He’s One of Us Now

OBAMA '08

ALL BURQA'S 50% OFF.

He is an Islamic sympathizing, YouTube one hit wonder. The foolishness of youth and the stupidity of race preference is truly astonishing.

I appreciate that you attempt to delineate the Obama/Clinton divide, and think you do a great job of framing the divide on the macro-level, but I am disappointed that you ultimately miss one of the most critical points by comparing apples to oranges--with the effect of reinforcing the mistaken concept that Obama is about gauzy style and Clinton is about hard substance.

I agree that when Obama talks about "change," he's talking about changing our approach to politics -- i.e., that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. In contrast, Clinton approaches change as a "fighter" -- i.e., that "the enemy" is never going to see things your way, so you have to overpower the other side and force that vinegar down its throat."

These are very different approaches to the question of how you best get things done, namely, is it more effective to push through an agenda by (1) building "consensus" (in the Reagan-esque sense) so that you have a working majority; or (2) overpowering the "enemy" and stomping on their heads? Both are valid approaches to the process and both have their place and time. It's up to all of us to decide which will be more effective in the current times.

Obama's argument that the Karl Rovian 50% +1 concept of "working majority" is not good enough to really change the trajectory of the nation. Clinton's counter is that Obama is all about rhetoric, but she has the experience to bring about real change.

Please take note that Clinton's counter is not actually a counter at all. It's what you call "fighting the hypo." Obama has never said that he has no agenda to push through. What he HAS said is that the reason Reagan was a transformational figure in American politics is that he was able to persuade large numbers of people to vote against their economic interests in order to get things done.

In other words, Obama does think approach is a key precedent to the ability to push policy. HOWEVER, that does not in any way mean that he has no policies to push. I think you know that. Clinton does not directly respond to his "working majority" concept, I believe, because ultimately she probably agrees with it but knows that it's not an argument she will win.

Obama's vague mantra in the style and cadenced delivery of MLK is - "hope" and "change". There is no substance about what actually wants to do for the country and more specifically how he wants to accomplish his goals. If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there. Obama does not appear to have a reasonable plan of any description, just a "rock star" image. MSNBC is certainly doing everything it can to get him elected - ie. Shuster and Matthews' have been overtly praising Obama as the second coming while subtly rendering Hillary Clinton up to the viewing public as floundering and a bit creepy. They eventually got caught when Shuster made his big gaff and Matthews - again - let his mouth run off unscripted. It was a panoramic snapshot into the MSNBC agenda. Maybe as the election draws nearer and the field of candidates is established, we will have a better idea as to how he is going to affect all this change he's talking about.

Although I voted for Mrs. Clinton in the Arizona primary, although I'm neither a boomer nor a millennial (I'm of the forgotten Gen-X), my main concern now is if she can actually win the general election. i would have no problem whatsoever of voting for Mr. Obama if he won the nomination. Even if Mrs. Clinton won the presidency, would she really be effective at getting her agenda passed through Congress? My thoughts now are that Mr. Obama would have greater success at doing so. I keep hearing about people wanting specifics from him. Most, if not every, millennial know exactly where to find such information - on his WEB SITE.

Sure, I like Mrs. Clinton. I'm originally from the South, so I have seen racism first hand, institutionalized. I never dared to dream that an African-American would stand a chance in national American politics. Gen-Y may know something that the boomers don't, and us X'ers have forgotten. And that is it's not about the parties - it's about us. That it's not about race - it's about us. Maybe that's the type of change Mr. Obama is talking about. The type of change that shows that some people don't care what color your skin is, or what your gender is. I, for one, am ready for something new.

im 20 years old and I think Obama's message is as empty as they come. Clinton all the way! If you want a rockstar-like candidate vote for Obama. If u want a president that will make rescue the country vote for Clinton in the states that are left

The DEMs toss up who'll be nominated for president is crazy as ever. The experienced, well experience, has more expriences but more heavy luggages as well.
The "change guy" might as well be called the "C" guy because there's are only two subjects he got: "Change and Chicago". I was impressed w/ him is Iowa but as the days drag on it was boring to hear those 2 words: Change and Chicago.

The worst things going are: Barack has left out the details to where's the beef? And Hillary has taken millions under the table from their rich Arab partners in return for future political and secret favors. All of which are illegal.

Newsweek has made this website a platform to promote Obama's candidacy ..

For the sake of fair and balance, I suggest Newsweek also write an article entitled:

SHE IS ONE OF US NOW.

