Come on people..... he's headed straight to the center of the storm. The idea that he can't handle the Republican attack machine, that somehow they will be able to twist his politics into something persuasive and too offensive.

This is how you 'transform' politics. Go straight up to the bastards and tweak them on the nose. Guaranteed I (and many others) will be watching the 2 minute clips full of context where he will shred them..... and i will cheer.

The fox news constituents were ALREADY biased against him.... remember that he is a Muslim terrorist who hangs out with angry blacks and evil real estate tycoons.

He has no where to go but up and balls of steel. Hillary has some stones, don't get me wrong..... but you don't see her going to talk about Whitewater and Monica on Fox do you.

GO OBAMA!!!!

Posted at April 26, 2008 3:57 PM in response to Senior Obama Adviser: Obama Will "Take Fox On" In Appearance This Sunday

The silver lining in this cloud is 1) Obama is getting great practice, HRC and MCCAIN appeal to the same swing voters he needs in the general and 2) Makes McCain look a lot like the democratic leadership ...... which if MCCain is Dem-Lite why will his fanatics turn out?

Posted at April 22, 2008 12:27 AM in response to Clinton: We Will "Totally Obliterate" Iran If They Attack Israel

Yeah it really is amazing how the Managing Editor of the Harvard Law Review doesn't know anything about business, the case studies and litigation he's reviewed on this subject makes him wholly unqualified to talk about corporate governance. Clearly, you're a genius and have immediately spotted the flaw in his plan. LOL.

There are clear cases of executive nepotism where slack-offs are paid like crazy. He should have probably mentioned that some exec's make big numbers because they are expected to stage a turn-around and sometimes thats just not possible. Share-holders given that they have a direct stake in this, are the appropriate vehicle to check this behavior. The board's favorite golfing buddy is not always the best choice. Making sure there is a check on those kind of decisions isn't bad policy; its appropriate.

If you believe it won't result in any change at all. You must be one of those super intelligent guys who believe markets are 100% efficient.... 'we can't have idiots in charge, look how much money they make'. After all that never happens huh?

Posted at April 11, 2008 12:20 PM in response to Obama To Take On McCain Over Bloated CEO Salaries

Seriously. Re-read that hate-speech you wrote earlier. Its laced with so many obvious racist overtones I can open up a text book and just use the highlighter. That you don't get that and actually said it, and now the readers of this forum are supposed to accept your apology and continue a dialog with you is absurd.

I don't want to hear your thoughts on Hillary again... ever. While I believe in a 2 way discourse, that you are a Democrat just reminds me that 50 years ago democrats were the party of racism.... Jim Crow lived in the South for a very long time because of this party, and sometimes I need a reminder.

I wish the forum here could tag or highlight someone's "Best" comments with a rating from other users. If we had that feature, I assure you RaeK no one would ever take you seriously again.

Posted at April 10, 2008 9:26 PM in response to Poll: Obama Slips Against McCain, Now Losing Among Independents

I don't know, why don't you tell us like a 3rd or 4th time. If your argument is true, aren't your examples doing the exact same thing?

Ad hominem attacks are indicative of how a person thinks. Repeating them with indignation is not promotion. Otherwise the democratic rantings over GW has made him more popular; or talking about how vile black licorice is would make it more popular. And I just don't think thats true.

While some people may hide behind false pretense, it shouldn't be the reason others critique it. Otherwise, for example, we get a-holes dropping the n-bomb on a public forum without outcry.

Posted at April 10, 2008 9:20 PM in response to Poll: Obama Slips Against McCain, Now Losing Among Independents

Those comments are out of line..... as is your contention that I should even acknowledge that silliness. Do I need to get on the airwaves each time a candidate I don't support is disparaged by some radio personality.

Furthermore, the comment you are referring too, isn't the right wing of the attack squad. This is peanuts in comparison to the GE. Ever wonder why people like Rush Limbaugh are bringing the GOP to vote for her in primaries..... because she is way to freaking easy to tear down.

So basically, I'm inferring your comment is both inflammatory and short-sighted.

Clinton will lose because no one likes her. End of story. No amount of policy and pandering will change this. She's "not hardened" shes unlikeable. Her background is 90% known, and its been a national crisis of epic proportions. Her family and approach is what got Bush into office.... anyone remember white water, monica, etc.?

That she has a better record is a bit of joke, there isn't anything substantial on it that doesn't have Bill's signature at the bottom. Her record is long, storied, and empty. That you feel secure knowing she won't do anything useful and be a moderate is why the electorate disagrees with you and are ready to send both these old fogey and BIGOTED antiques 'out to pasture'.

Posted at April 10, 2008 7:13 PM in response to Poll: Obama Slips Against McCain, Now Losing Among Independents

I'm not sure everyone has seen this. But American's overwhelmingly say the country is ready for a Black president. And just about 10% less say the same for a woman.

Democrats repeating this line of reasoning is what gives this bigotry a chance to work its magic.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/03/poll.black.president/

Posted at April 10, 2008 6:51 PM in response to Poll: Obama Slips Against McCain, Now Losing Among Independents

I'll break ranks here with you guys and say that I think "Davey P." is doing a pretty damn good job all things considered. Remember that he is authorized by Congress but reports to the president, and he's trained to win battles and wars but not to mediate ethnically derived civil wars.

He knows he can't "win" because his Boss doesn't know what that even means. He knows he needs to make progress, and made some, with 30,000 troops. Remember the troop counts the generals estimated they needed to get the situation under control back in the day (somewhere near 4 times our current troop levels).

I think he's a pretty sharp guy in an unusual circumstance.... lets throw rocks at retarded senators, but we only have so many good leaders in our military, lets not confuse the problem.

Its like telling your plumber they are stupid because the house your architect designed looks ridiculous with orange paint?

Posted at April 8, 2008 8:03 PM in response to Graham: You Guys Are The Best

Dijamo,

You're angry, and on the losing side. Hillary has done a great job of keeping intelligent, ordinarily well-reasoned folks beating to her drum.

Obama hasn't won the nomination, its true. But Hillary has indeed lost it. She really can't win.

I want you to have hope for Obama as well. As much or more than you had for Hillary. But its time to move on. We aren't telling Hillary to step down, or for you to give up on her. We're asking. Please, for the love of God, look at the math and start pushing Obama to refine his policy objectives if thats what it will take. But put your shoulder behind the person who is facing against McCain.

Sounds like you need a little "hope dust", in the end its Hillary who is going away.

Posted at April 8, 2008 7:38 PM in response to Leahy: Hillary Has "Every Right, But Not A Very Good Reason" To Stay In Race

Amazing the Desidero and BevD can stir up this much controversy. Write off this nomination to sexism if you like. However, I think there is ample room to argue that Obama will do more to broaden the tent for all minorities, and women, than HRC would ever even contemplate. Odd don't you think that such a bad ass like Madeline Albright who has 8 years of Iraq policy under her belt is nary mentioned by their campaign, and instead I get to hear the insights of feminists like Sandy Berger.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on why Steinem and others considered leaders in the feminism movement are supporting Obama and not HRC.

In their long, educated, and storied career of defending women's rights. How can you guys be so convinced your on the right side of this issue, and the respected leadership be so wrong???

Posted at March 31, 2008 6:57 PM in response to ALICE WALKER ON OBAMA Ignore the other post