The last time I saw the voters' googly eye look and fawning love for a candidate

[Cronus Protagonist]

It was during George Bush's campaign in 2000. It scares me when I see the same look today on Obama's supporter's faces.

He's not God, you know. He's a cute, lightweight candidate who doesn't tell us how he's going to take care of the problems we all face, and he might also turn out to be as bad or worse than Bush. If you're supporting him because you believe in him, I weep for the nation. You need to vote for policies, platforms, vote on the issues, not on faith and who's the cutest guy in the race.

I almost puked when I saw him say, "I won't hesitate to strike" on TV last night. What happened to the anti-war sentiment? Have most Democratics suddenly become war hawks?

Sorry, but someone had to say it. I'll put my teflon suit on now. Thanks for listening.

[enough already]

1. I know, it sucks that this thing couldn't just be handed to Hillary according to the plan.

Now the slime line is "A vote for Obama is a vote for Bush." Damned elections. Damned voters and their stupid opinions. Desperation.

A funny thing happened on the way to the coronation....

[Dawgs]

2. I would say the same thing about Edwards and Hillary supporters, but...

I see that they ALSO have plans to fix the problems American faces.

They are all good Democrats.

[LWolf]

3. Allow me to join you.

[ccpup]

4. no, I agree with you

Even with the obvious intelligence and without the King Making father, Obama still seems to be a bit short on substance and very, very long on style, flash and hype. Unlike Bush, he can actually make a great speech. Very MLK Jr.-lite. But, unfortunately like Bush, when you look at the speech in print, there doesn't seem to be any "there" there. A great deal of rhetorical flourish, but no plans for or awareness of how -- other than working together at a Big Table, I guess -- we're going to solve the problems we're facing.

He may win in NH, but at some point Voters are going to have to wipe the glassy look from their eyes and start asking some serious questions. And my guess is that will be much sooner than later.

[Cronus Protagonist]

6. You said it better than I can

Thanks for that.

[mtnsnake]

22. Excellent post. Anyone who thinks you're not making sense is simply careless

I agree Obama is very long on style, flash, and hype. I love his speeches, I love how he inspires, but I still have yet to see him lay down any specifics of how he plans such miraculous changes, such as how he's going to unite red with blue.

Speaking about change will inspire Democrats to vote for him in the Primaries, but all the rules will be changed once we get into the General Election. The first time Obama goes up against someone like McCain, McCain is going to ask him to lay his specifics on the table and then he's going to have to spell it out. That's when we'll find out if he really has it or doesn't.

[dugggy]

36. I think you are wrong...

Majority of Voters never read the party platform, the candidate's position papers
or even op-ed's.

Most voters do not visit DU to become knowledgeable. They vote based on whose
speech they liked and who looks good on TV and who seems more likeable. Obama
beats Hillary on all those counts. Hillary is showing her age and reminds them
of the stern headmistress in middle school.

[Andy823]

61. Good point

Sooner or later the voters "will" start asking some serious questions, I just hope it's sooner than later! I would very gladly support Obama if Edwards drops out, "IF" he could give me some "substance" to his agenda. It's great to have an "agenda", but the people need to know he has a plan to make that agenda work, not just great speaches, or the fact he will be the "first" black president. Before he can be the president he will have to go up against republicans who will not treat him as the second coming as many of his supporters do. Yes, some have crossed over and voted for him in the primaries, but will the still vote for him in the general if he doesn't show the country "how" he will keep all of his promises?????

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Worse than Bush?

Worse than Bush? You must be joking.

[Cronus Protagonist]

8. I said COULD be

And if you think that's not possible, I suggest you read some more history.

[tridim]

82. Yea, I was with the OP until I read that.

It's impossible to be worse than Bush, none of our candidates would come close.

[Cronus Protagonist]

128. I'd like to believe that, I really would

But if I did, I'd be derelict in my responsibility. It is a fact that another president could be worse than Bush, perhaps not Obama in your opinion, sure, but look at Ron Paul... Guiliani? McCain? If it's possible on their side, it's possible on our side. That's all. Just possible, and I'd like more assuarances before I get in bed with a candidate.

[cali]

7. umm, you blew it.

There certainly is a fair amount of Obama adulation, but it's nothing like what georgie inspired. Furthermore, we've seen that kind of adulation for JFK and RFK.

I certainly know he's not god, thank you very much. But I also know he's not a lightweight. Lightweights don't have the history he does. You demonstrate your inability to use critical thinking skills when you assert with no foundation, that he could be as bad or worse than bush. You pulled that right out of a dim place. I'm supporting him because he's exercised good judgment and because he has a good record; in the U.S. Senate, in the Illinois State Senate, and in his professional life before entering politics. I'm endorsing him because although it's certainly not perfect, I agree wih his positions and platform- in the main.

I have no idea what you're talking about with "I won't hesitate to strike" comment. Like the rest of your pitiful little post, it's offered without context or a link.

Your post reeks of bitterness and envy. Let me guess: You support Dennis or Edwards.

[ccpup]

9. this is a perfect opportunity

to find out what, exactly, he did in the Illinois State Senate and, for that matter, in his brief time in the US Senate. What achievements are under his belt in both of those experiences that have led you to insist he's exercised good judgment and has a good record? Legislation he authored and pushed through that helped a great deal of people, etc. and so on?

I'm actually sincerely curious because no one really mentions his actual record of achievement and you sound as if you may be a good source for information.

[cali]

16. It's been posted time after time

here in a chart form. Do a search. Briefly he passed strong legislation reforming how lobbyists could do business at the Statehouse. He proposed and passed legislation requiring that all police interrogations be video taped becaus accusations of police brutality were rife- and he faced great opposition to it. Ultimately it passed the Senate unanimously, the gov signed it into law and Illinois became the first state that required video taping of police interrogations. He wrote and got passed the first legislation in the state that gave an earned income credit to the working poor. He worked on ethics reform for the Senate. That's off the top of my head, but there's more.

[ccpup]

thank you

I hadn't seen it when it was mentioned before.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. It's a bit sad to make the now common argument that he's

"short on substance" when you don't even have the minimum energy necessary to investigate his positions and plans. They are clearly stated on his web site. You say "I hadn't seen it when it was mentioned before." I would have thought that somebody so "long" on substance (over flash, no doubt) as yourself would have made a substantial inquiry into the substance of Mr. Obama's positions, found them lacking, and made your claim on that basis. That appears not to be the case. Instead, you just repeated a mantra (short on substance, short on substance) without doing any investigation at all? Is that it?

Needless to say, this leads to the ironic reversal that the person droning "all flash, no substance" is actually the one who is all flash and no substance! The phrase "all flash and no substance" is now a version of FLASH itself!

If you want to accuse somebody of being short on substance, shouldn't you at least pretend to have plenty of substance yourself? In this case, "substance" would mean a thorough investigation of Mr. Obama's positions and accomplishments, and a critique of those positions...er...ON THEIR SUBSTANCE. Simply repeating the current catch phrase "all flash and no substance" doesn't quite do it. It's the three fingers pointing back at yourself, actually.