I would gladly read such an article.

No politician is perfect. In order to counter the following Hillary hater's irrational scream, the following is from the syndicated columnist Bonnie Erbe:

"The "phenom" phase of Sen. Barack Obama's campaign may be ending. The shine may be starting to deflect off the star. Yes, it's still a tight race for the Democratic presidential nomination between the junior senator from Illinois and the junior senator from New York. But up to this point, Obama has had the distinct advantage (and disadvantage) of being less well known. That era will soon be behind him.

Most damaging to Obama so far is a New York Times article published several days ago showing that while in Iowa during a stump speech Obama claimed to have "passed" a bill regulating nuclear power plants.

Trouble is, that measure never was approved by the Senate. The bill was to have required nuclear power plants to alert citizens if even minor leaks of radioactive waste were discovered. Under current law, only significant leaks must be made public.

While Obama claimed to have "passed" a bill that never did pass, he also participated in negotiations that watered down the measure to the point of meaninglessness. That, however, didn't stop him from claiming the mantle of being pro-environment and anti-nuclear pollution while campaigning. Is this another case of "I invented the Internet"?

What's worse, he took campaign contributions worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from Exelon executives and employees. Exelon is the company that owned a plant that kept smaller leaks quiet. According to its own Web site, it is also the largest nuclear power provider in the nation.

We can all expect to see more of the same as reporters dig deeper into Obama's record. For example, are the young and/or upscale ultra-liberals who form the core of his voter base going to be thrilled by comments he made while in Idaho, trying to portray himself as pro-gun rights?

According to The Washington Post's Web site, the following happened while he made a visit to Boise State University's Taco Bell Arena before a roaring crowd of thousands:

"Obama was not shy about tailoring his stump speech for the setting, adding a line to rebut any fears that he is aggressively pro-gun control, an issue he almost never mentions on the trail. He urged the crowd not to listen to 'people who say, "He doesn't believe in the Second Amendment." We've got a lot of hunters in Southern Illinois and I've got no intention of taking away people's guns.' "

How are the ultra-liberals going to feel when they learn their shining star is hunter- and gun-friendly? Is this guy a friend of Mitt Romney -- liberal while campaigning in blue states and conservative while in red states?"

Obama is young as a result without much baggage, even so, he is not perfect either as this article depicts.

The link to the original article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/350296_erbe07.h

No politician is perfect. In order to counter the following Hillary hater's irrational scream, the following is from the syndicated columnist Bonnie Erbe:

"The "phenom" phase of Sen. Barack Obama's campaign may be ending. The shine may be starting to deflect off the star. Yes, it's still a tight race for the Democratic presidential nomination between the junior senator from Illinois and the junior senator from New York. But up to this point, Obama has had the distinct advantage (and disadvantage) of being less well known. That era will soon be behind him.

Most damaging to Obama so far is a New York Times article published several days ago showing that while in Iowa during a stump speech Obama claimed to have "passed" a bill regulating nuclear power plants.

Trouble is, that measure never was approved by the Senate. The bill was to have required nuclear power plants to alert citizens if even minor leaks of radioactive waste were discovered. Under current law, only significant leaks must be made public.

While Obama claimed to have "passed" a bill that never did pass, he also participated in negotiations that watered down the measure to the point of meaninglessness. That, however, didn't stop him from claiming the mantle of being pro-environment and anti-nuclear pollution while campaigning. Is this another case of "I invented the Internet"?

What's worse, he took campaign contributions worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from Exelon executives and employees. Exelon is the company that owned a plant that kept smaller leaks quiet. According to its own Web site, it is also the largest nuclear power provider in the nation.

We can all expect to see more of the same as reporters dig deeper into Obama's record. For example, are the young and/or upscale ultra-liberals who form the core of his voter base going to be thrilled by comments he made while in Idaho, trying to portray himself as pro-gun rights?

According to The Washington Post's Web site, the following happened while he made a visit to Boise State University's Taco Bell Arena before a roaring crowd of thousands:

"Obama was not shy about tailoring his stump speech for the setting, adding a line to rebut any fears that he is aggressively pro-gun control, an issue he almost never mentions on the trail. He urged the crowd not to listen to 'people who say, "He doesn't believe in the Second Amendment." We've got a lot of hunters in Southern Illinois and I've got no intention of taking away people's guns.' "

How are the ultra-liberals going to feel when they learn their shining star is hunter- and gun-friendly? Is this guy a friend of Mitt Romney -- liberal while campaigning in blue states and conservative while in red states?"

