We don't want to have to answer for everything that's stated in a church," Obama said Saturday. "On the other hand, we also don't want a church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes."

"I'm not denouncing the church," he said, "and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church." He said the church's congregation does not hold anti-white or anti-American views.
http://www.charlotte.com/559/story/648439.html

you aren't alone. jeralyn, BTD and many others have expressed this same view. i vigorously disagree. it's my belief that sen. obama is entirely lacking in the substance needed to effectively be the CEO of USA, Inc.; mere form is no substitute. no, i don't think mccain has it, i think he's batsh*t crazy.

my fear is that, even with a veto-proof majority (which it appears the dems will have after nov.) in congress, they'll be too willing to go along with him, at least initially. i believe a pres. obama would cause more damage, to both country and party, then a pres. mccain would be allowed to, by a democratic congress.

he will be a one-hit wonder. we really don't need another 4 years of damage control, 8 is quite enough.

but, that's just me.

"My momma taught me to play by the rules and respect those rules. My mother taught me, and I'm sure your mother taught you, that when you decide change the rules, middle of the game, end of the game, that is referred to as cheatin'."

-- Donna Brazile, quoted by NBC News.

you cannot ascribe her wife's comments on Obama. period.

Obama:

I am shocked at what Michaelle said. I did not attend the church that day.... I am shocked to learn she would use that kind of divisive language.... err... But I can disown her no more than you can disown your wife...

And if Clinton is doing all this Leading, then what is Obama doing?

Personally, I'd tell Clinton to go for it.  Take the danged Unity ball and run with it!  It's nigh impossible for her to take ownership of the Change meme, but Team Obama has dropped the Unity ball completely.  

The one Title I would like to see would be titled ...

"Pass the Koolaid" with Howard Dean and Donna Brazille on the cover holding a glass of koolaid.

I would love for the book to cover the reaction of the DNC when Sen Clinton announced the run for President 2008.

Another Chapter on the "Run, Obama,Run" headed by
Dachle, Durbin,Kennedy and Kerry.

And then there would be a chapter on the Media featuring MSN.

Then the chapter explaining only half people...andtheinvisible women, working class and poor.

Oh! If I could only write!!

Fox news:

..."while he believes he conceded Hillary Clinton a net of delegates in states where he did not campaign or compete, he's satisfied with the ruling."

Obama conceded Hillary delegates in Michigan. You can knock me over with the tiniest feather right now.

AAAhh ... now I understand Malveaux from CNN who just said that they had to give Hillary something, or the Hillary supporter to satisfy them (paraphrase) and I had no idea what she was talking about. Amazing how wrong I am during this whole campaign.

THEY HAD TO GIVE HILLARY SOMETHING. Because Obama didn't compaign or compete.

Isn't this the weirdest thing you ever heard re a Dem primary? Ever?

The whole CNN panel seemed to be d'accord w. what was going on yesterday. Brazile held grand court and talked unity and civility. Said that she was so surprised - after the committee had decided over lunch to come out in a civil and united front - Harold Ickes didn't play along. She also said she held back yesterday. Not now, however.

Don't bother with these guys. Do not engage. It is not worth it. It is all insult, insult, insult, spin, spin, spin, lie, lie, lie. Furthermore, when you engage with one, the whole lot of them will circle the wagons and join together, swear the TL Old Timers Loyalty Oath and swarm you, all the while defending their right to violate the site rules with impunity because they've been here longer than you. And they will get away with it too.

Next, they'll be calling you a racist, a Hillary shill, a cultist, and all kinds of other names, and they'll rally around each other and get away with that too because they are specially privileged to do so.

Don't bother! Ignore them. Most of it is stupid and intellectually vapid anyway.

The emphasis of the "new coalition" that will discard the elderly, women, the poor, in favor of the young and strong and attractive;

The emphasis on one charismtic figure who is to be taken on faith -- indeed, to be taken <emasem> a faith;

The bullying of voters and vicious denigration of underdog opponents;

The emphasis on "unity" -- which in practice, means the submission and silencing of opposition;

The emphasis on undefined and ultimately empty  slogans -- "hope," "change," "unity" Indeed, the subversion of language to the point where words are in practice the opposit of what they mean;

The denigration of the poor, calling them "racists" who can be run over in the great march of triumph;

The willingness to override the "will of the people";

We know from his comments last week that Obama doesn't know much about World War II history -- but I know a little.

Could it happen here?

[I posted this to the PR thread just before it closed.  It's probably more appropriate here, and since it's an apology I wanted people to actually see it.  Sorry for the double posting; if that's a major issue for mods please delete.]

I am voting for Obama, but I'm not, as has been suggested a couple of times, one of his more devoted fanboys.  I've engaged here at TL, most often defending the Obama side, in order to hear all side sof the issues and also in an effort to stick pins in a few anti-Obama memes that I consider fallacious.  Not because Obama is TEH GREATEST!!! but because I've believed since Texas that he's our likely nomineee, and I want the Democrats to win in November.

I am not saying Clinton's supporters are nutz or being deceived - there are some good arguments to make against Obama.  But there have also been some arguments offered that are not fact-based, and it bothered me to sit quietly and watch them solidifying into an obstacle to Democratic prospects.

But I know I'm relatively ineloquent, have a bit of a short temper, and my information isn't as good as people who've spent more time following all these issues.  And, in reflecting on some posts here yesterday and stuff I've read elsewhere, I've been reminded what it's like to really have an emotional investment in a candidate.  That's not how I feel about Obama, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that kind of enthusiasm and have felt it myself in the past for other candidates (I'm not going to date myself by saying who).  On the whole, despite best intentions, I've probably done more harm than good for the health of the "unity pony."

Jeralyn, BTD and the community: please accept my apologies for any comments you found offensive or improperly argumentative.  Please don't associate my poor arguments with the Obama campaign, or other Democrats at large....I don't represent either.

I'm not signing off; I'll be staying around to keep hearing those opposing viewpoints and perhaps jump in the mix now and then.  But out of respect for the deep feelings a lot of good Dems have about the candidates I'm going to take a step back from engaging on all the little points about the nomination process.  Late, yes, I know; hopefully better than never.

I thought calling oneself a democrat meant,in part, that you were opposed to totalitarianism?

Here's to my dream that we won't get fooled again, though I fear we already have been.

There are some pretty smart people over there that know their stuff on that--much more so than I.

Resistence is futile.