"With Nomination Clinched, Obama Now Free To Be Horrifying Scumbag"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Thomas' positions on both foreign and domestic policy are firmly in line with ... the Democratic base in that district, while Barrow has continuously supported the most extremist Bush policies

If this is indeed the case, then Thomas should have absolutely no problem defeating Barrow decisively in the primary. Not sure what the fuzz and anger is all about.

The fuzz and anger is about BO's endorsement which states:...

What does it matter what Obama says when it is allegedly so clear that this Barrow guy he supports is completely out of step with the Democrats in that district? If Thomas is the better candidate then the Democrats are going to nominate her. If she isn't, then they won't. It's up to those that get to vote in the contest. Sometimes they'll vote like you would and sometimes they won't. That's how it works. No reason to get fuzzy about it as long as the integrity of the process remains intact.

[metta 0]

Thomas' positions on both foreign and domestic policy are firmly in line with ... the Democratic base in that district, while Barrow has continuously supported the most extremist Bush policies

If this is indeed the case, then Thomas should have absolutely no problem defeating Barrow decisively in the primary. Not sure what the fuzz and anger is all about.

The fuzz and anger is about BO's endorsement which states:...

What does it matter what Obama says when it is allegedly so clear that this Barrow guy he supports is completely out of step with the Democrats in that district? If Thomas is the better candidate then the Democrats are going to nominate her. If she isn't, then they won't. It's up to those that get to vote in the contest. Sometimes they'll vote like you would and sometimes they won't. That's how it works. No reason to get fuzzy about it as long as the integrity of the process remains intact.

Well, though I supported Hillary now I am left with a choice of two candidates. So, I am evaluating both candidates to decide which of them will be a lesser evil.

In that context, I am trying to find meaning and internal consistency to Obama's public proclamations:

WASHINGTON – Sen. Barack Obama started a presidential bid yesterday that could make him the first black to occupy the White House, and he immediately tried to turn his political inexperience into an asset with voters seeking change. The freshman Democratic senator from Illinois said the past six years had left the country in a precarious place and he promoted himself as the standard-bearer for "a new kind of politics."

link

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Thomas' positions on both foreign and domestic policy are firmly in line with ... the Democratic base in that district, while Barrow has continuously supported the most extremist Bush policies

If this is indeed the case, then Thomas should have absolutely no problem defeating Barrow decisively in the primary. Not sure what the fuzz and anger is all about.

The fuzz and anger is about BO's endorsement which states:...

What does it matter what Obama says when it is allegedly so clear that this Barrow guy he supports is completely out of step with the Democrats in that district? If Thomas is the better candidate then the Democrats are going to nominate her. If she isn't, then they won't. It's up to those that get to vote in the contest. Sometimes they'll vote like you would and sometimes they won't. That's how it works. No reason to get fuzzy about it as long as the integrity of the process remains intact.

Well, though I supported Hillary now I am left with a choice of two candidates. So, I am evaluating both candidates to decide which of them will be a lesser evil.

In that context, I am trying to find meaning and internal consistency to Obama's public proclamations.

Sure. That's good. Look, I don't know the district. don;t know whether a good democratic candidate would have any chance of carrying the House Seat in November. There are districts that only very conservative Democrats can carry. I dare say that there are districts where a Democrat would have to position him//herself to the right of some Republicans in other parts of the country if they are to stand a chance to win. Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana have those kinds of districts.

And sometimes you gotta ask yourself whether you rather have half a Democrat in the House or none at all. Any candidate running for President better make such calculations - out of the sheer neccessity that it will take support in Congress if you are going to effect any changes at all. Again, I don't know all the details nor do I plan to familiarize myself with every district in the country but I have a feeling that there is a bit more to this story than is being presented here.

[metta 0]

Thomas' positions on both foreign and domestic policy are firmly in line with ... the Democratic base in that district, while Barrow has continuously supported the most extremist Bush policies

If this is indeed the case, then Thomas should have absolutely no problem defeating Barrow decisively in the primary. Not sure what the fuzz and anger is all about.

The fuzz and anger is about BO's endorsement which states:...

