Sen. Barak Obama considering a run for President ..

[Canadian Blue]

Cynthia McKinney was the target of KKKarl Rove's gang of dirt merchants. Nor did her defeat represent, 'the long run.'

Karl Rove is a member of the Ku Klux Klan, when did this happen???

[bush_cheney2004]

Cynthia McKinney was the target of KKKarl Rove's gang of dirt merchants. Nor did her defeat represent, 'the long run.'

So what? She still lost....that's how the game is played. Blackberries come from China/Canada, eh?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Um - I see you used the word "Harvard" three times in one sentence which I'm sure is supposed to impress us all, which it doesn't.

It showed up three different times for three different accomplishments.

The last thing we need is more LAWYERS running things in the world.

But it helps to have LAWyers making laws.

But you've revealed a basic truism about lefties - you think the number of years someone spends with their nose in a book is correlated to the level of their qualification to run the country.

I wouldn't paint all right-wingers as being anti-intellectual. There are many intelligent right-wingers, just not the one who's president.

Besides, President Bush has an MBA from Yale.

He won't cop to how he got in or the marks he received though.

hahahahaha. Typical.

The big bad right winger cheated on his tests but the earnest do-gooder lefty did it honestly. GIVE ME A BREAK.

Just as the voting machines and elections were rigged all the while the GOP was winning, but now that the Dems won some seats, the voting process gets the A-OK thumbs up.

What a joke.

SOme of the dumbest people alive have harvard degrees. All it means is that you can study. That's not difficult, it's just time consuming and safe.

[Guthrie]

if you think rich kids have the same experience at ivy league schools as poor kids, you're the joke

[Guthrie]

Cynthia McKinney was the target of KKKarl Rove's gang of dirt merchants. Nor did her defeat represent, 'the long run.'

Karl Rove is a member of the Ku Klux Klan, when did this happen???

get over yourself

Link

[blackascoal]

Irrespective of the "vote for war and death so I can save my own skin expediency" that many believe the democrats had no choice but to do, the reality is that vote has come back to haunt them. They caved on the war because they were cowards, not because of the interests of the American people.

The 2006 elections was a referendum on the failure of the Republican Party, not a celebration of the Democratic Party. Their failure to oppose this mindless war is why politicians like Lieberman might as well become a republican, and why Biden and Bayh don't have an ice cubes chance in hell of becoming president.

That "Bush must go back to Congress" ruse was nothing more than pre-planned cover for their asses, so they could say "Bush made me do it." They might not have been able to stop it, but they could have given the nation a much louder anti-war voice and framed the arguments and evidence better long before the bodies started dropping like rain.

One could make the argument that democrats have shown political expediency, but can hardly make the argument that they've shown political courage. Americans would have recognized the dimensions and consequences of this war much sooner had the democrats shown courage.

In spite of their capitulation to evil and "save my ass vote", democrats still bumbled their way to crushing defeat in 2004 .. which is where the argument "they did it to save their seats" falls flat on its face. Opposition to democratic weakness in 2004 rose to a roar from democratic voters which strengthened antiwar groups and politicians. It was the work and courage of antiwar groups and politicians that drove the democrats to victory in 2006, not weak-ass mushy middle politics.

I'll be the first to condemn Bush and his neocon horde for the disaster of Iraq, but to suggest that democrats HAD be complicit to their evil is far from the truth.

[JerrySeinfeld]

if you think rich kids have the same experience at ivy league schools as poor kids, you're the joke

You obviously have an obsession with how much money someone has.

Are you insinuating that only poor people are smart?

THAT's a joke.

You're just mad because Ivy league name dropping hasn't placed Obama any higher on your ridiculous "Presidential Grading system" than GW Bush.

[blackascoal]

As far as Obama is concerned - his name sounds too much like OSAMA to run for president. He'll get crucified on the dirty attack ad circuit.

Pray tell, can someone please articulate for me this man stands for and what qualifies him for being President, other than being black, hanging with Oprah and having a nice smile?

Obama graduated from Harvard Law School, was the president of Harvard Law Review, received a Ph.D. from Harvard, and was a law professor before he was elected to the Senate.

In other words, he's more than qualified and quite intelligent, and I think the American people, more than anything, want an intelligent president this time around.