[ccpup]

38. oh man

where did that bitch fest come from?

I actually had investigated his record months ago and didn't find much legislation he authored or really pushed through (voting for something that someone else created didn't count in this Search) that helped his Constituents with regards to Health Care, the Economy or Education. When cali offered a defense of what he had done, I recognized an opportunity to perhaps learn something more from someone who obviously knew. And the response from cali was certainly helpful.

I often don't trust candidate's websites, by the way, preferring to go independently in finding the info I need.

In any case, I certainly hope the next person who replies to you is kinder than you were to me.

[Cronus Protagonist]

48. I watched an entire speech by Obama last night

And I watched him working the crowd afterwards. I figure it's the least I can do, and I was very unimpressed. Next time I'm going to keep a count of how many cliches he spills out. I'll be sure to have a large sheet of paper on which to record them.

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. Thanks for your substanceless post

:-)

Yes, providing a complete list of his cliches would constitute something like substance. At this point, your argument is mere assertion and flash.

[Cronus Protagonist]

72. Thanks. Based on that comment, I could run for president.

But, lest anyhone be salivating, I won't be providing a list of his cliches, I'll be counting them. I'm quite sure that I can't type or write fast enough to keep up with the Democratic's greatest "hoper".

:P

[alcibiades_mystery]

86. Very clever post

If utterly devoid of substance!

:silly:

[Cronus Protagonist]

126. Yes, so apparently presidential!

Clearly I'm now on par with the front runner :P

[alcibiades_mystery]

150. You keep saying so...but that's all flash

If only you would provide some substance...

:*

[Cronus Protagonist]

152. I feel the same way about toe cleavage

Some have it, some don't.

[alcibiades_mystery]

153. Hmmm

That just went far beyond where I was willing to go.

I'll leave you to it.

[ellisonz]

163. Funny how that works...

:hurts:

[ClericJohnPreston]

17. And you Cali, are the FIXTURE of Obama apologists

You are a caricature poster. You are nasty and condescending and don't ever go to the core issues raised, but make presumptive personal attacks.

Are you the face of the kind-hearted Obamites behind the scenes, like the Obama who sneered at Clinton, "you look good enough"? And I can't stand Clinton for her Corporatist backing.

But, there it is for Obama too. Same Corporate dollars and ambiguity about his real intent. WHY? Do you think we are rascists? WRONG again. We know what it is like to see someone voted in on personality alone, and his handlers have so carefully crafted that image.

I'm not alone in my faithlessness. From Kos to Vanden Heuvel, we all shiver with platitudes about bi-partisanship, in an era where an iron fist is needed to CORRECT the 8 years of Bush and the "corporate stranglehold on Democracy".

In the meantime, GET RELEVANT fast. If not, I'll be happy to point out, wherever your caricature arises, how EMPTY your rhetoric of anger really is.

[Cronus Protagonist]

18. Oh, that's who it was?

I sometimes wonder who it is that's stalking me... "ignored" just doesn't tell you much, but your post sheds a whole lot of light on the topic at hand. Thanks for that.

:P

[ClericJohnPreston]

34. Your welcome!

[ellacott]

19. Wow, in defense of Cali

She/he has been pretty objective in all her posts. I have never seen her display the type of behavior you describe. Yes, she/he is supportive of Obama but the poster has also been supportive of the other candidates.

[Cronus Protagonist]

21. Hahaa

You haven't been looking much. LOL :P

[ellacott]

23. Of course I have

I wouldn't have posted if I didn't feel that way.

[cali]

25. thanks. nice of you to speak up. n/t

[ellacott]

30. No problem n/t

[cali]

20. Don't go to core issues? What the fuck do you call post 16? Duh.

yeah, I'm snarky. And hardly just about Obama. And no, I don't go cruelly after Clinton. A lot of Clinton supporters can vouch for the fact that I've frequently defended her against some of the crap flung her way. I've seen no evidence that you're a racist. Wish I could say that for all DUers.

I know I hurt your wittle feeling with my response to a repulsive OP of yours, and no I don't feel badly about it. Write crap and lies and I'll go for the smack down.

As for this, I have only one comment:

I'm not alone in my faithlessness. From Kos to Vanden Heuvel, we all shiver with platitudes about bi-partisanship, in an era where an iron fist is needed to CORRECT the 8 years of Bush and the "corporate stranglehold on Democracy".

In the meantime, GET RELEVANT fast. If not, I'll be happy to point out, wherever your caricature arises, how ENPTY your rhetoric of anger really is.


:rofl:

[ClericJohnPreston]

28. Go for it...

I'm a working attorney big guy, so I have to get back to being a breadwinner for my family.

The admission you are "snarky" is good enough for me.

I'll take you on anytime, anyplace, your snark outweighs the ISSUES.

As to your labeling any post of mine "repulsive", its only because it got so favorable a following and it shred your Obama fandom.

Finally, laugh away, empty icon man; he who laughs last, laughs heartiest.

Since you were first, I'm happy to laugh last, which I'm doing right now.

You will NEVER see me back down.

[cali]

32. Can't reply substantively to post # 16

can you? How brave of you. Yeah, that's really not backing down.

I post substantively on the issues. You have yet to do so. That's the bottom line. And with each post, you demonstrate that.

Lame.

[ClericJohnPreston]

39. Post #32 Cali...

substantive in every post?

Mwahahahahahahahahahahaahhhaha!!!!!

Three lines of nothing , harking back to post #16, where you fail to mention the hypocrisy of someone involved in legislating anything about lobbying, from someone whose current State campaign manager IS a lobbyist.

A threadbare resume, all the better so you can imbue your own candidate, who is a blank slate, with all your hopes and projections.

Like the old Country tune, "wishin and hopin", won't get anything done, but it sure beats specificity.

[ClericJohnPreston]

33. By the way..

I call your post #16 Cali, a lazy pastiche of fawning garbage off a candidate's web site, you couldn't even bother to accurately remember.

Hardly a defense to empty rhetoric.

[cali]

37. Just facts and not even off of his web site- not that it would matter

if they were. Facts are simply facts. You're living down to expectations with your inability to address facts. Those are things he accomplished as a Senator in Illinois. It's up to each individual to decide what they're worth, but your pathetic comment, is hardly a critique of his accomplishments. It's just lashing out at me because your wittle feeling are hurt.

[ClericJohnPreston]

40. You , of course, give you, too much credit

if you think I care a whit about your empty sarcastic repetoire.

You are a tired old act.

I've seen your type ever since I started posting 4 years ago. There is a "snarky", full of himself/herself poster on every board.

You just happen to be the latest variant to me, the DU snark.

Well snark away. The most bizzare aspect of your "blindness" to your own irrelevance is your sig line. You are talking about yourself.

Gotta go. Work calls.

[FrenchieCat]

109. 4 DAYS at DU and you know it all......

How bizarre!

Cali is a wonderful DUer. And you must not have yet read the rules. I suggest that you do ASAP!

[AmBlue]

85. Also, in defense of cali...

I saw you-- ClericJohnPreston-- post ugly racist filth the other day that was alerted on and deleted. We don't forget these things.

