Some Like It Cool

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: valadezaj @ 08/28/2008 1:27:52 PM

    I liked how Obama was nominated in a fake roll call rigged in his favor. Way to go democrats for showing us democracy in action. The election in Zimbabwe was also very democratic.

    • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 08/28/2008 2:27:37 PM

      The roll call is always a show....same in the Repbulican convention. Your analysis is weak.

      • Posted By: valadezaj @ 08/28/2008 6:26:09 PM

        If they're going to vote they should have done it truthfully. Hillary would either 6 or 9 votes or none at all. Like New Hampshire where they gave everything to Obama. What a slap in the face to all those who came out to vote.

    • Posted By: PH2008 @ 08/28/2008 2:55:48 PM

      You seem to forget that the "roll call" was the result of an exhausting and months long series of primary elections. It was the Democratic primary voters who chose Obama in an exceedingly democratic process.

  • Posted By: jmiller583 @ 08/28/2008 3:48:01 PM

    Yeah, why dont we all just bring him offerings of frankensence and mirrh? Sheesh. Next.

    • Posted By: jordanadah @ 08/28/2008 5:03:48 PM

      Will do, and I'm adding the gold too. If you're not excited then you must be for McCain, and just who could get excited about that little old man. Biden has been in the senate, doing the right things, for 36 years, to McCains 34, yet is still a lot younger than MCain is and has so much more experience and real power in the senate. McCain never been none for having or handling real power. Maybe that's why he voted with bush 95% of the time. He plays follow the leader, and follow who'll give him the most money. Biden does not. Both of them have something called a conscious. McCain does not. That;'s why his campaign is running on lies, for he has no thruths to tell. At least not truths that would get him elected. check out the Keating 5 scandel to see just how honest he is fore he was one of the 5.

  • Posted By: newage_lightbulb @ 08/28/2008 5:01:27 PM

    Ah, ObamaWeek, how we love you. Remind anybody else of that Simpsons episode? "Mr. Burns, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. What makes you so popular?"

  • Posted By: dad&daughterbloggers @ 08/28/2008 4:19:55 PM

    Hey all you people that are bloggers and Obama supporters did you guys here the convention, the last three days, they were hype. It just makes you want to go out there and vote doesn't (lol) . But you should want to vote and who would you vote for BARACK OBAMA :) BOOOO McCain. So who wants to vote for him, people who dont know 'bout the economy. So if you want to pay $2.34 for or less for gas than vote BARACK OBAMA.

    OH! and his wife is a very good speaker

    • Posted By: jordanadah @ 08/28/2008 4:45:19 PM

      All conventions are hype. It's what their for. I've never seen one that wasn't.

  • Posted By: kevitivity @ 08/28/2008 4:18:59 PM

    This is one of the more pathetic things I've read here at Obamaweek.

  • Posted By: FeoAmante @ 08/28/2008 2:16:43 PM

    Classy, cool, hip, glamorous, even sexy. Are Obama's staunchest defenders unable to give more than the most superficial reasons for their support?

    btw, coperez, four of the Keating Five were Democrats. The fifth one was former Democrat darling, John McMcCain.

    • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 08/28/2008 2:26:20 PM

      None of them were Barak Obama. One of the five was John McCain.

      • Posted By: curryjm @ 08/28/2008 4:00:19 PM

        Yeah, Barry was a Community Organizer at the time, whatever the hell that is.

  • Posted By: pfftdreamon @ 08/28/2008 2:29:10 PM

    See, to me this is the problem . . . mystic? I don't think many of these people even know anything about this man except that he's just not a republican, and I'm sorry, if giddiness in girls is the best reason to vote Obama, I certainly will not. The youth in this country have thus far proven to be the laziest slackers of all slackers. That's not my opinion, read the material spouted out by this web venue - yet I am suppose to use the wisdom of "youth" in chosing my candidate? ha ha ha - dream on.

    • Posted By: wildlifeusa @ 08/28/2008 3:19:26 PM

      THE PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE A BRAIN.

      • Posted By: curryjm @ 08/28/2008 3:57:11 PM

        Maybe if he aks da Wizard Obama, he can get hisself one.

  • Posted By: jmiller583 @ 08/28/2008 3:46:33 PM

    Why dont we all just bring him offerings of frankensense and muhr? Sheesh.

  • Posted By: Hessian.son @ 08/28/2008 3:31:33 PM

    I am surprised that Messud could find the ability to fight through what were obviously trembling hands and spasms of idol worship to penn such an insightful piece. What a heroic feat! Seriously, at what point did the boat of journalism objectivity leave the dock? This work should be limited to partisan blogs. But unfortunately, it is a natural piece for what has become a very partisan magazine. Journalism is dead.