And I'm surprised you are so contemptuous of the American voting public to imply that they are so stupid that they wouldn't vote for someone just because of the similarity of a candidate's name to bin Laden. I think they are aware of the issues and aren't stupid at all. Bush's current approval rating is testament to that.

Um - I see you used the word "Harvard" three times in one sentence which I'm sure is supposed to impress us all, which it doesn't.

The last thing we need is more LAWYERS running things in the world.

But you've revealed a basic truism about lefties - you think the number of years someone spends with their nose in a book is correlated to the level of their qualification to run the country.

Part of this tendency comes form the basic need of all lefties to ...well...literally, control the country. Lefties want small groups of smart people to legislate the rest of us - because they naturally think they're smarter than everyone else. I mean, what would YOU know about whats good for you.

Unfortunately, this philosophy completely ignores that leadership requires much more than the number of letters behind your name. Perhaps that's why so FEW people with letters behind their name actually run anything other than a classroom in the real world.

Besides, President Bush has an MBA from Yale.

Every line of this completely ignores the reality right in front of us. It completely ignores the reality of total republican/right-wing failure. You speak as though you're speaking from the alter of political wisdom, when in fact, the right-wing has failed at everything and the Bush Administration will be remembered as the worst administration in our (America) history.

And you talk of "leadership"??? The American people have thoroughly rejected right-wing "leadership" and ideology, and republicans now find themselves scrambling to the left and jumping off the ship of Bush as if it was on fire.

No, the last thing we need are more IDIOTS running this country and it doesn't take more than just a casual look around to see that the American people agree with that. .. and so do many republicans.

By the way, the voting machines were rigged which is why nearly every state is demanding an independent audit trail .. and they were rigged in 2006 but overwhelmed by a landslide of rejection of the right..

Doesn't matter if you don't believe that. You seem behind on a lot of shit.

[JerrySeinfeld]

As far as Obama is concerned - his name sounds too much like OSAMA to run for president. He'll get crucified on the dirty attack ad circuit.

Pray tell, can someone please articulate for me this man stands for and what qualifies him for being President, other than being black, hanging with Oprah and having a nice smile?

Obama graduated from Harvard Law School, was the president of Harvard Law Review, received a Ph.D. from Harvard, and was a law professor before he was elected to the Senate.

In other words, he's more than qualified and quite intelligent, and I think the American people, more than anything, want an intelligent president this time around.

And I'm surprised you are so contemptuous of the American voting public to imply that they are so stupid that they wouldn't vote for someone just because of the similarity of a candidate's name to bin Laden. I think they are aware of the issues and aren't stupid at all. Bush's current approval rating is testament to that.

Um - I see you used the word "Harvard" three times in one sentence which I'm sure is supposed to impress us all, which it doesn't.

The last thing we need is more LAWYERS running things in the world.

But you've revealed a basic truism about lefties - you think the number of years someone spends with their nose in a book is correlated to the level of their qualification to run the country.

Part of this tendency comes form the basic need of all lefties to ...well...literally, control the country. Lefties want small groups of smart people to legislate the rest of us - because they naturally think they're smarter than everyone else. I mean, what would YOU know about whats good for you.

Unfortunately, this philosophy completely ignores that leadership requires much more than the number of letters behind your name. Perhaps that's why so FEW people with letters behind their name actually run anything other than a classroom in the real world.

Besides, President Bush has an MBA from Yale.

Every line of this completely ignores the reality right in front of us. It completely ignores the reality of total republican/right-wing failure. You speak as though you're speaking from the alter of political wisdom, when in fact, the right-wing has failed at everything and the Bush Administration will be remembered as the worst administration in our (America) history.

And you talk of "leadership"??? The American people have thoroughly rejected right-wing "leadership" and ideology, and republicans now find themselves scrambling to the left and jumping off the ship of Bush as if it was on fire.

No, the last thing we need are more IDIOTS running this country and it doesn't take more than just a casual look around to see that the American people agree with that. .. and so do many republicans.

Bush is so much smarter than the average politician whose stance changes with the political winds.

Bush is a dedicated, long-term thinking foreign policy genius, the likes of which we haven't seen since Reagan (the last time we had willy nilly lefties telling us how dumb this "uneducated reckless cowboy President" was going to ruin the world - only to find out he saved it._

It's not Bushes fault people have the attention span for war of a newt. Two years in a democracy, THAT's what the Attention Deficit Disorder public will give you in a conflict. Then they get bored and change their tune.