So don't bother being nasty with cali, or you just might get tombstoned. cali knows her candidate well and has every right to support him, just as you do yours. Let's keep it civil. And just so you know, John Edwards supporters on this board have a rep for being decent and respectful and we'd like to keep it that way. You give us all a bad name when you do otherwise. Thanks.

[cali]

104. thanks. that was kind of you.

and it's true the racist stuff has me predisposed to dislike what this poster says.

[AmBlue]

105. no problem.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClericJohnPreston]

147. To the moderator

I am new here, but I don't accept words that would be actionable in the real world as slander.

This poster, AMBLUE, has taken a deleted post AFTER my OP, in a thread I started, which was removed because it was filth, BUT NOT FROM ME, and accused me of that post. Am I supposed to just let a poster get away with a scurrilous attack THAT IS PREDICATED ON A LIE?

That thread:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3971265&mesg_id=3971265

Below, you left intact the link I put up to that thread which generated this poster's confusion. If you will not take down their words, then please leave this response.

[Bongo Prophet]

154. I will bear witness that it was NOT you that disrupted your post

I read the thread, and the disrupter's post was already deleted, so I do not know who posted it.
Maybe they are one of the tombstoned. Here's hoping.

Take care, ClericJP - its crazytime here right now.

[AmBlue]

165. I just saw this now....

It looks as though I may have you confused with the disruptor, and if so I sincerely apologize.

[ClericJohnPreston]

175. Thank you AMBLUE

and Bongo. I appreciate your apology AMBLUE, as you realized I have never been racist in any post. It was some idiot who posted a first response in one of my threads.

I doubt I'll ever see an apology from Cali, then again, she has already diminished herself by her style of posting.

[Occam Bandage]

97. Fixture? I like when people pick the wrong word and put it in caps.

[Cronus Protagonist]

132. Off topic: - you have a great moniker n/t

[MadBadger]

98. Looks like somebody's talkin out of their ass again.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

120. You know, you could at least get the quote right.

He said "you're likable enough, Hillary". :eyes:

[ellisonz]

164. "And I concluded as such after all of 5 days here in the heat of primary season..."

:eyes:

[kid a]

94. i heart you cali!

[Occam Bandage]

99. Great post.

[jgraz]

166. ummm...didn't YOU support Dennis until ... I dunno ... like 3 days ago?

This must be a very nice moment for you. Congratulations on picking the right bandwagon.

[CTLawGuy]

10. Oh stop it

sour grapes...

worse than Bush, you gotta be kidding me...

[Cronus Protagonist]

12. If you don't think it's possible, I feel sorry for us all

Consider it's possible. Look and see, perhaps you disagree, but did you look? Have you really entertained the possibility that a well-liked good looking candidate like Obama (also like Bush) might not turn out to be just as bad as Bush, or worse? Is it not possible?

[enough already]

24. Gutter sniping, plain and simple

Worse than Bush? How fucking desperate can you possible be?

[Cronus Protagonist]

27. Oh, it's actually possible for our next president to be worse than Bush

Its not only possible, there are definitely several candidates in this current election that would surely be worse than Bush. OK, so you don't think Obama might be one of these candidates, but surely you don't hold the belief that no one could be worse than Bush. Some one could be. That's a simple fact. And, for me, Obama is a dark horse candidate. I know little of how he will govern, nothing in fact. How will he fix health care? How will he reconcile his hawkish statements about war with our demand to pull out of Iraq and end this bloody mess? How will he do all the things he claims he wants to do? You don't know. I don't know. And I suspect neither does he.

It makes my stomach ache with deja vu when I see his supporters doing the EXACT SAME THING George Bush's supporters did and still do. Gives me such a bad feeling that I wish other people would fucking wake up for once in their tiny little lives.

[CTLawGuy]

41. no

becuase Obama is actually intelligent and has spent his life in service to others, as a civil rights lawyer, community organizer in Chicago, and state senator (where he passed campaign finance reform, a moratorium on the death penalty, a requirement that criminal interrogations be taped (this when the governor at first did NOT want to sign it), Illinois's Earned Income Tax Credit, among other things) and as a U.S. Senator (bill to promote nuclear disarmament, a law that requires the federal government to put all contracts and catalog all spending on a searchable website (www.usaspending.gov), and legislation on ethics reform).

Compare that to Bush who spent his life drunk and getting bailed out by dadddy before becoming the 3rd most powerful person... in Texas (which is a weak governor state). This man has clearly never cared about anyone not in his narrow base of supporters.

To compare the two is just silly.

[Cronus Protagonist]

71. I so hope you're right

Still, I worry because it's not Bush's stupidity or lack of life accomplishments that make him a tool of the fascists, it's his pandering to them and his lack of original ideas that makes him dangerous. Other candidates this time around could be MUCH worse, doing the bidding of fascists because they agree with them, not becuase they don't know what's going on.

I do sincerely hope Barack is not going to turn out to be one, but hey, when he talks in a Democratic primary about not hesitating to strike militarily, he gives me goosebumps, and that's not from love, but dread.

[rodeodance]

11. I think there is a lot of truth in what you say.

[madrchsod]

13. simple-don`t vote for him

and leave your insult of those who believe in him to yourself.

[Little Star]

15. True Believers. Where have I seen this before? Hummm

[PATRICK]

14. Beware all googly eyes but

not all candidates. I have seen the same. Starstruck even with abysmal celebs or obvious phonies. One might do well to distrust wild emotions of any sort unless a higher judgment(hopefully correct) tells you your guy and your expectations are more genuine than your gushing. it is also people power and the GOP can't steal it this time. Some other time maybe. I am sure they will find 10% of something to fawn over their parchment skin despots. If any uninformed mobs slobber over the Dem lets make sure the incredible mandate we get like this will not disappoint, because it will if we don't fill in those blank faces with respect for progressivism, ties to the people, and the Dem platform as it is carried out in their service.

You'd rather our crowds be somber and serious and restricted to the wonkishly educated(despite all obstacles)? That leaves the GOP with an opportunity for another empty grin and demagoguery. OUR guy can lift the minds and souls the way they should be. Obama is no this or that or Jesus Christ but he is gathering the raw force America needs in a nation suppressed from knowing and meeting challenges clearly

Again, the JFK comparison of the liberal turned cold warrior when detente was at hand should remind us of the politics. If we've been down this road before send your wisdom to Obama headquarters so he might avoid some of the JFK mistakes.

[Cronus Protagonist]

141. Well, not really, I would rather people be excited about what we're going to DO

Rather than how cute our guy looks and how great a person he is and how nice and ingratiating he behaves and so on. I'm not against being excited about a candidate, hell, I'm excited about Albert Gore, and he's not even a candidate, but I still keep my eyes and ears open, watch out for missing manhole covers and make sure I'm not being led down a garden path. It's the googly eyed "Obama is our savior" thing that's scary, and well, I suppose Obama is scary too, being such a dark horse this late in the race.

