South Carolina, please hear me----DON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA

You've got only one chance to get this right. You're not electing a basketball coach or a Dr. FeelGood. This is not going to the Dollar Store to pick out a bottle of dish washing soap. You are very well possibly casting the most important vote in your lifetime. Obama should not be that vote.

I don't care what your ethnic origin is or your status. Obama is an opportunist and a phony. He sold out on the very people of Illinois who elected him as their senator. Would a state trade a senator for a president? No doubt, any state probably would. But that's not the point with Obama. If you are not familiar with it, you need to learn about his appearance on Meet The Press, where he said unequivocally and emphatically unambiguous, that he would serve his full term as senator in Illinois and would not consider any presidential bid or other office for 2008.

He didn't say his intentions at the time were not to run, or that it's too early to speculate on anything beyond my comittment as senator. He wasn't vague or even hesitant. He said flatly, "I will not! Russert gave him three opportunities to revise his statement and leave the door open. He held rock solid, "I will not."

That is a very telling moment. He says whatever makes him look good at the moment. He did it then and he does it now. On his subsequent appearance after being confronted with the video, he tried to squiggle his way into an after-the-fact explanation, which he always relies on people being gullible enough to buy.

If you watch his speeches, he will even stop in mid sentence to milk every bit of applause. He lives for adulation. He thrives on it like a budding new movie star preens for the paparazzi. His head is cocked back and he has nothing but contempt for anybody who questions him. How dare they question the Great Obama.

The arrogance is unparalleled. He tells Senator Clinton, “you’re likeable enough ". As though, you're aren't anywhere near as great as I am, but you're okay. I'll give you my blessing. Or that he would have the unmitigated temerity to call Mr. Wellstone a “mere gadfly.” He should live so long as to be anywhere near the greatness of a Paul Wellstone. However, when you factor in that Joe republican Lieberman was his mentor, it all falls right into place.

No responsibility is shouldered in any way by him for anything. It's always turned back on the questioner. He is a chameleon who blends into his environment.

There is an entire science based on body language. It is every credible. Jury consultants make their living doing it. They can read juror reactions during their voir dir to tell if they should be empaneled or not. And when the trial is ongoing, they can specify which juror the attorney should focus on by reading their reactions. Part of my career involved deciphering a persons deceit. I proved to be fairly good at it. I won outstanding achievement awards because of it from my employers.

This doesn’t make me omniscient. But I see the real Obama. And you can too, if you just look for the signs.

Obama is a classic case for giveaway body language. It's not only what he says that needs to be massaged and diffused from what he says he meant to say, but read between the lines.

If you could have had Obama and Edwards both on lie detector machines during Monday’s debate, Obama’s machine would have been smoking. The needle monitoring Edwards sincerity wouldn’t have moved. Obama is a shell game artisan of misdirection.

Why does the have a longtime friend and patron who is now involved in indictments up to his neck? Then just coincidentally is able to shave off $300,000 on the purchase of his home because of this long term connection. Could you do that? Don't you think that an astute person should know that something is patently wrong with that scenario? Is Obama that dumb? No he isn't, and this is going to follow him all the way to the convention if he remains in the race. The trial is just getting underway shortly. It will go on for months and Obama will be inextricably linked to it. The republics have drool all over their chins just thinking about it.

Then he tries to channel Martin Luther King or wants you to see him in the visage of John F Kennedy. Obama isn't as qualified as Ted Kennedy to be president, let alone John. He isn't fit to carry John Kennedy's jock strap. If Obama was president instead of John F. Kennedy when the missiles were heading for Cuba and only miles off the South Carolina coast, Obama would have been wetting his bvd’s. We may likely have not even been here now.

This next president will be confronted with almost unimaginable pressures. The Soviet Union is all ready, primed and revitalized to become one of our worst nightmares again. We are left with chasms of international powder kegs that will take a trainee president and walk all over him. There are so many foreign nightmares left by these sub human dredges of the last eight years, that it could call for the combined knowledge of all the presidents to salvage what we have left of our ability to lead the world.

November 7th we're not going to be selecting a cover model for GQ. Or another bro you want to have a beer with. We will be selecting the individual who will be the single most powerful human being on this earth. Did you see the debate Monday night? Do you picture him as having the preeminent qualifications necessary to have that power? He even told you, he loses everything--that his staff has to give it to him two minutes before he needs it. Are you serious? A president of the United States?

That's an endearing quality for Mr. McGoo or your grandma in her twilight years. But our president? If he had any intelligence at all, he wouldn't have even disclosed that. It shows how truly amateur he is. But he doesn't think. He stepped in two big buckets of poo when he said the republicans were the party of ideas. You know why he said that? Because he was throwing sheep food out for the sheep. Crumbs of elephant food being tossed behind him so the republican independents would follow him like the Pied Piper of Hamlin. It wasn't meant to say they had reprehensible ideas. Just the opposite.

When he got caught at it, he knew he was screwed and started looking for the best cologne to mask the smell. So he tells us he didn't say they were good ideas. :rofl: No, at a stump speech he just blurts out the republicans were the party of ideas for the last ten years because he wanted to say they were the party of bad ideas. Only he forgot to throw in the bad part. Right! And then he enshrines the ever beloved Ronald of Reagan. Right!