Reminds me of a stock market investor who can't wait to sell just because the stock is down a few points. Patience is a virtue most war-ninnies obviously don't possess.

This is a ten year struggle minimum. It's like the new cold war. And people don't get it. They want to go back to inflated dot-com stocks, sexy presidents and cigars.

Sure enough, the public will get their wish...and when the Dems elect a willy nilly euro tolerant "whats popular this week" President, we'll pull out of Iraq, ignore Iran and Hezbollah and Al Qaeda...Iran will get it's nukes...and the conflicts between Israel and HAMAS, Hezbollah, Iran will get bigger and bigger as the weapons capabilities of those nations expands....

Then we'll all look back on GW Bush and remember that we could have made the decision to fight these fuckers NOW or we could wait ten years and fight 'em when they've got the nukes and the stakes are alot higher than 3,000 US troops and a bored american public.

Just as with Reagan, who had so much more vision and resolve than the willy-nilly anti-cold-war-nuke activists marching down main street, history will be alot kinder to Bush than the present day is.

[Black Dog]

Irrespective of the "vote for war and death so I can save my own skin expediency" that many believe the democrats had no choice but to do, the reality is that vote has come back to haunt them. They caved on the war because they were cowards, not because of the interests of the American people.

Again: what could they have done?

The 2006 elections was a referendum on the failure of the Republican Party, not a celebration of the Democratic Party. Their failure to oppose this mindless war is why politicians like Lieberman might as well become a republican, and why Biden and Bayh don't have an ice cubes chance in hell of becoming president.

Well, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it's easy to make such judgements. But the possibility that the opposition to the war in 2004 would have meant defeat in the 2006 midterms cannot be dismissed.

That "Bush must go back to Congress" ruse was nothing more than pre-planned cover for their asses, so they could say "Bush made me do it." They might not have been able to stop it, but they could have given the nation a much louder anti-war voice and framed the arguments and evidence better long before the bodies started dropping like rain.

Um...do you remember what the state of the discourse was in 2003? I do. If you were anti-war, you were a traitor, a Saddam apologist, "objectively pro-terrorist" etc etc. Not he kind of climate where intelligent rational arguments would survive long.

One could make the argument that democrats have shown political expediency, but can hardly make the argument that they've shown political courage. Americans would have recognized the dimensions and consequences of this war much sooner had the democrats shown courage.

I think you overlook one thing: for the American people, Iraq wasn't about democracy, the threat of WMD or any other of the rationalizations Bush trotted out. It was about a post 9-11 urge to flex American muscle to kick the shit out of some brown people.

In spite of their capitulation to evil and "save my ass vote", democrats still bumbled their way to crushing defeat in 2004 .. which is where the argument "they did it to save their seats" falls flat on its face.

If the Dems had gone full bore antiwar, the loss in 2004 would have been even worse. It would have been a landslide instead of a squeaker.

Opposition to democratic weakness in 2004 rose to a roar from democratic voters which strengthened antiwar groups and politicians. It was the work and courage of antiwar groups and politicians that drove the democrats to victory in 2006, not weak-ass mushy middle politics.

You can't project the events of 2006 (when the war was demonstrably a failure) back three years to a time when the political climate was much different.

Also: you seem to be contradicting yourself: above you say "The 2006 elections was a referendum on the failure of the Republican Party, not a celebration of the Democratic Party." And here you say "was the work and courage of antiwar groups and politicians that drove the democrats to victory in 2006." Which is it?

I'll be the first to condemn Bush and his neocon horde for the disaster of Iraq, but to suggest that democrats HAD be complicit to their evil is far from the truth.

"Complicit" implies a degree of responsibility, which implies an ability to affect teh situation, something the Dems did not have in 2003.

[bush_cheney2004]

"Complicit" implies a degree of responsibility, which implies an ability to affect teh situation, something the Dems did not have in 2003.

False...clearly 133 Representatives and 23 Senators from both parties had the cajones to vote "HELL NO". It is disingenuous to ignore the legislative possibility of not approving the Iraq War resolution, and subsequent compromises to the policy.

They were elected with votes, and cast their fate with votes. They did affect the situation...FULL SPEED AHEAD!