Nonetheless, no matter who gets in, I will be holding his/her feet to the fire from day one, and I think that we ought to be holding their feet to the fire right now too, not after the nomination when we find out, perhaps, that the candidate some of us thought was like Y, turns out to really be like X.

Some people on this thread liken Obama to Kennedy, others to King, and I think that's dangerous. Very dangerous.

[Sparkly]

26. No way any Democrat would be "as bad or worse than Bush."

Charisma can be dangerous when it's in the wrong hands and used the wrong way. It's apparently what got Chimp into the WH, twice. (Well, that and the USSC and election "irregularities.") It's dangerous in the hands of dictators and cult leaders.

But I don't see a danger here. Again, Clinton, Edwards and Obama have essentially the same policy proposals. Any Democrat who's smart and has a sound cabinet and good advisers won't steer us off-course. They might not be our ideals in every way, but they're all far far far better than the alternative.

The "won't hesitate to strike" concerned me a bit too, but I think advisers -- and the Pentagon, and hopefully Congress -- would put the brakes on enough to ensure caution, with both the decision and the execution if it happened.

[GreenArrow]

29. can't but agree

But the candidate I see with the googliest eyed supporters is Edwards.

[Mythsaje]

159. Maybe we just really like the fucking message.

And would be just as happy if one of the others were saying the same things with as much force and intensity to their words and as much of a chance to get the message out to the general public who so desperately need to hear it.

John's no rock star. He's just saying the same thing out loud I've been saying for years.

Do you do ANYTHING but Bash Edwards? I mean seriously. I don't think I've seen a single post from you that didn't. What did he do, shoot your dog?

[GreenArrow]

169. run with the message.

No one's stopping you. It's a nice message.

No, I don't like Edwards. I didn't like him from day one. I didn't like his positions in 2004, and I don't like the way he's changed them for 2008. I don't like his unctuous, ingratiating manner, and I don't like his insidious and smug little smirk, which says I don't like the way he uses emotionally manipulative language. I don't like his crass materialism or his hypocrisy. I don't like the way people on the left, who largely didn't give this clown the time of day back in 2004, are now falling all over themselves to climb on his bandwagon, all in service of beating Hillary, who's about as different from Edwards as Tom Delay is from Trent Lott. I don't like phonies, and hucksters, and self-promoters of any stripe.

I do like some of his rhetoric. I admire his position on nukes. I concede that he had a very good record on choice. The trouble is, I don't believe much of what he says, or more accurately, I don't believe he believes. Maybe, if you're right, that doesn't matter, since he'll be raising issues that are important, in a loud voice. Maybe that's so. Maybe if he wins, he'll actually be able to work on some of them. But frankly, I don't believe there is a whole lot of difference between the top tier, other than in approach and style and sales pitch.

And yeah, I do post about other things.

[Mythsaje]

170. Thanks for the response.

You know, I can understand some of that. But there are DUers who have met him, and they talk about a real, down-to-earth, decent man who knows the score and wants to change it. I don't get the huckster image when I listen to him at all. And considering I've never fallen for anyone's hype--be it Madison Avenue or Gawd's Awesome Prophet of the Day--I don't think I'm all that gullible.

But, yes, the message is more important than the man in this case. He's managed to drag both the others at least slightly to the left. But he's been on message since day one and isn't wavering at all, even if he IS coming up short in the primaries.

I think he got to Washington and found himself unprepared for the culture there. We all know that we only see about a tenth of what goes on--how even good intentions can go astray fairly easily. I disagree with the IWR vote. And I damn well don't understand the bankruptcy bill. But, you know, I don't think John was cut out to be a Senator. I think he's been forged for more direct battles where the lines are more clearly drawn. That's where he made his bones in the first place, and that's where the Presidential race is taking him.

Mileage may vary.

[GreenArrow]

171. I've read many of your posts

and I generally consider you one of the more level headed posters on here. (At least I agree with you on more than I disagree with you :) )So it's disturbing to me when I see you and others, a whole wave of them lately, coming out in favor of Edwards, as opposed to Kucinich. Sure, I know the electability argument, but I still remember the aftermath of IWR and how angry people on here were about that, how those who voted for it were going to suffer at the polls, would never get people's votes, etc.

Yet, in 2004, what did we get? A ticket comprised of not one, but two candidates who had voted in favor of IWR. This cycle, we get more of the same. So, I can't get excited about any of these people, and really, feel very disappointed that those who voted for IWR and helped sell it are allowed any credence at all. And it says as much about the country itself as it does about our candidates. The invasion was entirely unecessary, illegal, and monstruous, really, in every respect. It would have been no less wrong to attack and invade Iraq had any of the rationales actually offered been true. It disturbs me even more, when the one candidate running who was right on Iraq, on bankruptcy, on Nafta, the Patriot Act, on any mumber of issues, polls notwithstanding, gets jilted so to speak, for a guy who voted wrong on the same issues, and who has all and all earned so little progressive credibility. I don't get it. I don't buy his conversion. I think he's a ringer candidate.

It makes little difference, though. I'm resigned to the fact, that when the smoke clears, we are going to have one of the top tier, or yet another Republican. We'll have another popularity contest, hopes will be high, and there will be little change. I tend to believe that Obama or Hillary would govern to the left of where they are runnning, and that Edwards will govern to the right of what he's led people to expect with the net result being little difference. We'll find out soon enough, I guess.

[Mythsaje]

174. Kucinich was never a truly viable candidate, in my opinion...

For whatever reason, be it appearance, the media's obvious bias (which is showing itself with regards to Edwards too--though his message is strong enough to reach through the barriers), or the fact that some of his stranger ideas simply don't resonate with enough people. I DO think he brought something valuable to the table, and his work in Congress has been exceptional.

I'm not quite sure what to expect of any of the candidates. But I like John's message the best because he's drawing a clear line for people to see and I think that's particular important right now.

[GreenArrow]

176. No Kucinich is not viable

Wasn't in 2004, isn't now. But he has been right, and he gets my vote because of that, and because I believe he holds the most civilized and far-sighted views of any of the candidates. I'd just really hoped we'd get a real choice of someone who didn't support IWR, Feingold maybe, though he wouldn't be viable either.

[Mythsaje]

177. Yeah...I don't get the IWR vote myself...

I thought the whole "He's got WMDs" argument was fatally flawed. Like he'd have been crazy enough to USE them? Or give them to people who hated HIM? Nah. He was a comfort-loving dictator who just wanted to take it easy until he retired to a comfortable villa somewhere.

Sure, he was a jerk, but we've supported a LOT of jerks over the years--he was certainly no worse than any of his fellows.

Maybe they DID think the IWR would prevent the war...maybe they thought Saddam would capitulate and that would be that. Foolish, really, but even smart people can be foolish sometimes.

[mtnsnake]

31. I think you have some valid concerns, although I don't think it's possible to be as bad as Bush

I certainly agree that we have to be concerned that Obama doesn't lay out any specifics in how he's going to enact these incredible changes he speaks of. That's been a pet peeve of mine all along. Nancy Pelosi had us all googly eyed, too, for some of the same reasons Obama does, but as it turns out she was all style and zero substance. Let's hope Obama can find a way to back up his rhetoric, come time for the General Elecction, because if he doesn't, it'll be another 4 years of horrific Republican rule.