He is so tailor made for the republicans in November, they are salivating for his coronation. I'm not even sure they wouldn't mind him being president over McCain. He's almost better for them than McCain. They never know what that renegade loon is going to do. McCain has been one of the their worst nightmares on everything from immigration to torture. The republican base is furious with him. He refuses frequently to go along in lockstep with the party. With Obama, they win either way.

Here's a guy that invokes scripture and bible verse routinely. Tailor made for republicans. Do you want religious affirmations to continue in the White House? Haven't you had enough of that with the dick head who is there now? More church and state mixed. A private matter which should be left to each of us and kept like a skull and crossbones from factoring into any presidents decisions. Obama wears the religious mantra right on his sleeve. Even tries to sound like a televangelist preacher. The cadence of his words and voice inflection reek of it. You know why. Because he knows you eat it up.

The republicans will love him. Here's a guy who also wants to extend an olive branch to the republicans and bring everybody together. :rofl: Do you know what's going to be left of that olive branch? A stick. With aphids on it. I can see it now, everybody sitting around a campfire roasting weenies and toasting marshmallows, all singing Michael Rowed the Boat Ashore. Right!

The republicans don't engage with anybody. They’re crustaceons. Bottom feeders. Like malignant cancer cells that devour everything in their path. Every one of those reprobates sole purpose is to be against anything that does not favor the rich or those that fill the coffers with campaign donations. Basically anything whatsoever embraced by the Democrats.

If you reach a hand across the aisle to them, you'll get it cut off at the elbow. You’ll need a prosthetic arm. They don't need to have the majority. They're like a fucking glob of glue. The entire group votes in unibody opposition. They have used over 60 filibusters already since the midterm election to stop debate from continuing on Democratic bills. And have the balls to wave it in our face. They will use congressional procedures and parliamentary procedures to create total gridlock. They will train this Obama amateur like a puppy.

When the public pressure gets so great because nothing is being done, Obama will fall right in line just like they want him to and he’ll become another Pelosi in wing tips.

The only remotely positive thing I can concede is that he said he opposed the war. Oh really? Do we know that for certain? He opposed the war when he was running for the U.S. Senate. He wasn’t a United States senator when he took that position. He wasn’t subjected to nearly the pressures as one of fifty senators putting his name on that Iraq War Resolution or having his vote stamped in the congressional record. He wasn’t privy to the intelligence documents--as phoney as they were–that other senators were pressured with.

How do we know what he would have done had he been under that burden of responsibility? Why did he make an ironclad statement that he wouldn’t run for president during his term and then do a one eighty? I firmly believe that if he had to cast his vote as United States Senator for the IWR, he would have voted the exact same way Clinton did and Edwards did. Obama is slippery and peddles snake oil.

Why did he cast all his votes embracing the fuhrer’s wishes for more money to continue the war when he became Senator? Because he didn’t want to look like Kucinich who truly was against the war. If he was so firm in his convictions against the war, why didn’t he stand with Dennis Kucinich. He would like us to believe his stand against the war originally was so flagrantly unpopular at the time. Why would he be afraid to keep continuity with that position even though it was also unpopular? Because he had to cast the vote, that’s why.

And don’t fall for that tired bullshit that the soldiers would not have been funded if the war expenses were terminated. There isn’t a chance in hell that there wouldn’t have been enough money to get all our military sons and daughters on planes and aircraft carriers to bring them home. None. The money is allotted long in advance of the next supplemental. The only difference is the money wouldn’t have kept flowing as a cash cow for Haliburton and KBR. That’s the only thing that would have discontinued. Moving them into Kuwait or neighboring safe havens could be done within weeks.

But no, he fell right in line just like Clinton and most of the other senators. Obama is the Kerry in reverse. He was against the war before he was for it. And were we able to know what his true vote would have been on the actual IWR, everything in his makeup tells me he would have voted for that.

He’s not a diamond. He's a cubic zirconia. Anything that you see that looks like 24 karat gold, is gold paint. He says what he thinks you want to hear and twists it when he has to explain it. I wouldn’t be surprised him and his wife sit at home and brainstorm catchwords that will hit your hot buttons. He’s that crafty. He is not trustworthy and nowhere near remotely capable of anything he purports.

There are only two people in our Democratic bullpen that have the unbridled talent and skill to be our president. One, a nobel prize winner would not run and I may never forgive him for that. But the other person is running. That person is John Edwards. He was the only one that was presidential up on that stage Monday night.

John Edwards will put the fear of the Almighty into the republicans. He already has. The media is also trying desperately to write his political obituary and bury him because THEY too are just as afraid of him. He will ruin their gravy train of corporate dominance and end their power broker arrogance. They will be forced to report the news again instead of selective spin du jour horseshit. He will reinstate the fairness doctrine and give an equal voice to the suppressed. They are doing everything they possibly can to marginalize him to prevent that wrecking ball from slamming into their ivory tower. You can make that happen.

John Edwards is the only one who will lift you up and bring you into the bounty of the American dream. Not leave you to merely receive what’s left that trickles down from the rich’s leftovers of the American dream.

His entire adult life revolved around getting justice for victims of the corporations who thought they would step on the little guy and treat them as merely a temporary inconvenience. John didn’t win against those teams of lawyers in Armani suits and libraries of legal knowledge in their heads without knowing what he was doing. It took the same element of skill to that he will utilize against these corporations in the White House. Skills that only he possesses.

On the day of the Bhutto assassination, while Obama and Clinton were scrambling for a television camera to get face time and baby bush was sunning himself on a rock somewhere, do you know what Mr. Edwards was doing? He was already on the phone to Musharraf.. Urging him to call for calm and instructing him to assure the Pakistani people that there would be a full, complete and thorough investigation of the facts, with independent monitors of the facts–to avoid a total breakout of chaos and mass riots in the streets. THAT’S presidential !

When you stand in front of that machine Saturday, contemplate your three choices. Then imagine a President Edwards—a visionary, a lifelong tireless crusader for the middle class and the oppressed, and a champion of the forgotten.

Then touch that screen next to his name, hold your head proud and put a smile on your face. Your faith will be rewarded.

Just leave the rest to John.

Or at least the last sentence. I don't see a WalMart Queen endorsement there. :rofl:

if this was meant to represent Edwards, then it hurts Edwards, because it is so
misleading and venemous. This isn't Edwards style at all.


Now think - just think - whose style does the OP really represents.

you would have realized that the OP supports Edwards.

Guess it was more important to get your Hillary smear in there, though.

I support Edwards and will never vote for Hilary

John Edwards '08.

millions of people shop Walmart, and I bet you do to. They imported 18 BILLION in merchandise last year, and americans BOUGHT IT ALL.

Stop with the bullshit Walmart comments. I don't shop there, but I know a lot of people that do.

They put local retailers out of business, pay their employees next to nothing with no medical benefits, import poisonous products, and propagate slave-like conditions for overseas production workers. Your defense of Walmart is fucking stupid.

but as I said, millions of people shop there, because it's all they can afford. Who fucking cares that Hillary use to be a lawyer for them. Really, it's just lame to point it out, and it's meaningless.

Because Walmart is as anti-middle American / Working Class as they get and if she didn't have the common sense to see that when she was working as a lawyer for the WALMART CORP then she does not deserve to be America's president

Hillary had NOTHING to do with Walmart's business strategy. It's a LAME ASS excuse to throw more shit at her, nothing more.

By the way, back when Hillary worked for Walmart, and you're probably too young to know this, but Walmart in that day, was all about Made in the USA. Walmart made the decision to break with that strategy, not Hillary.

Now I hate Walmart, but there is NO FUCKING WAY you can pin their business strategy on Hillary. There's just not.

Did you graduate kindegarden?



I can see the board room now "Hilary is it legal for Walmart to discriminate against women, destroy working class family wages, and run countless family owned businesses out of business so we can manipulate middle America and force people to shop in our stores?

"I don't see any problem with that Sir"

Maybe you should leave DU now while you still have a little morality left

Prove it.

Good Night Ladies

and you know it. Nor can you prove it. So it's a false accusation. Nothing more.

Get a life.

Its in every major publication in the country. Hilary Clinton was on the board of directors of Walmart

I don't need to entertain idiots either

Good bye

She was on the Wal-Mart board for 8 years. She's never denied it. It's public record.

Her campaign manager helped to break the Cintas strike here in Southern California.

She's anti-union, always has been. You'll notice she's made no promises about strengthening the NLRB.

discriminated against women. A class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of female employees of Walmart in 2001. The women alleged discrimination in opportunities for management positions as well as pay. The class was certified. That means that the lawsuit is a serious matter.

She was on a board whose primary customer was Walmart. So she certainly benefited from a Walmart relationship as well.

directors. Her big accomplishment was encouraging Sam Walton to make WALMART more environmentally sustainable--she took a lot of flak from the boys on the board for it, but it turns out she was ahead of her time.

That is so wrong and on so many different levels

Oh well you support Hilary - I guess all we can do is hope our Chinese Overlords will be kinder then our Corporate Overlords

Oh Gee - she is a puppet of both, so I guess you can't lose

see my sig line....I just expose lies and liars.

Your asking me to stop speaking the truth

So Very Republican of you in a very KKKarl Rove kind of way

May you should run along now back to FreeRepublic.com

really, you don't. I'm an Independent who re-registered dem to vote for Biden in the primary, only to find out that; 1. my vote wouldn't count, since I'm in Florida, and 2. he dropped out.

Maybe you should run along back to freeperville.

It was a great company then.

Dude,

Sam Walton was better then his evil children, granted, but he was no saint. The slogan Walmart had of buying American made products was advertising. Studies of major retailers showed that of all retailers Walmart carried the lowest percentage of American made products. Yes, even in Saint Sam's day, they were lying their asses off and getting away with it. Of course they changed their slogan after the report came out.

That company, that evil company has never been about being good for America, about being good for small towns, about being good for the middle class. They are the antithesis of corporate responsibility . The fact that Hillary served on the board and was therefore responsible for setting policy in Walmart for 8 years is telling.

Having said that I also find Obama to be an excellent speaker , he is also light on substance and stands like a corporate shill on many policy subjects. We can do better. He is, as they say in Texas, All Hat and No Cattle.

Do a little experiment. Write down what you believe in, and then have a friend make a chart comparing the 3 candidates but leaving out their names. See whose policies and statements resonate with you. I did that and John Edwards is my guy.

And I never will.

-P

You must be proud of yourself.

Did it take both brain cells to do that?

:thumbsup:

By the time Obama and Hilary supporters are done bashing each others candidate Edwards will be the only logical choice

We shouldn't exult over the inevitability of Clinton.

I mean, Jesus Christ, the guy has run 53 primary contests now. He's won exactly ONE state - to be fair, that was South Carolina last year - but now he's trailing badly. They know him. They've seen him. They ain't buying what he's selling.

i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just typing this really quickly.

