asked a fair, and you would think an easy question. Name ONE thing he has done that would give me a reason to vote for him, and if that's too hard then just tell one specific proposal that would prompt me to vote for him. Why is that so hard? You want me to help elect him to the highest office in the land and you can't give me anything he has ever done or even thought of doing that might convince me.

Cmon Moose, I know you are used to other people doing your thinking for you, but you can certainly come up with just one reason, can't you?

but I believe you get the answer wrong.

I believe that McCain is the easiest not to dislike. I do agree that Hillary is the easiest to dislike, but prejudices run deep and there are enough closet racists, some of them the most vocal proponents of "white guilt" to tip the election to McCain/

i figure i could ask you, you're CLEARLY straight up the middle...

but so are buttcracks...

examples of major demographic divides are gender, age, and jobs.  

If you & I might find it easier to have a beer with McCain, that doesn't necessarily hold true of other major groups of likely voters.  

I think women and voters under 35 are likely to come down strongly for Obama over McCain - I don't think a person's job or wages will make that much difference, as blue collar or low wage voters seem as likely to go red as blue.

But that's just my wild-eyed guess.

look, you put the cards down.  You don't overplay or underplay your hand, or even need to talk about it.

Don't pick a fight you can't finish, and don't leave one until it's done.

Obama has extensive experience & a track record of being able to work with the other side ever since his days as a community organizer in 1985...

But come on Gambler, have you EVER voted for the Democratic presidential candiate in a general election, ever?...My guess is NO..

His resume reads like someone appying for a mid management corporate job.

I know you're a little slow, but I'll repeat my question. Can YOU name a single thing that he has done, OR if that is too hard, a single thing that he has even proposed that would prompt me to bote for him.

Surely in his long and distinguished career he must of done something you are proud of, or at least since he is the candidate of hope and change he must have all sorts of new and innovative ideas. Name me one.

Even though answering your question after you have repeatedly refused (or are unable) to anwer my question, I will answer yours. While I did not vote for Clinton in 92, I did vote for him in 1996. To be honest with you I saw very little difference between Dole and Clinton. As I've told you repeatedly I am an independent, you on the other hand prove over and over again what a kool aid drinking partisan you truly are.

Moose, You are still a nice guy unlike many others here, but you are one of the most naive posters I've ever met. I really think you actually believe most of what you post, but when pressed to do just a little bit of thinking for yourself the best you can do is copy and paste a rather unispired resume from "Democratic Underground" I don't even need to question their perspective or challenge their facts. There's nothing there to question, Obama is as empty a suit as you will ever find.

I will challenge you again, find something, ANYTHING that proves Obama is not just hot air.

this question didn't seem to bother people in 2000, when Bush had no experience and even less in 2004,when he had 4 years experience fucking up a presidency.   You - and the American public generally - don't seem to be too good at judging what experience is applicable.

Somebody posted a comparison of Polk and Lincoln a couple days ago that illustrates the point exactly.

I could stipulate Obama was hot air, and he'd still be better than blind committment to disastrous policies.

& I showed you his extensive background (and your still equating experience with years spent in Washington) & that's still not enough for you..

BTW, what the hell has McBush done?....

I've said in prior posts one big reason I'm supporting Obama is the Supreme Court....Those are lifetimes appointments, & the court is at a crossroads now...If the next appt. were to be made by McBush, Roe V. Wade would likely be overturned, &  other issues relating to (civil liberties, employment, enviroment) could be in jepoardy as well....Conservative justices aren't too fond of "stare decisis" (let the decision stand), they want to overturn rulings from 30+ years ago, talk about legislating from the bench....

I NEVER said Obama was going to solve all the worlds problems & cure cancer..But we need, dare I say, CHANGE...Yes, we need change, not a THIRD term of George W. Bush and War Forever!..

our own private firing range.   One of these days somebody might figure out who we're shooting at.  Oh yeah, muslims.   Well shit, send Obama to Iraq and shoot him - he's a muslim, you can tell by the name.  Well that and his lapel pin and skullcap.

I've asked the same identical question each time, You still haven't answered it. Either you can't read or you don't have an answer and I am tired of asking the same question over and over. If you can't point to a single achievement or even a single proposal the man has made, I think have had made my point.

Or you could surprise me and actually answer the question.

from the post that listed his experience from 1985-2008...And it that prior link was a litany of proposals/bills he's worked on, some with Republicans...

Face it Gambler, you can't stand the guy, & will never vote for him anyway...You will always be Thomas the Doubter when it comes to Obama....

And I noticed you had no response to your earlier post where you stated McCain has strong support from the Hispanic community, then I showed a poll where Obama leads McCain among that group, 63-29%.....And the margin between Obama & McCain among women also strongly favors Obama, though not by quite the margin it is amongst Hispanics..

Your silence is deafening....

i thought your last name was cuntler....

Nyah, nyah!

you can't help your fuckin BOWEL MOVEMENTS, ya incontinent bitch!