Check out the latest posts on
stop-obama.org

Talking to someone sometimes means you can give them a piece of your mind in a way that more effectively strengthens your own position than shunning can, if you get my drift. Not always, but certainly as a matter of principle, it can be so.

And I think growing up in a country or spending one’s very formitive years there might make them more realistic about the understandings they pick up on, than if they travel abroad once they’re a hopelessly idealistic college student, suddenly convinced of the success that will inevitably become of their pompously self-righteous claim to changing the world. Just my two cents, of course.

Obama may be more “worldly” than Clinton. (Trust me, I have had personal delight in watching her flaming ship of a campaign go down). I’ve enjoyed his campaign tactics far more than Obama and I think he should revel in the fact that he didn’t go as low as her and still beat her.

However, that means little to me, Billy Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and all that meant was that he was better at kissing Arafat’s ass than Bush is at kissing Saudi hands. I’m not in the market for an internationalist/socialist/populist. I’m in the market for a proud American with experience and a realistic view and understanding of the imperfect world we live in. Someone that doesn’t want to talk to our enemies unless he has to say “see, I told you so.” I’m still waiting for Messiah if you know what I mean.

americanthinke...

Also from this publication, but a different article (“Senator Obama’s Coming Out Party in Cleveland”):

“Ralph Nader claims that Senator Obama is too pro-Israel these days and remarked that the Senator was pro-Palestinian for years before he began his campaign for higher office. While some may view this as a reflection of Senator Obama’s evolving views (certainly his supporters will), others might question the coincidence of changing his views when he sought to garner support for his campaign.”

As I was saying…

Again, much of the differences between them come down to approach and the respective breadth of their perspectives politically.

TM, Obama had probably better get an astonishingly hawkish running mate right about now.

But I agree with CK also…. dumbasses. But that’s what you get when the last two of your contenders left in the race are simply ideological cardboard cutouts. When I see them debating I think of them as pale ghosts with overlayed text that says… “Insert African-American here.” and “Insert Ball Breaking Woman here.” Good luck with that.

Don’t get me wrong, McCain wasn’t anywhere near my first choice neither. Like usual, I’ll be voting against someone rather than for…

nytimes.com/20...

https://www.ec...

Personally I was logically satisfied with the answer and consider Russert’s approach a “when did you stop beating your wife?” type of question. It’s not like the Black community has historically been as big and as powerful as the white majority when it comes to a need to prove that we/they are ideologically unsatisfied until we’ve smashed the rhetorical extremists and separatists in our midst into little tiny bits. And I felt that he had done all that he should have logically been expected to do, in addition to emphasizing the future and the more important task of rebuilding Black-Jewish relations. But there is an associative and not necessarily rational fall-out today that I’m finding a bit harder to shake off.

And I’m not making this into a Hillary versus Obama thing, because I appreciate her largesse in moving him to the stronger position during the course of the debate last night no less, but that Indepence party comparison I heard is somewhat bogus in that she is said to have first solicited their support – before rejecting it upon finding out some of the unsavory details she mentioned about them. Obama is not alleged to have ever solicited Farrakhan’s support.