What a stupid way to try and garner support for your candidate. Not too swift are you, cupcake?

the master of churlish hit threads......take it with the appropriate grain of salt.

of the candidates as remotely insulting as this one- or the ones YOU have written.

Don't lie, we see your swill around here every day.

Sellers Vs. "Little Dawg"

It's not pleasant to see ones messiah deflated, but she is right.

you call someone cupcake. Does cupcake = asshole in your book?... sounds like it. Get out the dictionary and read the meaning if it isn't too difficult. I thought cupcake was something yummy and sweet. The one you make it sound like is slimy and disgusting. Is that what you're calling all the posters you answer? Find another slogan...cupcake. See, I'm learning from you, but I assure you that's the last time I'll use it and it should be yours too. Can't you make that promise? I assure you people around here will appreciate it.

You are taking a discussion board WAY too seriously. You sound like you're on a crusade or something. Of course, So. Carolina will listen to your words of wisdom. I can just hear them all talking now; "Wow, that was close. I was going to vote for Barack Obama, but "Justice Is Comin" on the Democratic Underground forum said not to, so I won't." :sarcasm:

They've really been trying their hardest to show that they can be just as bad as Clinton and Obama supporters.

:thumbsup:

I couldn't read it all. In fact, that second sentence was a real shocker. I think everyone is well aware of what the office is for which they're voting. Your finger-wagging will turn off your intended audience faster than it turned me off, I'm sure.

.

though that tone has been used quite often by some Edwards supporters here.

The Democratic Party pats itself on the back claiming how progressive we are having a minority candidate in the race. Aren't we fabulous? Oh, except when the supporters of other candidates, hell, a campaign of one of the candidates, so easily dips into the well of shades of racism as leverage to persuade or dissuade, as the case may be. It turns out the Democratic Party, in fact, is an empty shell of blustery ideals that when push comes to shove turns out to be very much like that which we abhor on the other sides of the aisle. Feh.

I disagree with your methods. It's not necessary to put another candidate down to point out the why your candidate is better. I'm sick of all the candidate bashing of ALL the candidates.

of Edwards supporters. I find his post trashy and offensive.

:eyes:

No matter who you support, none are perfect and if you cannot see any negative qualities in whichever candidate you support then you are suffering from identity worship and have made yourself immune to their deficiencies. I support Edwards in spite of the things I see wrong with him...but I do see things wrong with him on the issues. If you can't do that with whomever you support then you just need to have them sainted.

Good Job!

I'm shocked.

and not a single mention of any of his positions on any issue.

that Obama's positions are whatever is convenient at any given time. If one believes that, then whatever the candidate says on any given topic is moot.

Other than that... Did he or did he not say he would not be running in 2008? Did he or did he not vote to fund the war? These would be the facts that count.

to suit which way the wind was blowing? Please. And another thing--the line about Obama betraying his home state which elected him as Senator so he could run for president? Gee, isn't Hillary doing the same, exact thing? Give me a damn break!

Hillary, I think, is just as bad - her record of coddling corporate interests makes her worse in my eyes. Though I'm pretty sure our corporate feudal masters will be equally happy with either of them.

But that's beside the point. I was only responding to to the illogical complaint that the OP didn't talk about specific issues. Since OP makes it clear that the author doesn't believe a word Obama says, then replying with "but you didn't mention his good position on X!" is not entirely relevant.

The OP sucks. I hate shit like that being posted about ANY Democratic candidate. It's disgusting.

this Edwards supporter

we are strong on the ISSUES, so why go there?

Man, you nailed it. Every single thing. Awesome post, and entirely true in my estimation.

I have a pretty good bullshit detector and BHO sets it off like a fire alarm.

He's a stuffed suit with no substance.

explaining just how I feel about "Hedge Fund Johnie" and his bullshit pandering to suckers like you.

I have concerns about the whole field.

but thanks for the thoughtful and polite response :sarcasm:

And is now continuing her ways online.

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

he's trailing there, too.

SOME supporters of ALL candidates post trash. (Cmon, admit it, Clinton and Edwards supporters). Obama is actually my third choice, but I don't see the need to trash him, or any other Dem candidate, to support my own. John Edwards stands quite well on his own merits.

Maybe more than half.

At least the OP bothered to put some effort into it instead of using the same old one-liners that we see thousands of times.

Are you going to tie their shoes too?

Dude, that was funny!!!!

:rofl:

Yes, they built his ego up and gave him the confidence to run. He probably did intend to serve his full term, but things change.

Sorry, could'nt help myself.:dilemma:

I agree with all of your points. And I cannot believe that others do not see how arrogant and disingenuous Obama is.

... What concerns me about Obama is that he is using a variation of the same Rovian Language that Bush ran on. Doesn't anyone remember "I'm a uniter" ... and Obama is talking about extending an Olive branch. Sound familiar? He admires Reagan fer cryin' out loud! What the heck does that mean other than he also supports trickle down economics. Sound familiar? He is pandering to evangelicals? Sound familiar? And his health care plan, which he had to be dragged to by polls, still sucks. Sound familiar?

What does the guy stand for except the empty promise of hope. While hope is a good, perhaps the best, thing, a policy it is not. A purpose it is not. A plan it is not. It is window dressing for a lack of vision. He is all hat and no cattle.