  • Posted By: wildlifeusa @ 08/28/2008 3:23:45 PM

    GO BARACK GO! AMERICA IS CRAVING FOR AN INTELLIGENT LEADER. YOU HAVE ALL THE QUALITY TO BE A GREAT LEADER!

  • Posted By: PH2008 @ 08/28/2008 1:29:34 PM

    I think we need to remember that what is driving Obama's campaign is not just his personal qualities and charisma, but an intense public dissatisfaction with the way we have been governed for the last eight years. A large part of the excitement over Obama results from the expectation that, under his leadership, this country will really move in a different and far better direction.

    • Posted By: realisticvoter @ 08/28/2008 1:41:02 PM

      I concur...but in what direction are we moving to?

      • Posted By: PH2008 @ 08/28/2008 3:09:55 PM

        Well, how about, for example, adopting tax and fiscal policies that favor people other than the super rich? Having a foreign policy that avoids plunging headlong into unnecessary wars based on false information and trumped up grounds? Moving toward a system of universal health care? Avoiding gross violations of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war? Finding common ground for action with our foreign allies instead of acting like the Lone Ranger on the international stage? Adopting a sensible environmental policy? Moving to an energy policy that really reduces our dependence on oil and avoids subsidizing oil companies that are enjoying the largest profits of any companies in history? Just to name a few directions...

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 08/28/2008 2:26:22 PM

    The ''key''to his ''mystique'',are scribblers like Messud who work for the hack Obama Press Secretaries at NEWSWEAK,who have been mightily covering their mans ass since the beginning. They are in no way to be respected as either ''journalists''or ''reporters''. They are partisan opinion editorialists. If they were ''reporters''we would not have to be asking these questions.

    Who is Dr. Mansour?
    What is Operation BOARD GAMES?
    How much information is revealed in the ANNENBERG relationship between Ayers and Obama[note to ''KEATING-5 '' pilers-on. Chuck Keating never tried to murder anyone. Ayers however,did. Alot of people,in point of fact,and to this day,he states that ''we still did not do enough''].
    Why are Obama campaign operatives attempting to silence free speech?[Obama campaign lawyers are now threatening Chicagos WGN-AM for reasons bearing upon What Stanley Kurtz Found within the ANNENBERG Papers].
    Why did Joe Biden send over 3.4 million taxpayer dollars to his own son?[Hunter].
    What relationship does Biden have with the nations largest credit-card company?
    What is ACORN? What relationship does it have with the Obama campaign? What RICO laws has it already broken? Who has been sending it taxpayer monies to the tune of millions?

    Answer these NEWSWEAK,and you will not be treated with the contempt I usually reserve for Russian and Chinese media.

    • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 08/28/2008 2:49:23 PM

      Wholeheartedly agree that sheer lack of scrutiny of Obama is what is troubling. If he were a Republican, every single detail of these issues would be analyzed and questioned every single night on CNN, on MSNBC, and in Newsweek.

  • Posted By: DavidCA @ 08/28/2008 1:21:29 PM

    It's funny to hear Republicans dismissive of Obama's qualifications to be president describe him as "just" a good speaker. Two points:

    First, we're often told that one of a president's most effective leadership tools is the "bully pulpit." What, exactly, does one do from a pulpit that makes it effective? The answer is speaking, of course.

    Second, history shows that there is, in fact, a very strong correlation between effectiveness as a public speaker and strong presidential leadership. Two Republican presidents epitomize the extremes of this relationship. Abraham Lincoln, perhaps our greatest president, was also the greatest public speaker to have been president; so renowned for his great speeches that today his speaking skill is considered his defining characteristic. George W. Bush, a colossal failure as president, is also the worst public speaker to have held the office in living memory.

    Given a choice between an articulate, inspiring speaker like Barack Obama and John McCain, a dull speaker at best, an argument can be made that this difference between them is a strong indicator that Obama would be a more capable president.

    • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 08/28/2008 2:42:01 PM

      But its what he is speaking that is troubling to many of us on the independent-libertarian sides of things. I agree that he is very good and effective communicator...and that is good. I, too, crinch, whenever G. Bush speaks. However, there have also been plenty of "great orators" in history that were very popular for all the wrong reasons. I believe Obama to be a fine person with noble intentions, but please allow me to disagree with what few positions he appears to have taken to date.

  • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 08/28/2008 11:24:36 AM

    Great...another Camalot to worship. It's pretty scary and damn disapointing that "journalists" are just as gullible to such hysteria. This mass "love" of Obama is celebrity worship all-over again. The problem, of course, is that its for a position of immense power and influence. But, far for me to criticize the messiah, else I be cast as hateful, bigoted, ingnorant or alike. Never mind Obama's actual policy positions (does he have any?), nevermind the empty "change" motto (change to what?); and nevermind his bizarre associations with guys like Ayers and Reverend Wright. No, to question and/or probe for such details is passe' and "so hateful" that we should all just rise above it all and love (and vote) for Obama. Because, he is change. He is hip; he is The Man.

    • Posted By: coperez @ 08/28/2008 2:07:00 PM

      It's laughable how Republicans can only hammer against Obama's popularity. As if besides being articulate, intelligent and willing to listen, being popular is somehow bad. Remember how their mantra about W was that people "liked" him and "wanted to have a beer" with him? And sure, Bush had experience - all those filed businesses (in oil, no less) and a governorship in a state where the state constitution gives that position almost no power.

      And if you were to really read Obama's positions and proposed policies you'd actually discover quite a bit of substance - but you cannot comment on the emptiness of something of which all you know is what you read in the papers or the mags.

      Of course every reference to Ayers or Wright should be answered with just three words: "The Keating Five."

      • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 08/28/2008 2:34:52 PM

        I'm not "hammering against Obama's popularity" just the notion and current political coverage that we need to look no farther at his proposals beyond the platitudes of "change" and "hope." The few policy proposals I've heard coming from Obama relate to silly windfall profit taxes on oil companies (whose 8.1 profit margin falls well within ALL other manufacturing norms and well below other types of business); a call to some fabled "universal health care" system that offers no details on how it could possibly work; and, lastly, a "new" foreign policy approach that seems all of the map -- and little different than what the State Department, the UN, and, yes, even that evil Bush White House is already doing. So, again, Obama is a cool guy...great. But I see no change other than to socialistic, re-dstribution by gunpoint, one-world government type of trype that the Dems have been pushing for years. It sure does get the masses all worked up though.

  • Posted By: loriw @ 08/23/2008 8:49:51 PM

    Ms. Messud,
    I wonder if you would be as excited about donating to the Obama campaign if you knew that Sen. Obama opposes giving infants that a born alive after a failed abortion medical care because it is burdensome to the mother and the abortionist. I wonder if you and Obama feel it is burdensome to the baby to have to die alone in a cold room alone, abandoned....

    • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 08/23/2008 10:05:04 PM

      Where are you digging up this gutter crap? Your mind is unhinged. I think you secretly relish the images you express in your awful posts.

      Nobody but the mother has a right to choose - not you, the the Government, not the church, NOBODY. It's nobody else's business. If a mother's life is at risk, it should be she who is saved, not her unborn infant.. If the mother can't be saved but the child can, then save the child.

      You're talking about terrible stuff, awful, tragic decisions - that have nothing to do with Obama or any Presidential candidate. This is between a mother and her mate, her doctor, her church and whoever she CHOOSES TO INVOLVE.

      Not busybodies like you and the Christian Right. Even Catholics (the normal ones) would agree - they don't walk around their everyday lives spewing dogma of the church. Life happens, and so does death. It's all part of life.

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 08/25/2008 10:17:21 AM

        Those types of birth are less than 1/5 of a percentage of all abortions. What is that, like 0.20%? And this is an issue? Just another example of the radical right wingers grasping at straws...

        • Posted By: Grumpy Old Man @ 08/28/2008 2:30:58 PM

          To summer4077 a 8/25/2008: Numbers are irrelvant. The issue is one of human rights. I am amazed by those who would play such a numbers game and then just spew invective at those who happen to take this seriously. But then I suppose it's all about percentages to Obama supporters. As Howard Dean said, "Barack Obama believes is *some* enforcement of the law." Well, I would like to know what part of the law he's willing to enforce and what he's willing to let go. Perhaps he'll modify his oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend some parts of the Constitution of the United States." Meanwhile, those who might believe in following legal means to change the law need not worry - BO will take such changes under advisement and then decide what he wants to ignore. And don't yump to me about Bush - he's been just as bad.

      • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/23/2008 11:25:48 PM



        Feel free to pass the links I provided below onto other bloggers, etc., because that is the only way people are going to get the information out about Obama past history when he continually blocked the Born Alive Infant Protection Act while he served as state senator. Once he left office, sure enough the bill passed. Obama has been stating that the state bill did not adequately protect Roe v. Wade (his reason why he did not vote for the state bill), when in fact it has been proven that both the State bill and the Federal bill are worded EXACTLY the same (physical proof counters his claim). He is being caught in a lie, and the MainStreamMedia is doing everything they can to keep this information suppressed from public consumption. PLEASE, folks, read these articles and pass them onto others. Thanks. ; - D

        Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act (Part 1 of 5)
        4-2-2008
        By Jill Stanek

        PART 1 of 5

        On JAN. 10, 2005, newly elected U.S. Sen. Barack Obama visited former colleagues and staffers at the Illinois state Capitol, where he had served seven years as state senator. I happened to be at the Capitol that day, too, and a friend and I took the opportunity to speak to Obama, who had not yet achieved rock-star status and was still approachable.
        We were in Springfield to lobby for passage of the STATE BORN ALIVE INFANT PROTECTION ACT, legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. OBAMA SPOKE AGAINST the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and SINGLE-HANDEDLY DEFEATED IT in committee in 2003.

        My friend stood in Obamas path and said, Senator, we are going to pass Born Alive here in Illinois this year. Obama smiled smoothly and agreed, I think you will, adding, I would have voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois HAD IT BEEN WORDED the SAME as the Federal bill. I think that is the position the Democrats should take (, he said).

        THERE IS JUST ONE THING HE FORGOT TO MENTION: Obama had STOPPED his committee from adding the Federal wording. With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

        First Encounter

        An Illinois lawmaker offered the FIRST DRAFT of the states BORN ALIVE INFANT PROTECTION ACT in 2001 after I revealed publicly that Christ Hospital left babies who survived abortion - viable babies whose delivery was induced, and whom the abortionist intended to kill but somehow survived - in a utility room to die.

        The bill, sponsored by (Illinois) state Sen. Patrick O???Malley of Oak Lawn defined BORN ALIVE using LANGUAGE IDENTICAL TO that of FEDERAL LEGISLATION introduced in 2000 by Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., who in turn drafted wording

        Source: http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007034.cfm

        (Continued below - Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act)

      • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/23/2008 11:24:04 PM


        (Continued from above - Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act)

        PART 2 of 5

        developed by the World Health Organization in 1950 and adopted by the United Nations in 1955:

        DEFINING BORN ALIVE:

        The term BORN ALIVE, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the COMPLETE EXPULSION or EXTRACTION from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. I first encountered Barack Obama on March 27, 2001, when I testified before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he was a member. My testimony included my description of holding a premature aborted baby until he died:

        One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an ABORTED DOWNS SYNDROME BABY who was BORN ALIVE TO OUR SOILED UTILITY ROOM because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about ½ pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end, he was so quiet that I could not tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.

        Obama questioned whether the BORN ALIVE legislation would impede the right to abort and doctor/patient decision-making. He and an American Civil Liberties Union attorney speculated BORN ALIVE would force doctors to resuscitate nonviable aborted babies.

        Obama OPPOSED BORN ALIVE in committee, BUT voted PRESENT - neither yes nor no, but merely present - on the Illinois state Senate floor, one of MANY PRESENT VOTES that Hillary Clinton has cited as evidence that Obama lacks leadership skills. Clinton voted for the federal Born Alive bill, putting her on record as more pro-life than Obama.

        Source: http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007034.cfm

        (Continued below - Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act)

      • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/23/2008 11:22:06 PM

        (Continued from above - Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act)

        Part 3 of 5

        Constitutional Blindness

        A graduate of Harvard Law School, Obama TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW at the University of Chicago for 10 years. Both schools are listed in the top 10 law schools in the country. BUT Obama revealed his CONSTITUTIONAL BLIND SPOT in his (own) book The Audacity of Hope:

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created [emphasis added] equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.???

        OBAMA: (T)he essential idea behind the Declaration ??? that we are BORN [emphasis added] into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that cannot be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will, is one that every American understands.

        Note Obamas choice of the word BORN over the word CREATED. Perhaps that helps explain his (Obamas) support for UNRESTRICTED ABORTION. Also note that our BUNDLE OF RIGHTS can be TAKEN AWAY with JUST CAUSE.