BTW, on what TV show did he say, "I won't hesitate to strike"? He did it in the debates Saturday night, too, and rhetoric like that is going to come back and haunt him in the General Election. The first thing the repukes will do is play a tape of Obama where he's calling for nothing but peace and diplomacy, and then they'll follow up with tapes of him saying he won't hesitate to strike. It'll be Flip-Flop syndrome all over again.

It's sickening how all of our top three candidates suck up to the left on one hand, when they sing the peace songs, and then they suck up to the right on the other, singing about how ready to drop bombs they are.

All I have to say is thank god for Dennis Kucinich, the only one who gets it right and the only one who consistently says what he reaaly feels.

[CTLawGuy]

42. this thread is ridiculous

heaven forbid anyone be excited about a candidate for president, how awful!

They should all be hated or looked at with indifference- THAT'S how things get done...

:eyes:

[ClericJohnPreston]

43. Nice straw man non-argument quip

Saying nothing.

The OP bothered to flesh out their OPINION. Of course, you can't be bothered to actually be responsive.

Things get done, when you are familiar with the politics of Washington and suspend your ILLUSIONS to deal with that reality.

For a view of bi-partisanship, in all it's glory, watch Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Sorry, but you can't undo 8 years of Bush with platitudes about hands across the aisle. You need a FIGHTER. How absurd to think emboldened Corporations are just going to accept ceding the control they have been handed.

The OP was dead-on. You Obamites have no idea of leadership or politics. But, you do like empty speeches!

[CTLawGuy]

44. Obama KNOWS how to get stuff done

because he knows how to inspire and motivate people. He's done so in IL to pass the EITC, and to pass a requirement that police videotape interrogations (when the GOVERNOR was originally against the bill), and to pass ethics reform among other things.

Let me ask you O wise one? Is your "fighting" candidate going to bring 60 lockstep Dem senators with him or her? If not, then that "fighter" will accomplish nothing - NOTHING. The Repugs will be all too happy to filibuster EVERYTHING.

Not all elected Republicans are unreasonable, but you'd be damn sure they'd march with their party if they are not reached out to. Even if you get 4 or 5 of them it can make a big difference in actually getting things done.

The reason Pelosi and Reid are so bad is that they are creatures of Washington who are more concerned about the next election than governing. I think they'd rather have the war as an issue in the 08 presidential race than end it. In 2002, Daschle's strategy was take Iraq off the table prior to the midterm so that Dems might have a better chance (in his mind).

There has NOT been "compromise" these past 7 years, there has only been "capitulation." That's becuase BUSH doesn't compromise and Dems don't stand up for themselves. Compromise means you get at least something out of the deal. Captiulation means you just vote for what the other side wants, usually out of fear. Did we get anything out of IWR? The Patriot Act? The bankruptcy bill? Did we make those bills any less bad through our legislative efforts? No, that's capitulation. That capitulation is a product of Washingtonized Dems who are only thinking about retaining power and not about getting stuff done.

Obama gets PROGRESSIVE legislation passed by using his incredible personal skill and through a dialog based on civility. That's what he would return to washington, an ethic of governance, not politics. He would do it by creating a culture of repsect, of "disagreeing without being disagreeable." Even if it only influences 10% of republicans it's still very valuable.

[ClericJohnPreston]

47. Naivete knows no bounds...

Especially those who venture into political waters.

Your consensus soft-handed approach is patently absurd. You don't undersatnd who the real enemy is , do you?

It is the Corporations who run this country and have stolen democracy. Bush is merely the puppet doing their bidding. There is nothing you can do which is conciliatory with these entities.

Platitudes and speeches are empty.

I heard your man Obama say on Saturday that "Pakistan has a Democracy" !!! If that isn't political naivete at it's best, I don't what could be clearer. Musharraf, democratic? Puhlease.

Extend that into his cynical we'll have to sit around the table and work things out speech. It's cynical, because believe me, he knows better. He was so conciliatory to insurance carriers he passed a watered down, INDUSTRY approved bill in Illinois. That is why he receives MORE MONEY than any other REPUBLICAN running for President! More than a Republican!!! Only Hillary takes more.

If you like sources, it is there if you google or go to www.Michaelmoore.com and it is a lead story.

So, you go ahead and willingly suspend your belief. I'll reserve that for movies and science-fiction. I don't want UNREALITY in my political life.

[surfermaw]

62. Sometime Presidents twist arms

That is what Lyndon Johnson did to get Medicare, he had enough on all of them to do a little arm twisting, for sure the republicans aren't going to give any Democrat President air in a jug...We have to take the Senate and Congress to get any thing done, no matter what Obama says, John Edwards is right unless we elect a majority,any thing done will have to be done the hard way by taking them on.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

46. Don't forget the bitter partisanship too.

Anything less than screaming "Republicans suck!" at the top of your lungs at every speech means you are planning to completely capitulate to them.

[Cronus Protagonist]

50. I said nothing of the sort

Still, it's interesting to hear you rationalize, if that's what that straw man drivel amounts to, for you.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

56. Um, I was responding to another post, not your OP

I realize that you only compared Obama to Bush.

And since we're on that subject, I don't recall GWB getting the kind of response Obama is getting from such a diverse spectrum. Looked like his fans were mostly conservative Caucasian Christians to me.

[Cronus Protagonist]

49. Excited is fine, googly eyed idealistic love is BAD

Really, open your eyes and allow a little skepticism in, it might be refreshing.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

45. Nothing speaks to your own desperation like having to resort to a GWB comparison.

It may be necessary to create some kind of corollary to Godwin's law if this kind of thing is going to continue.

[Cronus Protagonist]

51. Believe me, I am aware of Godwin's law

Hence I didn't mention the fawning crouwds, feisty rhetoric and unsubstantive love of "the leader" looks awfully familiar to a scholar of 20th centry history. Particularly when the sight was refreshed so recently with Bush's campaing 2000, and appears to again be gelling right before our eyes in campaign 2008.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cronus Protagonist]

69. Hahaha - lighten up, will ya?

Some people can't take a joke. And I didn't mention Hitler, you did. I was referring to Stalin and Mao :P

[mrreowwr_kittty]

83. Bullshit. You were referring to Hitler.

And quite frankly, a person who posts, in all seriousness, an OP about how the enthusiasm of Obama's supporters reminds them of "googly eye look and fawning love" of Bush supporters, and then suggests that he might be as bad or worse than Bush, really doesn't have much room to tell anyone to "lighten up".

[robbedvoter]

68. Wow! I am speechless!

[Occam Bandage]

106. Wow. Comparing Obama to Hitler. Way to completely marginalize yourself.

[Cronus Protagonist]

133. Read it again, I compared the mass of people to other events in history

I believe it was someone I have on ignore who mentioned Hitler and also brought the subject up, not me. I just responded to it.

[Occam Bandage]

151. Bullshit.

I'm not quite sure who you're trying to fool.