We need someone who is mad enough and passionate enough to stand up to corporate power. Edwards is the only one who seems to get that. IMHO

then there's our old,sordid Past...

Old, "Little Dawg" (yip,yip,yip!)

I like John but damn, grab a stiff drink and relax.

Someone wishing to truly support Edwards wouldn't use Hillary politics of personal
destruction.

Also, Edwards wouldn't try to smear someone.

See

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4196457&mesg_id=4206652

:rofl:

frankly I'm surprised that someone who could write this is for Edwards.

Some things to think about, that's for sure!

I couldn't ask for more.

From Sirota's writeup,its all in Sirota's own words, and not Obama's.

Here is Sironta expressing his opinion or attempting to speak for Obama,
but this is NOT Obama speaking for Obama:



I've seen sloppy journalism because I've been mis quoted and also had comments attributed to me
that I never made.

Where's the quote?

.. would be inside the quotation marks. They look exactly like this " " and anything inside them is considered a quote, also know as what-the-dude-actually-said.

Your were right about you not being a journalist.

So Obama called Wellstone a Gadfly. If I knew nothing else about Obama I would know enough from that comment to understand that the man does not stand for progressive policy.

So who's it gonna be. Corporate shill or Edwards?

the two glossy fliers I got from his campaign today. On one, he parrots John Edwards, trying all of a sudden to make himself look like he's the one who'll stand up against corporate greed. In the other, he's the Great Unifier. In both there are blurred pictures of his supporters in the background, with him speechifying as the focus. For the life of me, his supporters in these pics look like loony cult members. There are pictures of him giving speeches with goofy looks on his face. I can only guess that whoever put the fliers together thought that he looked somehow cute in these photos, whereas without the fairy dust or KoolAid, he looks downright silly. The emperor's new clothes.
I try to see what people like about him so much, but every time I hear him speak or see his picture, I get a bad feeling inside.

My own reasons and they're not lost on anyone who wants to restore government. Two of the most important reasons that sink Clinton and Edwards for me (and like everyone else I'm entitled to my opinion) is not walmart or slum lords or race or gender. It's the war authorization and the bankruptcy bill. Obama showed enough responsibility to give a speech against this war and he didn't vote for yes on the bankruptcy bill that doomed millions of people. Clinton and Edwards used a political calculus and voted for the war in which scores have died or been injured and Edwards who speaks so passionately against poverty voted for the bankruptcy bill. Obama may look inexperienced but he's got great commonsense on issues that matter and those two issues in particular. Those two votes don't come back to haunt him like Clinton's and Edwards'.

It doesn't mean Clinton and Edwards are uncaring people at all. Not in the least but on those two issues they look "too" much like politicians and not enough like people who are advocates for change. I have to admire Edwards for apologizing for his vote for war (and talk about not taking responsibility for a vote, Hillary has yet to apologize for her vote for war. Edwards should be apologizing for that vote for the bankruptcy bill. In conclusion, the biggest reason of all to vote for Obama is that he did take responsibility for votes on two of the most important issues of our time and et al he doesn't have to apologize at all for those two votes...

... Edwards did, granted, vote for the Bankruptcy bill, which, granted, can hurt poor people.

However he is the only candidate who has consistently and strongly come out in support of universal health care and standing up to the insurance companies and other corporate greed organizations. What is the number one cause of bankruptcy in America - yup - medical bills, which are often caused because insurers refuse to pay.

In other industrialized countries the average cost of administering a medical insurance program is 3 - 5%. Here in the USA, where the system is being run by 'efficient' private business - 27%. Wow, talk about a con job. Other countries - 100% of citizens covered. The USA 47 million without any insurance. And despite paying double what any other country pays per capita for health care we are 37th in the world in health outcomes.

Our system sucks and it needs fixing and that won't happen until we either get rid of private insurance entirely or regulate the greedy bastards so they HAVE to do the right thing and stop spending our premiums on their bonuses.

Just a thought.

NEVER SURRENDER!

Use your vote how you see fit. Others will determine who is the best representative face for their America. You haven't convinced me that Obama is any better or worse than the other candidates. You see that... it's strange to see someone wagging their finger as if they know better. Everyone will make up their own mind based on... whatever.

Besides, and I'm speaking generally here, the irrational hatred of another D candidate on this board by Obama supporters is disgraceful.

The world may never know. :crazy:

I will tell you why I think mine is best, but I do not agree with all this knocking down the other fine Democrats. Anyone of the three top contenders will make a fine President.

:dem:

Edwards plans for the economy are outstanding. So is Edwards' health care platform.

not well thought out. Lol. "His body language makes me suspicious"??? Wow... He stands up too straight? Is that it? He looks too confident? He should be other than what he is? You think he should slouch? My God!

to knock "Billary" on her ass so hard, that Bill will have to dust her off!! But save that top spot for OBAMA!! Your post was just SO MUCH bull to bother to read, so I'm just letting you know how I feel, in fewer, succinct words!! FIRED UP !!.......READY TO GO !!!!:bounce: :toast: :bounce: :woohoo: :applause: :applause: :woohoo: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :patriot:

belittle any other Democrat to support John Edwards. I don't know how some of you will vote in November if it is Obama Vs. Republican, or Hillary Vs. Republican. I have already voted for Edwards in my early voting primary. But if the nominee is Obama or Hillary in November, I will vote for the Democratic nominee. If you can't say the same, them you may not be a Democrat.

