The Way of The O

Many are wondering, especially Clinton supporters, if Obama is for real.

Obama supporters answer by suggesting they take a look at the campaign he has run, for it should tell them much. And in fact, it does.

Obama ran a very positive campaign; even as the 'kitchen sink' was being flung at him, he remained honorable, classy, and focused.

But there are skeptics who remain.

To those those skeptics, I say, read his words:



For those who can't understand - or don't believe in - the cool, calm, and stoic demeanor of Obama, here is your answer. Obama never saw the challenges that lie before him as insurmountable, because he is following in footsteps even larger than his, that blazed and prepared the path he now walks, a path that was more difficult, in his eyes, than the one he now treads, thanks to them.

Perhaps you doubters could simply keep this in mind, in the coming months, as you watch him take on McCain.

Unlike someone other presumptuous and arrogant candidate I could name ...

A very good post. You basically crystalized what, for me, makes him such a good choice for President: he is thoughtful; he knows the past and how it affects the present; and his words reflect what I believe to be a high degree of intelligence and compassion. In short, he has more gravitas in his little finger than any 20 other politicans put together.

Look, he won, don't act like a fool by pretending he was honorable. He won the same way Reagan and W won (and don't say he didn't, because he has claimed he modeled his campaign after Reagan's). He pretended to be nice and all about change, while running a nasty, slander-filled smear campaign beneath the boards.

Yeah, it won. Yeah, I'll vote for the lying sack of shit. Just drop the act.

As for his words, so what? There are lots of pretty words out there.

Now, you want to move forward and have us all unite behind him? Fine, me too. But stop the "He ran an honorable campaign against a wicked opponent" bullshit, and let's move forward. Or you can post the bullshit and keep us fighting each other instead of the warmongers who lied to slaughter a million innocent people. Remember them? I do, and that's good, because that's the only thing which can motivate me to support His Holiness.

I saw part of the AIPAC speech, but hopefully there will be more reporting on what went down in the boardroom with Emanuel and the AIPAC execs.

He'll have to get the Israeli lobby support to win. He'll sound more hawkish now, and he'll start qualifying his Iraq promises, too. His advisers have already said his withdrawal plan was a "best case scenario" and that Iraq has never been a best case situation. He'll try to sound more "mature" and less "progressive" now. Cindy Sheehan calls him O-bomb-a because of his comments on Iran so far.

He not only voted like Clinton in the Senate, he will now start to sound like her. Again, I hope his supporters can live with that.

That's why I don't just follow even my leaders.

Too bad you're too bitter to get that.

At least if he'd lost the primaries, he probably would have had the grace to step aside. Hillary? Not so much.

- as

You saw the act. You missed the show.

Tell me all about the negative campaign.

And oh, yeah - back it up with links, because your opinion is most obviously tainted (calling him a 'lying sack of shit' was sort of a dead giveaway).

So, come on. Give me your knowledge. I'll wait.

- as

Line them out. I am sick of this shit.

they're good at making the charges, not so good at actually backing them up.

- as

Just curious. "So we're preparing (for the debate) and one of my staff said, 'The thing you've got to understand is, this isn't on the level.' And I think that really strikes to what people are frustrated with in politics, is that so much of what we talk about, so much of what we say, it's not true, people know it's not true, all the insiders understand that we're just game-playing..."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3513636

As for listing the lies, why bother? His supporters are like Bush's, they see what they want. Google, or search this site, you'll find all you need to know. Look up his statements on his Hopefund, which he used to funnel corporate and PAC money which he claims he doesn't take to superdelegates in Iowa so they would endorse him. Look up his changing stories on lobbyist money, oil money, corporate money, NAFTA, Iraq troop withdrawals. If you've got the capacity to understand it, look up his lie that the IWR was a "vote for war." On and on.

It doesn't matter. We have a piece of shit liar for a candidate. Deal with it, and hope the media keeps hiding that.

or move on. It's your choice. Spew your vile and venom now while you have a chance. You deal with it.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN HERE ON DU WHEN WE HAVE A PRESUMPTIVE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE.

Let me be clear: We expect our members to support the Democratic nominee for president. This expectation has been written into our rules since as far back as 2002, and we aggressively enforced this rule in 2004 after it became clear that John Kerry was the presumptive nominee. In other words, this is not a secret. If you are at all shocked or surprised by this, then you have not been paying very close attention. Don't even bother trying to convince us otherwise. This was decided long ago, we've already heard all the opposing arguments over and over a thousand times, and we're not going to change our policy. Here is how this will work:

At some point between now and the Democratic convention in August, one of the two remaining Democratic front-runners will drop out of the race, and the remaining candidate will become the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. When we have a presumptive nominee, the time for fighting on DU will come to an end. The squabbling will not drag on until the "official" nomination at the convention in August. The transition to general election mode begins when we have a presumptive nominee. And we have no doubt that the vast majority of our members -- regardless of which candidate you support in the primaries -- will be glad to move forward and support the nominee.

We understand that not everyone will be prepared to immediately put the primaries behind us. There will be some jerks on the winning side who insist on gloating. And there will be some sore losers on the other side who will want to keep attacking the nominee. Once we have a presumptive nominee, those people will have one week to get it out of their systems. We believe that a one-week transitional period is more than fair for those of you who cannot switch gears easily or quickly. After this week-long adjustment period, we're done.

At that point, the moderators and admins will step in and shut down the primary infighting. The vast majority of people on this site will be glad to be done with the primaries. Sadly, a very small number of bitter partisans will not be able to let it go, and will likely be removed from this community. Few people will miss them when they are gone.

As usual, we will continue to permit constructive criticism of the Democratic nominee and of other Democratic candidates and officeholders. We will also continue to permit sincere, non-disruptive expressions of ambivalence toward the nominee. But we will not permit politically motivated attacks designed to tear down the Democratic presidential nominee.

He said politics is theater and the country is sick of it.

Every elected official has their own pac fund and every elected official donates money to other candidates. It's how candidates in red areas and poor areas get elected. He hasn't had any changing stories on anything, only the lies that Hillary's campaign has told.

The IWR vote is open to opinion. Some Democrats who voted against it said it was a vote for war at the time. Others didn't. He isn't lying when he gives his opinion. That's quite a bit different than the Clintons saying they were against the war from the start when her invasion statement and meeting with Code Pink clearly shows the opposite. Now that's lying.

We missed having the piece of shit liar for a candidate, one who helped Bush get us into this war. Maybe you'll see that some day.

So, sad for you man that you can not admit the better candidate won without making up bs about Obama..

I don't see the negativity. And you're not the only independent thinker out there, either, so it does not seem appropriate to judge the rest of us as shallow simply because we disagree with you.

I would really like to see the negativity you talk about that was run "beneath the boards." Do you have links you can show us that demonstrate the kind of negativity you speak of? Or does "beneath the boards" mean implication open to interpretation?

Since you say Obama ran his campaign negatively, there should be plenty of examples of Obama aiming a concerted negative attack strategy at his opponents. If he ran the campaign you claim, it should be a very simple thing to find a ton of evidence of his "nasty, slander-filled smear campaign." I await your evidence, with great anticipation.

And I am glad you will support the Democratic nominee. But I surely wish you would not trash the Democratic nominee WITHOUT LINKS OR OTHER EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS. Because without evidence, you sound more like a disgruntled candidate for anger management than a thoughtful, engaged person with a legitimate gripe, IMHO.

And Obama does them honor in his humility.