[Black Dog]

False...clearly 133 Representatives and 23 Senators from both parties had the cajones to vote "HELL NO". It is disingenuous to ignore the legislative possibility of not approving the Iraq War resolution, and subsequent compromises to the policy.

They were elected with votes, and cast their fate with votes. They did affect the situation...FULL SPEED AHEAD!

First: this clearly contradicts your own statements up thread. Pick a position instead of just being contray for the sake of it.

Second: its not "disingenuous to ignore the legislative possibility of not approving the Iraq War resolution" because such a possibility was never a serious one, given the political climate at the time. You might as well claim its disingenuous to ignore the possibility of a meteor striking the capitol at the moment of the vote.

[bush_cheney2004]

First: this clearly contradicts your own statements up thread. Pick a position instead of just being contray for the sake of it.

Second: its not "disingenuous to ignore the legislative possibility of not approving the Iraq War resolution" because such a possibility was never a serious one, given the political climate at the time. You might as well claim its disingenuous to ignore the possibility of a meteor striking the capitol at the moment of the vote.

Not at all....the Iraq War resolution was a big deal and most people knew what was at stake. If it had failed, Bush may have pursued the same policy by other means, but the will of the US Congress would have standing just like any other resolution. It's one reason why Bush had to play patty-cake with the UN until March 2003.

What part of 133 "NO" votes in the House do you not understand? Read the Kucinich statement....it was not a slam dunk.

That's how it works down here....I realize that in Canada such measures have been taken without a vote in Parliament at all!

[blackascoal]

Black Dog,

Again: what could they have done?

They could have done what those who opposed the war did, many of whom are still in office and are now looked upon as leaders.

Well, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it's easy to make such judgements. But the possibility that the opposition to the war in 2004 would have meant defeat in the 2006 midterms cannot be dismissed.

Yes it can. By 2006 everybody on planet earth knew the fraud of the war .. and one did not need hindsight in 2004 or 2003 to know that this thing was a fraud from the very beginning. What did the 30 million people who marched against the war before it even began know that many democratic politicians did not know? What did those who voted and stood against it know that they didn't know?

Um...do you remember what the state of the discourse was in 2003? I do. If you were anti-war, you were a traitor, a Saddam apologist, "objectively pro-terrorist" etc etc. Not he kind of climate where intelligent rational arguments would survive long.

Isn't that what we pay them to do? Stand against irrational attack from the opposition and find a way to present rational thought? Running away from that is called fear, not leadership.

I think you overlook one thing: for the American people, Iraq wasn't about democracy, the threat of WMD or any other of the rationalizations Bush trotted out. It was about a post 9-11 urge to flex American muscle to kick the shit out of some brown people.

I agree with that .. but it's hardly an excuse my brother. Antiwar opposition has been saying since the war began that kicking these brown people will only end up in greater disaster for white, black, brown, and yellow Americans. It is a message that Americans have finally caught on to and would have paid attention to even back during 9/11 .. when the mission was to get Bin Laden, not brown people.

If the Dems had gone full bore antiwar, the loss in 2004 would have been even worse. It would have been a landslide instead of a squeaker.

The 2004 elections were a colossal, historic defeat for the Democratic Party. In the midst of an unpopular war (keep in mind that the war was unpopular even back in 2004), massive job losses, declining living standards and health-care coverage, growing poverty, a plethora of corporate scandals, a republican administration caught in monumental lies and deceptions, and huge tax breaks for the rich, the democrats still failed to capitalize. And that colassal failure was directly related to their failed and cowardly strategy.

Remember "ABB"?

They tried to legislate from the middle being both antiwar and supporting the war, anti-Patriot Act while still supporting it and expanding police-state powers all at the same time. I suggest that they could have won if they had been stronger against the war, just as they did just two years later.

One of the best things Ralph Nader said was "If you can't beat an idiot like Bush, do you really deserves to be president?"

You can't project the events of 2006 (when the war was demonstrably a failure) back three years to a time when the political climate was much different.

Also: you seem to be contradicting yourself: above you say "The 2006 elections was a referendum on the failure of the Republican Party, not a celebration of the Democratic Party." And here you say "was the work and courage of antiwar groups and politicians that drove the democrats to victory in 2006." Which is it?

The war was demonstrably a failure in more than 3 years ago and millions of people were saying just that?