Obama is a GREAT speaker....That is it! Nothing more, nothing less. Obama is not what I would call integrity, he is not honest. We know the skeletons of Hillary....We know the Skeletons of Edwards....This man we are just beginning to see who he is and it isn't pretty. I have made 4 phone calls on 4 consecutive days now, trying to find out what the man meant by "we are going to have to make some difficult choices in terms of end of life care. I have asked for clarification. I have yet to recieve an answer. People have laughed and scoffed...How can I possibly think he means euthanasia....well it is a direct question. You would think he would call back to say that is not what he means....Does he mean euthanasia? Does he mean increase hospice care? Does he mean cut cost related to OT/PT?
He voted for live birth abortions........what kind of man are we dealing with here?...SCARES THE SHIT OUT OF ME.....I do not trust him at all!

K&R

Limbaugh is a familiar example of the use of mass volumes of flawed logic and skewed quotes, mixed with simple hatred, to destroy the trust of the reader or listener in another individual. Conservative or liberal or dem or repug doesn't matter - it is a style of argument. After reading, you can go point by point and issue by issue and find that the argument essentially evaporates into nothing, but yet the bad taste remains.

The point being by way of example - Limbaugh does this much better than the OP, and anyone prone to listening to this type of crap will likely wind up voting for whoever he or she is told to vote for by some Limbaugh type. Does every side have to devolve to this in every election?

I don't live in SC, otherwise I would take your advice.

Did anyone elses eyes glaze over around the time this poster started going off about their secret lie detecting super-powers?

then somehow it moved all by itself and hit the rec button.

BAD MOUSE HAND!

and have previously expressed my concerns about his inexperience and naivete regarding foreign affairs.

But he is a politician and politicians always change their minds. How many examples have there been of Edwards voting one way while in the Senate and now saying something else?

Running for office is a self centered action, no matter how much we like to idolize our representatives. And they have to watch the direction of the wind to calibrate their actions.

I suspect that many, perhaps the ones who feared the Clinton candidacy, were seeking an alternative and he provided it.

Your post is shameful.

Play to JE strengths, not their weaknesses and you will attract voters.

This kind of crap will turn them off.

If Edwards is going to position himself as the true progressive alternative to Hillary, then exposing Obama's fraud is the best avenue to take.

Let Hillary & Obama followers wallow in mud. Edwards supporters will attract more votes by running on the positive. You are very wrong.

If you use smileys in a "serious" post, it kind of defeats the purpose.

Oh, and so does posting at DU. Try doing some real time , real world work. There's a reason Obama is going to win overwhelmingly tomorrow; and it isn't platitudes, amigo.

That's gotta burn for the Obama supporters out there. Now if we can get several more posts like this for the next few weeks, I could become an Obama defender. :)

The basketball coach and Dr. Feelgood language sound racist to me although they may not be intended as racist.

There are a lot of very positive reasons to vote for Edwards.

I have, however, been very troubled as I walk my precinct by the fact that many voters are considering race, age and gender issues more than the really important issues such as the candidate's view on the economy, health care, the War in Iraq and the environment.

How sad it is to see Democrats, 40 years or more after the Civil Rights struggle so divided by race, age and gender. This is discouraging.

We can do better -- as John Edwards says.

John Edwards as made it clear that he does not judge a person by their race, age and gender and does not want to be judged by his race, age and gender. I agree with him on that. As an older woman, I have faced quite a bit of discrimination in my life. I want to see it end.

It is just as discriminatory to vote for a person based on race, age or gender as it is to vote against them on those bases. So close your eyes and ears (if you hear race, age or gender in voices) and read what they are saying. Be color, age and gender blind when you vote, please, if you can.

I'm sorry, but that was a really long post full of substanceless personal attacks and name-calling.

I urge you to vote for John Edwards because I believe he is the best person for the job, and the one most earnestly talking about the issues that most effect working families. I don't need to slander the other candidates.

term and not run for President. That his home was marked down by 300,000. I know the trial will be underway, but I don't know that much else will be connected to Obama. But like you, I think John is the better candidate because he is better suited to help out others. Formulate plans and speak about them. Stand by what he is saying. Obama is the Kerry in reverse. He was against the war before he was for it. And were we able to know what his true vote would have been on the actual IWR, everything in his makeup tells me he would have voted for that.

I pretty much stopped caring about your post right there. What an offensive, ignorant diatribe.
:eyes:

"obama - wellstone - gadfly". You will quickly discover that this is a context-less quote and more. I would challenge anybody that wants to use this as an attack to provide the full context of the statement that Obama made, I have yet to find it. You will also find that the word "mere" was added to the context-less use of the word "gadfly" by the poster of this piece to amp up something that already sounds bad when given no context.

As for body language and speculation about lie detector tests, my goodness, how low can we go.

John Edwards is a fine candidate, I would be proud to vote for him.

This piece, however, is a disgrace. It is everything that is wrong with how campaigns chatter moves forward. This piece can be summed up fairly briefly as "don't vote for Obama because I don't like the way his body moves during debates, I think that if we hooked old Obama up to a lie detector he wouldn't pass though I really don't have anything to base that on, and - oh, oh, oh - once a blogger said that Obama refer to Paul Wellstone as a gadfly and that must be really bad - though I have no idea what a single other word used in that statement was."

John Edwards would be anything but proud of this kind of attack. It is void of substance.

