not until they vote in denver.
until then, I fight on, with truth.
Yet you admire your candidates dishonesty. Each to their own I guess.
if you think an honest person can get elected president, you are deluded.
the best you get is a fundamentally good person who in the end will do what's right.
How else do you think you can go to a racist black church and talk about racial healing?
Or have supporters who are pro-hamas, and others who are pro-Israel?
Obama is just as dishonest as Clinton, I resent that he acts as though he's not.
I'm really sorry that Obama hasn't lied enough for your satisfaction. Why don't you e.mail the campaign and ask if they can work on putting that right.
Isn't this the new BO campaign logo?
Did you read the diary?
"Her dishonesty is actually honest because I know she's pandering and lieing on many things."
That's the only good word about Hillary Clinton he bothers to include. Hillary is good because she panders and everybody knows it. As for Obama, he can't think of any reason to support him.
Did YOU read the diary?
over your head.
that was a comment not in the diary
he also included these good words for hrc: "... at the end of the day, I believe she loves this country, is a smart/tough leader, and is the best person to lead this country."
How are those good words. He only beleives she loves her country?
And what does that imply about Barack.
Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254
I'm United Methodist too and this is an ugly, ugly post.
Sometimes the truth is ugly.
No, the truth is beautiful. Ugly politics is just to some people's taste
Yes it is. Those are a lot of words to say you don't think Obama has enough experience? Them's sour grapes, I think Joe Biden, Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson would tell you. But I don't suppose we're done with calling the voters stupid.
I like Obama's chances of getting things done a little better than I like Hillary's. I like that more people are involved in the system. I like that he didn't support a war he didn't believe in. I like that he's a fighter.
I also already have a messiah (at least I did at the beginning of this race). I'm voting for a leader who can restore my faith in government and the political system's ability to involve people and get a bit closer to accomplishing the promises made in this campaign.
With you all the way. I suspect your reply was not to me but the post above mine
I've seen 12 y.o.'s with better logic skills. And this embarrassment made the wreck list. Why do I even feign surprise anymore?
The only reason this diary made the rec list is because he/she is a black person that is against Obama.
zerosum,
Thank you for serving as MyDD's proxy schoolmarm. I know it's a thankless job, but we need someone with ostentatious self-worth and an assumed moral center to keep us in line. I really appreciate all the troll rates I get from you.
Keep up the good work, and know that there are those of us pulling for you in your endeavor.
All best.
Seriously... if you come up with a comparison of Obama to George W Bush I don't know where to begin with you....
the funniest thing is.
all of you people who say Obama has done nothing have no understanding whatsoever what it really takes to run a national campaign. look at Howard Dean. He was the media anointed candidate in 2004, he raised $40 million dollars before Iowa (a record at that point), and he came in third, and never recovered.
almost entirely because John Kerry had a better ground game in Iowa. he had the Democratic "machine" behind him, even if he didn't have the media, and even though Dean had "the perfect storm" of 5,000 volunteers, they didn't know how to get the most out of them.
I've seen inside the Obama campaign, and their organization is brilliant. Hillary had that Democratic machine on her side and she was the media-anointed candidate before the Iowa vote, and Obama's organization beat her. Still, if she had put together a smarter strategy, that machine could have pulled things out for her in the following weeks, but she bet on Super Tuesday and ignored a dozen states, while Obama put people on the ground everywhere.
Seriously, if you can look at how this campaign has unfolded, and still think that Obama has not demonstrated any amount of skill, you need a quiet weekend in the country. You can say that Hillary is the greatest candidate ever, but then turn around and say Obama has done nothing to beat her. You blame it all on "the media", but in case you hadn't noticed, the media loves John McCain more than anyone, so if Hillary couldn't come up with a strategy to beat Obama "in the media", she'd be in an even worse position against McCain.
This election was Hillary's to lose, and she hired the wrong people to run her campaign. You should all be mad at Mark Penn, not Barack Obama.
No what you fight on is all you have left, Bitterness.
I find your diary offensive. Hillary happily takes money from lobbyists (but not enough to pay her $20 million in debts), while Obama does not. Hillary ran a crappy "50% + 1 vote" campaign, versus Obama's successful "50 state strategy".
Hillary hired unionbuster Mark Penn for a kings ransom, but Penn didn't have a clue about the Democratic nomination process. He didn't know that the delegates are apportioned by congressional district (he thought it was "winner take all") and didn't understand how the caucus' work. Hillary is not ready on day one, and is clearly not ready to be president. Obama ran a great campaign, against the biggest name in the Dem party.
Show some respect for my Senator!
and Clinton is going to lose for a simple reason: he was the only major candidate to oppose the Iraq War.
I worked in Iowa where the War cut as an issue ( I was for Edwards). Had Clinton voted against the AUMF (as the majority of Democrats in the Senate did) she would have won Iowa, and with it the nomination. Had Edwards voted against the AUMF, he would have won Iowa and with it the nomination. And you can say the same thing about Dodd and Biden as well.
They didn't, and that made the Obama response on experience (if experience was so important, why did you support the Iraqw War) effective.
Clinton people I don't think want to admit that her weakness (which was obvious to anyone who understood primary history) was based on REAL concerns. And so they resort to insulting the Democratic Electorate and re-circulating right wing talking points that have made this site at times look like Redstate.