The antiwar groups and politicians was not the Democratic Party. There were indeed several democratic politicians who stood with the antiwar groups, but often they had to fight against their own party. The Democratic Party deserves little to no credit for grassroots opposition to the war and grassroots antiwar groups will tell you as much. I know because I've worked with many of them .. just as the Democratic Party deserves little to no credit for the opposition to electronic voting fraud, which was also brought to fore by grassroots activists and experts, who often fought against the Democratic Party. I know because I've been fighting them.

The Democratic Party didn't lead the opposition to the war, they followed it.

"Complicit" implies a degree of responsibility, which implies an ability to affect teh situation, something the Dems did not have in 2003.

Good luck trying to convince the American people that the Democratic Party bears no responsibility for Iraq. Democratic politicians don't believe that, which is why they're running for political cover on their complicity.

No matter how you slice it brother, democrats who supported this madness are paying the price. .. as they should.

[Canadian Blue]

get over yourself

Well you said that Rove has nothing to do with the KKK, yet imply that he is with the KKK, which is it?

I think that the climate after 9/11 was to go after the people who committed 9/11 and bring all of those who were complicit to justice. However after Afghanistan, and the failure to capture Bin Laden the Whitehouse needed a new enemy and found it in Iraq. Iraq was a problem on the world stage, however the US shouldn't have bypassed the UN to deal with it, and are now dealing with the reprucussions.

I remember in 2003 when they were renaming french toast, freedom toast. It was a political climate that those on the pro-war side took advantage of. So what resulted was Democrat's voting for the proposition in order to seem more patriotic. But when we look at the Democratic Presidential race, it becomes clear that their was more opposition, especially when it looked as if Howard Dean would win the race[of course this never came about due to gaffes].

Bush should shoulder a lionshare of the blame, however this will prove to be a lesson on what happen's when we allow fear and a thirst for vengeance to take over.

[BubberMiley]

Then we'll all look back on GW Bush and remember that we could have made the decision to fight these fuckers NOW or we could wait ten years and fight 'em when they've got the nukes and the stakes are alot higher than 3,000 US troops and a bored american public.

Then maybe history won't be so kind that he didn't take the problem seriously enough to institute a draft to ensure that all the cowards who aren't brave enough to enlist got themselves into combat boots to fight this clash of civilizations.

Oh wait, they put magnetic ribbons on their SUVs. It's not like they didn't make any sacrifices.

[frogs]

Better yet, let all the people who believe in the war go fight it, and with their own money only. Oooops, suddenly, no war.

"A belief is only as strong as it's purse."

[margrace]

In all honesty shouldn't the people who lead our countries lead us into war. If that was still the program as it used to be many years ago I wonder how much war we would have?

[frogs]

In all honesty shouldn't the people who lead our countries lead us into war. If that was still the program as it used to be many years ago I wonder how much war we would have?

THANK YOU. Finally a conscious person! I love it!

Actually, if the people who believe in a war are the ones who fight it, and with only their own money, most wars would stop. Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam wouldn't have happened. It's all a scam. "Intelligent" people are all filled with great ideas that they want you to pay for!

[Canadian Blue]

How would the Korean war have been prevented, wasn't it a war sanctioned by the UN due to the North's aggression.

As well what if we go with the policy of peace at any cost, what will that cause. I think that western countries should always try to solve any issues diplomatically and use the military as a last resort, however if we need to use the military we should be prepared to do so.

[Guthrie]

Cynthia McKinney was the target of KKKarl Rove's gang of dirt merchants. Nor did her defeat represent, 'the long run.'

Karl Rove is a member of the Ku Klux Klan, when did this happen???

how would it be if I called him by his oval office nickname?

[Canadian Blue]

I don't know, all of you're nicknames are pretty inane, but go ahead.

[Guthrie]

You wouldn't believe me if I said it were so but please try Googling, 'turdblossom.'

[tml12]

You wouldn't believe me if I said it were so but please try Googling, 'turdblossom.'

Obama would make a good president and, at least in the Democratic primary, make an important challenge to Hillary.

[Guthrie]

You wouldn't believe me if I said it were so but please try Googling, 'turdblossom.'

Obama would make a good president and, at least in the Democratic primary, make an important challenge to Hillary.

2008 may be more exploratory and dry run for 2112 or 2116 - but then again, it may just be his time!!!