What does it matter what Obama says when it is allegedly so clear that this Barrow guy he supports is completely out of step with the Democrats in that district? If Thomas is the better candidate then the Democrats are going to nominate her. If she isn't, then they won't. It's up to those that get to vote in the contest. Sometimes they'll vote like you would and sometimes they won't. That's how it works. No reason to get fuzzy about it as long as the integrity of the process remains intact.

Well, though I supported Hillary now I am left with a choice of two candidates. So, I am evaluating both candidates to decide which of them will be a lesser evil.

In that context, I am trying to find meaning and internal consistency to Obama's public proclamations.

Sure. That's good. Look, I don't know the district. don;t know whether a good democratic candidate would have any chance of carrying the House Seat in November. There are districts that only very conservative Democrats can carry. I dare say that there are districts where a Democrat would have to position him//herself to the right of some Republicans in other parts of the country if they are to stand a chance to win. Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana have those kinds of districts.

And sometimes you gotta ask yourself whether you rather have half a Democrat in the House or none at all. Any candidate running for President better make such calculations - out of the sheer neccessity that it will take support in Congress if you are going to effect any changes at all. Again, I don't know all the details nor do I plan to familiarize myself with every district in the country but I have a feeling that there is a bit more to this story than is being presented here.

Why, you are now coming down on the side of EXPEDIENCY as versus INTEGRITY.

That's politics as usual. You compromise to win support alledgedly to effect CHANGE and then a little more compromising and a litle more, until by the time you' have all the support you need, you're at one with the "politics- as-usual-crowd" and have CHANGED.

Well, guess there's still the promised HOPE left anyways...

So, tell me Rheinhart, what are you HOPING for, if Obama wins?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, tell me Rheinhart, what are you HOPING for, if Obama wins?

I'll tell you metta, first and foremost I'm hoping that you'll eventually learn to properly spell my name if you must use it. It's not that hard. Otherwise use my screen name.

As for the matter of integrity vs. expediency, I don't see it that way. What do you gain if you run on ideals and lose sight of very important practical matters - such as majorities needed to effect a course correction. Your preferred candidate most certainly wouldn't meet your apparent integrity standards and yet, you had no problem supporting her. So tell me, why the different standards? Why set the bar higher for who you consider the lesser candidate? Isn't that an odd approach?

[metta 0]

So, tell me Rheinhart, what are you HOPING for, if Obama wins?

I'll tell you metta, first and foremost I'm hoping that you'll eventually learn to properly spell my name if you must use it. It's not that hard. Otherwise use my screen name.

As for the matter of integrity vs. expediency, I don't see it that way. What do you gain if you run on ideals and lose sight of very important practical matters - such as majorities needed to effect a course correction. Your preferred candidate most certainly wouldn't meet your apparent integrity standards and yet, you had no problem supporting her. So tell me, why the different standards? Why set the bar higher for who you consider the lesser candidate? Isn't that an odd approach?

I supported Hillary for what she is, an effective and pragmatic politiican. It was Obama that made a big thing out of "politics as usual" claiming that Clinton offers politics as usual where as he, Obama was "''My belief is that the American people are looking for a fundamental break from the way we've been doing business.'''

Also, claiming in his "Blueprint for Change" to have" been able to develop innovative approaches to challenge the status quo and get results. "

So far, I have seen no evidence for his claims.

That's the point I am making.

Again, internal consistency...

Edited June 19, 2008 by metta

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, tell me Rheinhart, what are you HOPING for, if Obama wins?

I'll tell you metta, first and foremost I'm hoping that you'll eventually learn to properly spell my name if you must use it. It's not that hard. Otherwise use my screen name.

As for the matter of integrity vs. expediency, I don't see it that way. What do you gain if you run on ideals and lose sight of very important practical matters - such as majorities needed to effect a course correction. Your preferred candidate most certainly wouldn't meet your apparent integrity standards and yet, you had no problem supporting her. So tell me, why the different standards? Why set the bar higher for who you consider the lesser candidate? Isn't that an odd approach?

I supported Hillary for what she is, an effective and pragmatic politiican. It was Obama that made a big thing out of "politics as usual" claiming that Clinton offers politics as usual where as he, Obama was "''My belief is that the American people are looking for a fundamental break from the way we've been doing business.'''

Also, claiming in his "Blueprint for Change" to have" been able to develop innovative approaches to challenge the status quo and get results. "

So far, I have seen no evidence for his claims.