[cali]

122. Clearly, not only do you not know any 20th century history beyond

you're completely incapable of making critical distinctions. You go shamelessly from one ignorant assertion to another. Should you really like to know about the reaction of crowds to Hitler, I can, as it happens, recommend an excellent book: "Diary Of A Man In Despair". Simply Google it.

You really are pathetic in a major way, but you are amusing me with your hyperbole and ignorance.

[Skip Intro]

74. Is that why Obama calls Hillary bush/cheney lite?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

80. The law should apply to him as well.

But now we've got him being compared to Hitler now so the GWB comparison is small potatoes.

[CyberPieHole]

90. Who says "facts" should play into this...

Obama should be given a pass~~~I am sure that repugs will give him a pass.:eyes:

[hedgehog]

52. Yeah, but which voters got googly eyed iver Bush, and why? It's

a different set of voters who love Obama, and our reasons are different.

[ClericJohnPreston]

54. Spot-on Cronus

Dewy-eyed fawns to the unsuspecting wolf in the fold.

That wolf is the Corporate enemy. Anyone here who merely paints an abstract "Republican" theme to who our enemy is, misses the boat.

They are the ENABLERS only. They work for, are paid off by, CORPOPRATIONS, who already run your life, which is what the OP and I have been preaching.

You can't take on that enemy, when you take their payola and that means we see the CYNICAL side of empty rhetoric.

Gosh, you sound as silly as the RUBES who voted against their pocketbooks for Bush.

Be a little demanding!Ask for specifics. When did that become anathema to political dialogue.

[Cronus Protagonist]

73. I do know how to draw them out, don't I?

:P

[SIMPLYB1980]

53. K&R!

[babylonsister]

55. You're scared, I find him inspirational. Different strokes. nt

[JVS]

57. Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

59. The OP compared Obama to Hitler. See post #51. nt

[Cronus Protagonist]

75. Haha - lighten up will ya? Cut the hysterics - people can read for themselves.

I don't think He is like Hitler, I did note, however, that fawning doe-eyed people wishing for a great leader to take care of them are common in history, and often results in fascism, and even then, my post on that was clearly a little tongue in cheek too.

How you can support Him so strongly is beyond me, unless your rose colored glasses are truly opaque, but that doesn't account for the shrill, excited postings trying to invoke Godwin's law all by yourself.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

78. Nice try at backpeddling.

But you compared Obama to Hitler and his supporters to Nazi Germans in that post.

[Cronus Protagonist]

81. If you say so honey, if you say so

Apparently you know my mind more than I do. Even when I explain my thoughts to you, you reject them and take your own for Gospel. I think my OP is now fully validated. Oh, and *plonk* there you go.

[origin1286]

60. Give me a break

"I almost puked when I saw him say, "I won't hesitate to strike" on TV last night."


...

There is a difference between being a war hawk and one who will use force if necessary. Obama himself has said "I'm not against all wars, I'm against dumb wars."

[mrreowwr_kittty]

65. The OP compared Obama to Hitler. See post #51.

[Cronus Protagonist]

76. But I did almost puke.

I was just reporting my take on it. You, clearly, have a higher tolerance for war than I do.

[JBoy]

63. "Might turn out to be as bad or worse than Bush"?

I think this is highly unlikely, but from a probability perspective I'll accept it. You could also say this about any of the candidates. You choose to say this about Obama though, apparently on the basis of his greater number of googly-eyed supporters. I fail to see the connection.

As far as his "I won't hesitate to strike" comment, I believe this was in the context of the hypothetical case of having credible intelligence on the location of Bin Laden within Pakistan. I seem to recall both Edwards and Clinton making essentially the same statement. Are you saying you would oppose such an action?

[zulchzulu]

64. You simply have no idea what you're talking about

People like Obama BECAUSE of his policies, his background, his plans for the future and his intelligence. He also just so happens to be an excellent communicator that has a great message that people want to hear.

Are they all stupid, as you infer? Support whoever you want. See you at the polls.

[Alexander]

66. And how many DUers have compared Obama to God?

None, unless they absolutely despise him.

[Cronus Protagonist]

77. Is that the litmus test you go by?

I see you have a higher tolerance for idolatry than I do.

[Alexander]

145. The only people comparing Obama to God already hate him.

It's a total straw man and a worthless argument.

By all means, continue to support straw men and worthless arguments. And watch as DU and voters in general react negatively to your bullshit.

[Cronus Protagonist]

146. So you shot down your own straw man argument.

Hurrah for you. I said Obama is NOT God. Now go find a fawning Obama thread to gush in. You'll feel so much better.

As for voters reacting negatively to my bullshit, who are these voters over which I have so much sway? This is an out of the way watering hole on the net that has ZERO clout with the voters. If anything here had clout with the voters Albert Gore would have been president for the last 8 years and John Edwards would be riding high on a huge wave of support. Get over yourself. :P

[robbedvoter]

67. Yeah, how dare they, when we all know there's only one God and his name is Edwards?

As an impartial observer, I have to appreciate that at least Obama's supporters didn't take over this website and told anyone with a different opinion to "run along", or called them haters, or suspended their DU accounts...
I remember feeling this hopeful about a candidate in 2004 - it felt good, uplifting. I miss it - and would never begrudge others for being inspired by someone - even though that person is not my candidate...I guess I don't feed on

[Cronus Protagonist]

79. No one has taken over this web site

I trust you took note of the DU admin's fawning 1000 word post on Obama this morning? And no one on here has had their account suspended for supporting Obama, Edwards or any other candidate. If that happened, you should notify the admins, not whine about it here. And you should hold off on making whine with these sour grapes, it makes you seem even more repellent.

[robbedvoter]

107. It's only since Iowa that other candidates supporters are even visible here

For a few months there was a total lock.
As for the whining - no reason for me. I'm just an ol' DU-er noticing the tidal waves. For months, page one was nothing but talking points of one candidate. Now that reality intrudes in this little echo chamber, the whining is not from the observer. I certainly welcome back the diversity of opinion. This thread OTOH and the tone of your reply - a different story altogether.

[Cronus Protagonist]

124. I've heard so many complaints on the tone of my posts in the past

I've never had the audacity to post a picture of a bunch of sour grapes and then complain about the tone of the response I got for it. What were you expecting, a respectful reply to your substantive point? What about the tone of your post? Having said that, I took no offense at it, but I can tell you that my tone was far less sharp than I had a mind to take.

I don't know which one candidate you saw for months on page one, I never read that page (the home page, you mean?), but now I wonder who it was, because I haven't seen DU show any kind of a consensus on anyone, not even the venerable Albert Gore, who all agree would be a shoo-in whether they like him or not.

I've often been accused of being a freeper here, long before it was illegal to do so on DU, but hey, I refuse to alter my style to suit every Tom, Dick or Harry who whines about it on here. If people don't like my style, they are allowed to refrain from posting in my threads, and if they do, they know what to expect. :P

Now that the convo has devolved into a discussion of style points, I trust this is the last we'll talk. Thanks for understanding.

:P

[RoadRage]

84. "I won't hesitate to strike"

He never said that he was against wars.. he said he was against a MEANINGLESS war like Iraq.

What is he suppose to say "I'll totally hesitate to strike if China aims some nukes at us, because I ya know.. i really don't like to be all confrontational".

He's anti-Iraq.. Not Anti-War.

[femrap]

87. Well, we feel so much better

now....certainly wouldn't want that military-industrial-congressional complex to fall apart anytime soon. And with 41% of our tax $$ going to the Pentagon, maybe your Inspirational hero will increase that:sarcasm:

Maybe your hero has another nation in mind to attack...after all it's the only thing keeping our economy going...there's lotsa $$$ to be made in exporting death, destruction, and disease.

[RoadRage]

91. God you're right! We really need Jeb Bush to run.. call him NOW! NT

[femrap]

103. You're a young pup here at

DU with a nice violent name of roadrage...might as well ignore you now and save myself from answering any more dull posts. buh bye.

[RoadRage]

125. I don't even know what I said..

I guess it doesn't take much? I really wasn't trying to piss anyone off at all, but whatever.

[Orangepeel]

88. That's a silly reason (and I'm supporting Edwards)

I agree that someone who votes for a candidate because they believe in him (or her) is destined to be disappointed. And, that di appointment might turn to hate when the candidate gets elected and starts doing things that are moderate and conciliatory, as all elected officials do.

But that's not a reason not to vote for them and it certainly isn't any indication that the candidate would be worse than bush.

[Colobo]

89. These Obama=Bush comparisons are silly at best.

[CyberPieHole]

92. K&R for Wishin' and Hopin' and Dreamin'

:kick:

[Desertrose]

93. I tend to agree with you...

and I guess that really goes for any candidate.

We really do need to vote for policies, platforms, issues, not on faith and who's the cutest guy in the race.

and yeah...peace?
(DK has stuck to his word on that it would seem.)

DR

[Cronus Protagonist]

131. Yeah, it does go for any candidate in the race

I mentioned Obama, him being the front-runner at the moment, and just having seen his speech with the people fawning behind him on screen, but it could apply to any of the supporters for any of the candidates. It does seem to me, though, that Obama has the most religiously glazed people in his camp, although I could be wrong - maybe it's Guiliani :P

[killbotfactory]

95. your desperation is showing

you might want to tuck it back in.

[Cronus Protagonist]

137. I don't know what you mean

I'm far from desperate.

[Occam Bandage]

96. LMAO. Obama is popular. SO WAS BUSH! Apparently unpopularity is now a progressive value.

:rofl:

[robbedvoter]

110. Ha!Ha! It would seen so!

[DURHAM D]

100. He is being carried on the wings of the corporate media.

Everyone should ask themselves why?

[Dawgs]

123. Bullshit. Look at the numbers in NH since Iowa.

Obama +10
Hillary -4
Edwards +0

This is the one place where the voters can go out and see the candidates. It has nothing to do with the media.

[DURHAM D]

127. It has everything to do with the corporate media. n/t

[Cronus Protagonist]

135. Shhhhh you might make some people remove their blinders

Can't be having that now, can we? If I wasn't a long term veteran of this board and political campaigns, I might have been surprised at someone arguing that it's not good to keep your eyes open, but there you see it in print. It's baaaaaaad, say the sheeple.... baaa-aaaad.

:P

[LanternWaste]

101. I've seen that look on supporters of all the candidates

I've seen that look on supporters of all the candidates. Limiting it to merely one is rather disingenuous (at best).

"If you're supporting him because you believe in him, I weep for the nation." Yeah-- 'cause you've shown yourself to be quite the monument to in-depth and analytical discussion during your course at DU, lacking bias or favoritism with an almost fanatical absolutism.

He's not God? Really? I thought he was... I've been praying to him for the past week. Thanks for cluing us in my pithy little friend.

What would we do without you words of wisdom...? Read DU with a smaller degree of annoyance is my first guess.

[DrFunkenstein]

102. You Confuse Fanatical Rapture With Inspiration. Kennedy Is Much Closer to the Mark.

I respect your opinion, but I support Obama's "policies, platforms, vote on the issues." That's what allowed him in the door, and what left Clinton out in the cold.

His policies and platforms on health care and the environment make him an excellent candidate. His ability to put across these and other liberal principles in a way that makes them seem common sense to the regular makes him a very rare Democrat.

I understand that you feel the latter ability alone is not a rationale for a Presidency. But you should not dismiss the powers of diplomacy.

As for striking without hesitation, that is the same position that Kerry, Dean, Clinton, Edwards and every other viable Democrat has taken after 9/11. In fact, I believe it is the right position. Once the judgment is made, there should be no hesitation. What matters is the wisdom that informs the judgment. JFK was ready to strike the USSR, but he had the wisdom to avoid WWIII.

I'd much prefer someone who has made it his stated goal to end all nuclear weapons than someone who said she is willing to keep nuclear weapons "on the table" to fight a handful of terrorists. I don't want someone who feels she needs to act "tough" in militaristic matters.

One of the reasons I live Obama is that he is able to make peaceful solutions a matter of intelligence, not "weakness."

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrFunkenstein]

121. For The Record, I Have Nothing to Do With The Whole "Racist" Thing!

Yikes!

[Cronus Protagonist]

136. I sure hope you're right

My gut feeling on this is not good, but hey, we'll see how it turns out. When he goes fuhrther right in the general, assuming he wins the primary, he's going to put a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths with that kind of rhetoric.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

112. The last time I saw so much bullshit...

was in 2004 during Bush's last campaign.

[ClericJohnPreston]

113. This was the post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3971265&mesg_id=3971265

I dare any one of you slanderers to answer your scurrilous lies?

Here is the OP:

"I am, admittedly a John Edwards partisan. I believe he is the only REAL substance over Obama form, as I've already posted. You can't be an agent for change , while deftly competing for the hearts and minds of people , while USING the scanadalous LOBBY system to enhance your coffers.

That is where the tires leave the road.

I believe that over time, Edwards coffers will swell from the influx of the "smart money". Katrina Vanden Heuvel and Michael Moore reflect that group.

But, what if Edwards torrid campaigning further weakens Hillary, who is BUSHCO BLUE, more cozy to the Rethuglican base than Progressive Democrats? What if that creates a gridlock, with no clear winner going into the National Convention?

I believe that is the time and place you would see a DRAFT GORE Presidency bid take place and I wouldn't expect Al to back away from that.

I'd settle for a Gore/Edwards ticket that leaves the door open for an Edwards ascension after 8 years of Al Gore."

ANYTHING RACIST THERE?

PLEASE NOTE THE FIRST RESPONSE WAS DELETED!!!!

[ClericJohnPreston]

114. Well AMBLUE and CALI

Your apologies????

[mtnsnake]

116. You should alert on the post way upthread, the one where AmBlue slandered you

I know you didn't make any racist comments, as she stated.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

115. Yeah, I'm not buying it.

Edwards is not supposed to be beholden to corporate interests? Then maybe he shouldn't have voted for the war, which has been no good to anybody but corporate interests.