Obama is young as a result without much baggage, even so, he is not perfect either as this article depicts.

The link to the original article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/350296_erbe07.h

No politician is perfect. In order to counter the following Hillary hater's irrational scream, the following is from the syndicated columnist Bonnie Erbe:

"The "phenom" phase of Sen. Barack Obama's campaign may be ending. The shine may be starting to deflect off the star. Yes, it's still a tight race for the Democratic presidential nomination between the junior senator from Illinois and the junior senator from New York. But up to this point, Obama has had the distinct advantage (and disadvantage) of being less well known. That era will soon be behind him.

Most damaging to Obama so far is a New York Times article published several days ago showing that while in Iowa during a stump speech Obama claimed to have "passed" a bill regulating nuclear power plants.

Trouble is, that measure never was approved by the Senate. The bill was to have required nuclear power plants to alert citizens if even minor leaks of radioactive waste were discovered. Under current law, only significant leaks must be made public.

While Obama claimed to have "passed" a bill that never did pass, he also participated in negotiations that watered down the measure to the point of meaninglessness. That, however, didn't stop him from claiming the mantle of being pro-environment and anti-nuclear pollution while campaigning. Is this another case of "I invented the Internet"?

What's worse, he took campaign contributions worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from Exelon executives and employees. Exelon is the company that owned a plant that kept smaller leaks quiet. According to its own Web site, it is also the largest nuclear power provider in the nation.

We can all expect to see more of the same as reporters dig deeper into Obama's record. For example, are the young and/or upscale ultra-liberals who form the core of his voter base going to be thrilled by comments he made while in Idaho, trying to portray himself as pro-gun rights?

According to The Washington Post's Web site, the following happened while he made a visit to Boise State University's Taco Bell Arena before a roaring crowd of thousands:

"Obama was not shy about tailoring his stump speech for the setting, adding a line to rebut any fears that he is aggressively pro-gun control, an issue he almost never mentions on the trail. He urged the crowd not to listen to 'people who say, "He doesn't believe in the Second Amendment." We've got a lot of hunters in Southern Illinois and I've got no intention of taking away people's guns.' "

How are the ultra-liberals going to feel when they learn their shining star is hunter- and gun-friendly? Is this guy a friend of Mitt Romney -- liberal while campaigning in blue states and conservative while in red states?"

Obama is young as a result without much baggage, even so, he is not perfect either as this article depicts.

The link to the original article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/350296_erbe07.h

Hillary Clinton is the most divisive, polarizing, mean spirited, nasty politician our country has seen since Richard Nixon. If you want revenge against the Republicans and bitter partisanship in Congress, vote for her. Revenge and bitterness will take you only so far and will not solve any of the problems our nation faces. However, if you want a candidate who will reach across the aisle and get meaningful legislation passed to solve our nations problems with health care, the environment, the economy, immigration, and restore our nations values by improving our foreign policy and no longer making America a pariah in the world you have but one choice: Barack Obama. It's very simple: if you want divisiveness and polarization choose Hillary Clinton, if you prefer our leadership working together to solve our nations problems choose Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton is the most divisive, polarizing, mean spirited, nasty politician our country has seen since Richard Nixon. If you want revenge against the Republicans and bitter partisanship in Congress, vote for her. Revenge and bitterness will take you only so far and will not solve any of the problems our nation faces. However, if you want a candidate who will reach across the aisle and get meaningful legislation passed to solve our nations problems with health care, the environment, the economy, immigration, and restore our nations values by improving our foreign policy and no longer making America a pariah in the world you have but one choice: Barack Obama. It's very simple: if you want divisiveness and polarization choose Hillary Clinton, if you prefer our leadership working together to solve our nations problems choose Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton says that if she passes her health care plan, it will include provisions to garnish workers' wages.

Such confiscatory language shows she has not learned anything from the fight during the 1990s on health care, and how the Democrats will again lose the battle and probably the White House if she is leading the Party.

Experience is all well and good, but one should learn from it.

Clearly Sen. Clinton has not.

MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN

Now we hear that Hillary will not release her tax returns until after she is the Democratic nominee--if that actually happens.

Why does she want to withhold such information from her fellow Democrats?

It seems pretty risky for the Democratic Party to nominate someone who will not level with it.

Why should we trust her? The Clintons don't exactly have reputations as truth tellers.

Diogenes would have given both a wide berth.

MARTIN EDWIN "MICK" ANDERSEN