Barack Obomba

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:25 am

BARACK'S BOMBER BUD
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/baracks_bomber_bud_108172.htm ^
By LINDA CHAVEZ

April 26, 2008 -- DESPITE Hillary Clinton's win in Pennsylvania Tuesday, there's almost no scenario in which she can win the Democratic nomination. Barack Obama is the almost-certain choice to become the nominee - but he'll face far more hurdles than he has overcome in Democratic primaries.

Obama's record of accomplishment is slim. He served two terms in the Illinois legislature, where he did almost nothing to distinguish himself. He has spent nearly half his time as a US Senator running for president.

What Obama does have is a sharp mind, a gift for inspiring rhetoric and a talent for raising money. But he also has a propensity to choose his friends and allies poorly and to be unwilling to extricate himself when those relationships turn troubling. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's racist and anti-American diatribes will haunt Obama.

But Obama's relationship to William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, members of the '60s domestic terrorist group the Weather Underground, may prove more vexing.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

Does Ayers have Al Qaeda connections? If not, why not--he shares its intended purpose?

by shermangeneral Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:55 am

Well Terry before I make my final choice in the Dem primary there is one thing I would like to know if you don't mind ok.

Which would bother you more, the prospect of Hillary as President or the prospect of B. Hussein Obama?

Which one really really provokes your ire the most?

(Your answer is really important to me and might affect the way I vote...) pirat

by Aaron Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:55 am

shermangeneral wrote:Well Terry before I make my final choice in the Dem primary there is one thing I would like to know if you don't mind ok.

Which would bother you more, the prospect of Hillary as President or the prospect of B. Hussein Obama?

Which one really really provokes your ire the most?

(Your answer is really important to me and might affect the way I vote...)

Just out of curiousity Sherm, why would you print his name as you did?

by shermangeneral Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:03 am

Sometimes I just like to stimulate discussion, Aaron.

I know it is a matter of real concern to the right that his middle name is Hussein (after his Muslim father, I believe).

So it was meant as a subtle reminder as Terry makes his decision who would bother him most.

by Aaron Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:10 am

I guess.

Of course Karl Rove would do the exact same thing using fearmongering tatics.

by shermangeneral Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:18 am

Yes. I know.

I just wonder which candidate will most provoke the ire of the Terries of the political world.

That will weigh heavily in my decision... pirat

by Randall Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:31 am

I prefer Obama. A quarter-century of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would not be healthy for American democracy. What would we say if Bangladesh or Russia kept rotating the presidency between two families for 25 years?

by shermangeneral Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:59 am

So Hillary would bother you more?

by Aaron Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:14 am

Do you think the dem winner is the next President Randall?

by Randall Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:16 pm

shermangeneral wrote:So Hillary would bother you more?

Yes, but for non-ideological reasons. I actually think she is likely to govern more moderately than Obama, if only because she lacks core beliefs. I still haven't quite figured out what you have against Obama, Sherm; he's the most true-blue lefty to have a shot at the presidency in almost 40 years.

Aaron, I do think the Dem winner will be the winner in November, although in traditional Democratic fashion, they are trying their best to mess things up and hand the election to the Republicans.

by **SheikBen** Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:40 pm

Randall,

I do not share your pessimism regarding the Republicans chances (although I suspect that I share a general disappointment with the Republicans themselves with you). I would think that the Dems were going to take it all in November, except that they have formed the circular firing squad. I think the amount of ammo they are presently giving McCain will prove sufficient even for that yutz to win.

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:32 pm

shermangeneral wrote:Well Terry before I make my final choice in the Dem primary there is one thing I would like to know if you don't mind ok.

Which would bother you more, the prospect of Hillary as President or the prospect of B. Hussein Obama?

Which one really really provokes your ire the most?

(Your answer is really important to me and might affect the way I vote...)

The way that I would like to send this end is for Hillary to leave Bill for Barack Obama. That way she could be "Co-President" with him this time; meanwhile, Bill mentors Michele O. and they become the first blended First Family under some new definition of "family" with all the in-laws from Africa and Malaysia, Arkansas and Chappaqua setting up huts on the Front Lawn of the White House.

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:39 pm

As an Independent, I might vote for Hillary in the Democrat primary...NOT!

by ziggy Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:35 pm

Randall wrote:I prefer Obama. A quarter-century of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would not be healthy for American democracy. What would we say if Bangladesh or Russia kept rotating the presidency between two families for 25 years?

Well, the British and the Saudi-Arabian thrones have each been in the same single familiy for far more than 25 years. What do we say about that?

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:41 pm

ziggy wrote:
Randall wrote:I prefer Obama. A quarter-century of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would not be healthy for American democracy. What would we say if Bangladesh or Russia kept rotating the presidency between two families for 25 years?

Well, the British and the Saudi-Arabian thrones have each been in the same single familiy for far more than 25 years. What do we say about that?

Oh, so that's what makes my fish and chips taste oily!

by Randall Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:54 pm

ziggy wrote:
Randall wrote:I prefer Obama. A quarter-century of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would not be healthy for American democracy. What would we say if Bangladesh or Russia kept rotating the presidency between two families for 25 years?

Well, the British and the Saudi-Arabian thrones have each been in the same single familiy for far more than 25 years. What do we say about that?

Long live the Queen?

by **SheikBen** Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:55 am

I don't think Ziggy's comparison with Saudi Arabia is entirely fair.

I think we as the American people have no one to blame but ourselves for the two dynasties. We've had options.

Let's see a Saudi opposition party get anywhere without losing their heads.

by **SheikBen** Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:59 am

Incidentally, though, there are powerful and successful political families in other countries. I'm thinking immediately of Rajiv and Indira (but not Mohandas) Gandhi in India. I'm not sure a dynasty is such a bad thing per se; my issue is that two dynasties that we have developed are, well, not the best ones of the lot from which to choose.

To put it another way, I have less concern about two families swapping the presidency than I do about THESE two families swapping the presidency.

by Aaron Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:10 am

I know what you mean Mike. I have no problem voting for a woman for President, just not that women. I also have no problem voting for a black man either. Once again, just not that one.

by Sponsored content

Barack Obomba

Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba

Re: Barack Obomba