I certainly fall into the crowd that believes that we (yes I used the word "we" to describe the Democrats) have a good slate of candidates to choose from. I also believe that "we" would be much better served finding actual differences between the candidates and discussing those things in an intelligent fashion - as opposed to posting context-less quotes, speculation about lie detectors, and discussing body language. This sort of post is simply an embarrassment.

I get that people are working hard for this candidate or that one - that passions are running high and that they need to in order to sink the kind of time and energy many of us are putting into the support of our candidate of choice. But many here are not showing any level of maturity as they do so. After I read this piece my first thought was - wow, somebody needs a bottle.

Then he'll turn you upside-down and clean out your pockets. It's what lawyers DO...


:rofl:

Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, huh uh. No way :puke:

Is it too difficult to say positive things about who you want to have elected, or do you always take the lazy way out, i.e. - bash the opponent?

we are not electing a basketball coach or a Dr Feelgood. Do you think that we think we are supporting a basketball coach?

AMEN

Is there nothing positive you can say about JE without ripping Obama to shreds?

Guess your candidate is pretty weak, eh? :shrug:

I'm not voting against anyone this year. I'm voting FOR Obama because he represents a break from all the dirty machine politics of the past, for one thing. The OP is a good sample of this garbage IMHO.

This really seems more Hillary-like than JE but I could be wrong...

Really, how many people are going to read this long, rambling, incoherent screed? A few hundred, at most?

Waste of time.

that's would be too similar to the twisted logic the poster of this piece uses.

I would certainly call this opinion piece weak (and a few more colorful things as well), but the opinion of one poster on a forum like this has nothing to do with Edwards. Every candidate has rabid supporters that lack ethics and or maturity - be it Obama, Edwards, or Clinton. Let us not judge the candidates by the lowliest of those that support them - that seems to be happening quite a bit here.

The really important line:

John Edwards will put the fear of the Almighty into the republicans. He already has.

don't like Obama! :rofl: I stopped at about the fourth paragraph. But to be fair, someone could probably write a similar rant listing all the flaws of Clinton, or Edwards.

Very glad to see someone else "come around" as well as impressed you had the 'nads to put it up here. Good for you!

I´m disgusted, as much as anyone else here, by MSM's attempts to get Obama the most coverage and face-time and totally ignore John. I put this up somewhere else but think it belongs here as well:

See the below from CNN that is on line today; you´ll note that at the bottom of the page their is no link for Edwards (but there's one for Bill...):

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/26/sc.primary /


And, for what it´s worth, here´s what I sent CNN after seeing this:

"I love the way CNN is doing it’s best to keep John Edwards out of the discussion. You should be absolutely ashamed of the unbelievably transparent way you have only covered the messages and campaigns of Clinton and Obama (as weak as they really are). Today’s article on the SC primary was particularly telling: at the bottom of the page, even though Edwards was mentioned in the article (and, yes, he IS in the race...), you had links for, "All about...Clinton, Obama, BILL Clinton (???),and South Carolina", but no link for Edwards. Come on! And I also have to say that Monday’s debate also clearly demonstrated how much CNN was at pains to ensure that Obama got the most face time. His answers were typically 3 minutes long, when the rule mandated 1 minute, and he was allowed to get by with it by your stooge, Wolf Blitzer. I never had much regard for Blitzer as a personality or news person, but that debate showed more than ever how bad he is when he’s not scripted. Man, he sure was lousy at controlling the unfocused ramblings of Clinton and Obama, and he and Malvo (or however you spell her name - who cares?) sure ignored Edwards or re-framed questions posed to the other 2 before he had a chance to respond. CNN is really poor and I’ll get my news from Al Jazeera (much better reporting anyway), or ANYWHERE else from now on. Shame on you!"

I hope Edwards blows the media pundits outta the water in today's primary. They were wrong about NH. I gotta felling they´re wrong about SC even though they´re hedging their bets.

that's 18 hours of your life you will never get back

the guy is the GOP's wet dream in November. Small wonder Hannity and Rush and others are pushing his candidacy.

K&R #50

It gives Edwards supporters a bad name

Nice guy some good ideas..................but he don't have a shot. That is the facts and you know it.

Remind me of the wingnuts still crying over Thompson. He was their new Reagan............LOL

as opposed to the ,now, "Little Dawg"...

really turned me off. He was the "only one" who could save us? He scares me.

No...THIS is scary.

You've said nothing here. Congratulations.

based on fear and emotion that is devoid of substance or logic - doesn't the GOP give us enough of that crap. Why do so many people feel the need to pull the same stuff on our own candidates? There should be great shame felt by many that post on this board, because they are showing that they are no better than the people they claim to be opposing.

I'm glad some people see this post for what it is - meaningless fluff, though the number of recommendations this post has received seems to make some sort of statement, and it's not a very good statement.

And, I vote on an objective level, if I don't like a candidate means shit. If they are qualified & their experience best suits the position, I vote for them. Obama lost me ages ago during the Alito fight (blogged in my journal, if anyone is interested).

On a purely subjective level, Obama strikes me a cocky lil punk. He doesn't seem to show warmth or direct empathy. It is all preacher tones, & he isn't sincere in those. He is not qualified to be President, & the only reason he is in this race is that he will put a new FACE on the SAME policies. The new improved corporate puppet.

Cocky, arrogant, entitled.....

And, we have had EIGHT fucking years of a narcisstic Presidency. We do NOT need four or eight more.

Obama is a snake oil salesman.

What are the objective reasons for the subjective opinions you have expressed in such a colorful fashion for us? Surely the Alito fight didn't make you conclude that Obama was cocky, arrogant, entitled (wow - you really don't Obama at all), lil punk, that is preachy, without empathy, f..king narcissistic, and a snake oil salesman.

I'm glad you're emotionally involved, but this is ridiculous.

"If Obama was president instead of John F. Kennedy when the missiles were heading for Cuba and only miles off the South Carolina coast, Obama would have been wetting his bvd’s. We may likely have not even been here now."
***************

Just for this brilliance I give a rabid K&R!

how is this statement that you are calling brilliant and worthy of recommendation any different than the pure mindless speculation that the GOP so often uses to paint Democratic candidates as weak on defense?

if i vote for edwards, its not because of this shallow mediocre attempt at political editorial

i recommended it just so people can see how idiotic and desparate it is..

=)

I just read it for the third time. Thank you.

Bookmarked.

All the more worth it to see the vilest of the Obamaniacs like Cali go apeshit over it. Good job!

my position.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I told a friend just yesterday that I WOULD vote for Edwards, if it wasn't Obama.

I now will not vote for him. Anyone whose supporter posts a scathing post about another candidate for the purpose of smearing him or her, and includes falsehoods in his desperation to help his losing candidate, shows the caliber of the candidate he's supporting.

I say "no, thanks" to Edwards and his supporters. It's time we get past this sort of thing, and seek to unify the non-extreme part of the country. We are all one country, one people. It's time for the extremists to step aside and do their battles on the sidelines.

No, thanks, John Edwards and supporters. I've had enough of this Bushism partisanship and bitter hatred toward others. No, thanks.

It's all about the image and adulation. He's low on substance.

...with Obama. Just that I don't see anything but dull, empty rhetoric where others see glowing inspiration. The guy has not criticised Republicans yet, to my knowledge, but has already dismissed liberals in his book. So I'm past wondering about his support among McCain Repubs and "Democrats".

Does his support among highly educated liberals suggest less of an urgency to get things fixed quickly, and more of a lofty, castle-in-the-air, nebulous idea of "hope" on their part? (And surely haven't read the article in Z magazine, "The Obama Illusion" yet, I suspect - a piece that shows Obama's non-liberal history.) Why does HRC have greater suppport from less educated, truly working and struggling Americans than BO does?

but I'm glad I finally read it because this post is dead on. Thank you for writing it. All of the clues I have been mulling over come together in your post. This man would wreck us, either by becoming president, or by allowing the repugs to win in November. This needs to be spread far and wide.

This is nothing more than a hit piece from someone with way too much time on their hands...you act as though you can project individuals into situations in the past? Are you even sane? "Obama would have been wetting his bvd’s?" Are you serious? The Cuban Missle Crisis? Man, if this post can get almost 90 recs then something is seriously wrong.

You then proceed to chastise him for something he had no control over...If he was in the Senate at the time of the IWR, all signs indicate that at least he could have provided some helpful dialogue during the run-up to the war. Both of the other candidates voted to allow the war and also voted yes for all funding so I really don't see the point of this at all.

You state that he is better for Republicans that McCain? Again, this is completely irresponsible and ridiculous. Just because someone wants to bridge the political divide that has pushed our country away from meaningful debate???

Lastly, you're an expert at body language? Then you would most certainly know that body language interpretations vary depending upon the situation and the topic. The body language put forth by Obama is related to his oratory style. You cannot assess deceit from this simple basis at least not scientifically. Set up a methodology for me so that the application is applicable to all candidates, testable, and repeatable...oh wait, you can't as only one candidate gets elected and exposed to the political environment which influences decisions no matter who you are.

This post fails....it is utterly irresponsible and would almost be laughable if it weren't filled with such hatred and highly recommended.

This is nothing more than a hit piece from someone with way too much time on their hands...you act as though you can project individuals into situations in the past? Are you even sane? "Obama would have been wetting his bvd’s?" Are you serious? The Cuban Missle Crisis? Man, if this post can get almost 90 recs then something is seriously wrong.

You then proceed to chastise him for something he had no control over...If he was in the Senate at the time of the IWR, all signs indicate that at least he could have provided some helpful dialogue during the run-up to the war. Both of the other candidates voted to allow the war and also voted yes for all funding so I really don't see the point of this at all.

You state that he is better for Republicans that McCain? Again, this is completely irresponsible and ridiculous. Just because someone wants to bridge the political divide that has pushed our country away from meaningful debate???

Lastly, you're an expert at body language? Then you would most certainly know that body language interpretations vary depending upon the situation and the topic. The body language put forth by Obama is related to his oratory style. You cannot assess deceit from this simple basis at least not scientifically. Set up a methodology for me so that the application is applicable to all candidates, testable, and repeatable...oh wait, you can't as only one candidate gets elected and exposed to the political environment which influences decisions no matter who you are.

This post fails....it is utterly irresponsible and would almost be laughable if it weren't filled with such hatred and highly recommended.

Good to see so many intelligent Dems.

Media coverage stats

Obama: 47% positive, 16% negative.
Clinton: 27% positive, 38% negative.
McCain: 12% positive, 48% negative
Giuliani: 28% positive, 37% negative
JDNE

Net numbers

Obama +31
Giuliani -9
Clinton -11
McCain -36