[JTFrog]

117. Don't bother weeping for me. n/t

[Cronus Protagonist]

139. OK., I'll be sure to exclude you then n/t

:P

[XemaSab]

118. The last time I saw it was during the Howard Dean campaign

:shrug:

[progressivebydesign]

119. No flame from me. You've written exactly what I've been feeling.

I'm tired of this 'rock star' bullshit. I want a candidate that stands up for things, not just makes pretty platitudes -- afraid to take a real stand on anything when it comes time to vote. I've started calling Obama: Mr. Present. Cuz he has a propensity to take the easy route so he cannot be pinned on a vote later.. either missing a vote, or voting "present". If I want a "rock star" I'll grab a Jon Bon Jovi poster... I want a tough-as-nails president.

[Dawgs]

129. So, then who do you support?

Maybe someone that voted for Bush's illegal war because the voters in his state liked war?

[PresidentObama]

130. A lightweight? Well that lightweight beat the Clinton machine in Iowa.

And he's in a good position to do it again.

Your post is definitely in the running for most idiotic post in DU history.

[Cronus Protagonist]

138. Thanks. How's Kerry doing this election?

With a moniker like that, do you really think you have credibility yourself?

[avaistheone1]

134. Last time I saw it was the Reagan campaign -

and look how that turned out for the country. Not so well.

[renegade000]

140. Good lord

yes, the whole line of questioning regarding the nuclear terrorism is a silly hypothetical, but there is only one way to respond to it on national television and that is to thump your chest and say how hard you'll come down on the terrorists. if you noticed, all the responses from clinton, edwards, obama, were pretty much all the same. anything less would have been akin to saying, "well given we have an idea where he is, i think we should just let Osama sit there having tea and biscuits over his new nuclear toys and wait for him to kill us all." and that is how you lose an election. did i like it? no. i though the way the question was presented was inane and was tried to make the situation sound like an episode of 24, so i don't see what the problem is in that everyone tried to sound like david palmer.

[thoughtcrime1984]

142. Exactly

They are all playing the game the way it has to be played. No surprise that DU would single out Obama, though.

[no name no slogan]

143. I saw the same thing in 1988 with some Dukakis people

there's ALWAYS people like that, in every campaign. Hell, I've even seen it in town council races.

This has been going on since man stopped dragging his knuckles and started hunting brontosauri. It's nothing new.

[Cronus Protagonist]

148. I agree, every campaign has them

I was surprised at how many there were on stage behind Obama, nodding like puppets during his speech. Scary looking stuff. At least some of the voters in the room looked skeptical, so that was a good sign.

[Generator]

144. Wow Obama is my second choice

And I'm not in love with him;he's not progressive enough for me BUT your post is one of the worst I've ever seen in this forum.

First of all-clearly Obama is intelligent, he has a heart,and even if he GOD forbid did what the 95% of the country wanted if we were actually attacked first-you know strike back-he still would never ever be anywhere in the league of Bush. Bush is an uncaring, cruel, liar. That's just for starters. To compare him to Bush is really just idiotic.

You think they like him because he's CUTE? What are you working for Hillary's campaign!? That is just so offensive on so many levels. Yep, they ONLY like him because he's good looking. If that is what you think of the intelligence of people here-why are you posting? That IS what Hillary said-implying of course that all voters for him are stupid fools.

Next up all the Hillary supporters are lesbians?

I know as a John Edwards supporter I'm clearly a communist! I believe George Will said so.

I think I'd vote for Obama because he's a decent guy. That beats out any of our last few presidents-and yeah I have my doubts about Gore and Clinton too. None of them as ever held up for the American people. So why the fuck not Obama? He's certainly as decent and smart as any of them.

[Thrill]

149. Well good thing you didn't puke

[AX10]

155. We've seen this before.

These people get blinded for some reason or another.

[ClericJohnPreston]

156. Did you ever see the Peter Sellers movie, "Being There?

People projected on a blank slate person, their personal beliefs, making him the perfect "everyman".

We have a candidate who today used the phrasing, "we are riding the wave"......

I'm sorry, is this a water theme park, the beach, or a picnic, for some? This Country is wheezing along and our touchy-feely feel good candidate is back to hollow, meaningless phrases.

Then again, Bush #1 won with his 1,000 points of light. We are headlong in turning back the clock to empty-headed campaigning. Don't get specific, nah...you might get tripped up on the stump and betray more naivete than Saturday night when Obama said Pakistan was a Democracy.

Once upon a time, that is all it would take to disqualify someone for criminal shallow understanding of foreign affairs. But, Bush has lowered the bar so far, I didn't hear one single commentator ever call Obama out on that statement.

Sad part is, being able to say, "I told you so" down the road, is far less important when I'll be suffering too.

[AX10]

157. Truth right here:

Sad part is, being able to say, "I told you so" down the road, is far less important when I'll be suffering too.

[ClericJohnPreston]

158. Thanks for the acknowledgement!

It is all too true isn't it......

[MrSlayer]

160. Nothing wrong with not hesitating to strike under the circumstances he presented.

There are some real terrorists out there, it's not all made up. Most of it is but not all of it. If you have real actionable intelligence on the leaders of those groups or masses of them you have to take them out. You'd be a fool not to. I'm completely against the Iraq war but I'm not against wiping out real terrorist organizations. I don't believe in total pacifism. You just have to fight in the right.

[ellisonz]

161. LOL.

"I won't hesitate to strike" on TV last night. What happened to the anti-war sentiment? Have most Democratics suddenly become war hawks?"

You just showed how little you know about foreign policy.

:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

162. You misunderstand what is, in fact, his anti-dumb-war sentiment.

[bdamomma]

167. we all have to ask the question of who has the best strategy

to deal with many serious problems this country is facing, who can handle sitting behind that desk? who can handle people diplomatically like Putin or Musharraf. Think about it. The media is playing us all, and they are picking our candidate, sorry I cannot have this disgusting media picking out who I want for President after 7 miserable years. Just my opinion.

[laureloak]

168. How DARE you inject reality into this!

[Anouka]

172. Except that before Bush, there was Reagan, and the Kennedys.

And even this George McGovern character from the 1968 election period (yes, he was before my time. It only sounds exciting from afar. I wouldn't have wanted to live then).

Cronus' original post sounds like sour grapes, not reality. It's a cousin to 'good women don't have orgasms, whores do'.

People will support whom they will support. If they're inspired, learn from how they inspire and why they inspire. Take lessons and apply it to one's own campaign (without doing what the Republicans did Saturday, or Hillary did to Obama and Edwards, so clumsily).

Don't beat on supporters for not thinking as they 'should'.

[Cha]

173. Nah, it wasn't...it was

Dean, Kerry, and Wes Clark!

[Barack_America]

178. The FIRST time I saw the googly eyes was for BILL CLINTON

I still people give him the googly eyes, yet I've never seen anyone give Hillary the googly eyes. And that concerns me.

Don't discount the googly eyes. Candidates who get the googly eyes usually get elected, whether they deserve it or not.