That's the point I am making.

Again, internal consistency...

If Obama doesn't consider pragmatic matters, then he would be exactly what camp Hillary portrayed him to be - an illusionist. So it turns out that he isn't. And now that's wrong too. I mean if you just seek fault in the candidate then you will most certainly find it. In any one of them. If you're surprised by that then I'd suggest that you've got a lot of growing up to do.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

I'll tell you metta, first and foremost I'm hoping that you'll eventually learn to properly spell my name if you must use it. It's not that hard. Otherwise use my screen name.

why do you think i call you et or big dog/bd?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'll tell you metta, first and foremost I'm hoping that you'll eventually learn to properly spell my name if you must use it. It's not that hard. Otherwise use my screen name.

why do you think i call you et or big dog/bd?

'cause yer German is a bit rusty?

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

I'll tell you metta, first and foremost I'm hoping that you'll eventually learn to properly spell my name if you must use it. It's not that hard. Otherwise use my screen name.

why do you think i call you et or big dog/bd?

'cause yer German is a bit rusty?

ein bisen.........

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I'll tell you metta, first and foremost I'm hoping that you'll eventually learn to properly spell my name if you must use it. It's not that hard. Otherwise use my screen name.

Lately youve been coming across like Obamas giant pet poodle!

Heres a pic I got of some Obama supporters after one of his rallies.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'll tell you metta, first and foremost I'm hoping that you'll eventually learn to properly spell my name if you must use it. It's not that hard. Otherwise use my screen name.

Lately youve been coming across like Obamas giant pet poodle!

Heres a pic I got of some Obama supporters after one of his rallies.

No, man. That's the Republican candidate and his campaign managers.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I'll tell you metta, first and foremost I'm hoping that you'll eventually learn to properly spell my name if you must use it. It's not that hard. Otherwise use my screen name.

Lately youve been coming across like Obamas giant pet poodle!

Heres a pic I got of some Obama supporters after one of his rallies.

No, man. That's the Republican candidate and his campaign managers.

I swear thats you in the back.

[metta 0]

So, tell me Rheinhart, what are you HOPING for, if Obama wins?

I'll tell you metta, first and foremost I'm hoping that you'll eventually learn to properly spell my name if you must use it. It's not that hard. Otherwise use my screen name.

As for the matter of integrity vs. expediency, I don't see it that way. What do you gain if you run on ideals and lose sight of very important practical matters - such as majorities needed to effect a course correction. Your preferred candidate most certainly wouldn't meet your apparent integrity standards and yet, you had no problem supporting her. So tell me, why the different standards? Why set the bar higher for who you consider the lesser candidate? Isn't that an odd approach?

I supported Hillary for what she is, an effective and pragmatic politiican. It was Obama that made a big thing out of "politics as usual" claiming that Clinton offers politics as usual where as he, Obama was "''My belief is that the American people are looking for a fundamental break from the way we've been doing business.'''

Also, claiming in his "Blueprint for Change" to have" been able to develop innovative approaches to challenge the status quo and get results. "

So far, I have seen no evidence for his claims.

That's the point I am making.

Again, internal consistency...

If Obama doesn't consider pragmatic matters, then he would be exactly what camp Hillary portrayed him to be - an illusionist. So it turns out that he isn't. And now that's wrong too. I mean if you just seek fault in the candidate then you will most certainly find it. In any one of them. If you're surprised by that then I'd suggest that you've got a lot of growing up to do.

I am talking about the lack of consistency between Obama's claims and actions. So, I am the last person to be surprised by his flip flops. That's why I am not swayed by his pretty talk in the first place. I am raising issues here Dog but I see that you are putting your personality in full display by disparaging the messenger instead of addressing the message. If pointing out inconsistencies between Obama's words and action comes across as a sign of immaturity to you, I suggest that you consult a shrink to see if you are too infatuated with or fixated on your Messiah for your own mental well-being.

The very fact that you are taking it upon yourself to respond to every post that is not in favor of Obama shows some signs of fanaticism or perhaps obsessive compulsive disorder. Take a break and tend to your family first. On't worry, Obama is a big boy, and he can take care of himself. B)

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Everybody's a shrink!