        Obama clearly considers abortion a JUST CAUSE. Here is how he argued against Born Alive during Illinois Senate debate in 2001:

        OBAMA: I just want to suggest ??? that this (legislation) is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we are really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - child, a 9-month-old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

        The legislation passed the Senate, but (it) did not survive in the House. When Rep. O???Malley reintroduced Born Alive and its companion bills in 2002, they headed again to the same committee, where Obama rewrote history:

        Source: http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007034.cfm

        (Continued below - Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act)

      • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/23/2008 11:20:15 PM


        (Continued from above - Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act)

        PART 4 of 5

        OBAMA: Ms. Stanek, your initial testimony last year showed your DISMAY AT THE
        LACK OF REGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE. I agreed with you last year, and WE SUGGESTED that there be a Comfort Room or something of that nature be done. The hospital acknowledged that and changes were made and you are still unimpressed. It sounds to me like you are really not interested in how these fetuses are treated, but rather not providing absolutely any medical care or life to them.

        Of course, Obama HAD NOT AGREED with me the year before, and I WAS THE ONE who had TOLD HIM ABOUT THE COMFORT ROOM, which the hospital created in response to MY testimony: We now have this prettily wallpapered room. ??? There is even a NICE WOODEN ROCKER in the room to rock live aborted babies to death.

        The hospital made live birth abortions LOOK NICER, but the end result was still DEAD BABIES.

        OBAMA SAID: What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can not support that, and he voted NO in committee again.

        The bill went again to the Senate floor, where Obama was the SOLE SPEAKER AGAINST IT, claiming that it would impose a BURDEN on PHYSICIANS:
        OBAMA: [T]his [legislation] puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they are performing this procedure, that in fact, this is a nonviable fetus.

        Troubled Conscience?

        Democrats won control of the Illinois state Senate in November 2002, and when Born Alive was REINTRODUCED FOR THE THIRD TIME in 2003, it was directed to the Obama-chaired, infamously LIBERAL Health and Human Services Committee, where HE simply REFUSED TO CALL IT FOR A VOTE.

        By this time Obama was running for U.S. Senate. He won his primary in March 2004, and Republicans recruited former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes, who lived in Maryland, to oppose him. It was Obamas position against Born Alive that persuaded Keyes to run, as he stated in his announcement speech:

        Source: http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007034.cfm

        (Continued below - Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act )

      • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/23/2008 11:18:39 PM



        (Continued from above - Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act )

        PART 5 of 5

        Keyes said: When I was first approached about this possibility, I have to say that my reaction was negative. What finally caught my eye, however . . . what finally arrested my attention and forced me to consider whether I not only had the opportunity to oppose him, but the obligation was when I learned that (OBAMA) had actually, in April 2002, apparently cast a VOTE that would continue to ALLOW LIVE BIRTH ABORTIONS in the state of Illinois.

        We are talking about a situation in which, in the course of an abortion procedure, a child has been born alive, IS OUT OF THE WOMB, breathing and living on its own, and he (OBAMA) CAST A VOTE AGAINST THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULD NOT STAND BY AND LET THAT CHILD DIE!

        This was why Keyes alleged during their campaign that Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, as he explained in an interview with an NBC affiliate:
        Keyes said: CHRIST WOULD NOT STAND IDLY BY WHILE AN INFANT CHILD IN THAT SITUATION DIED. . . Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.

        Obama later admitted Keyes comment NAGGED him and has written or spoke about it several times, although he always misrepresents Keyes rationale as being about abortion support when it was specifically about infanticide support. In a July 2006 opinion piece in USA Today, restated later in The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote:

        If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

        Obamas faith has come into question on the campaign trail. Accused of being a Muslim, he has insisted that he is ROOTED in the CHRISTIAN TRADITION and has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. n fact, Obama has attended the largest church in one of Americas most stridently PRO-ABORTION denominations, the United Church of Christ, for 20 years. His church, Trinity, is located just five miles from Christ Hospital. Obamas pastor, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, served on the board of Christ Hospitals health care system.

        It is ironic in the extreme that the most determined opponents of pre-born life, and even those who are born , embrace the name of the One who caused John the Baptist to leap in his mothers womb. Source: http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007034.cfm

        Another similarly related article by Jill Stanek: http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/newpage36.htm

  • Posted By: FeoAmante @ 08/28/2008 2:13:06 PM

    Classy, cool, hip, glamorous, even sexy. Can the support really be so superficial by the people who claim to support him the most?

  • Posted By: droeges @ 08/28/2008 2:00:02 PM

    This article is nauseating. I don't find Obama to be charismatic, charming, a good speaker, a chosen one, NOTHING!

    • Posted By: wildlifeusa @ 08/28/2008 2:06:39 PM

      Of course, with such a low intellect, how could you?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse