57 Comments

• 1. js  |  February 13th, 2008 at 9:15 am

  Hillary and Billary Putz.

  If you vote for them you gotta be nutz!!

• 2. neocon  |  February 13th, 2008 at 9:37 am

  >>>Chris Matthews expressed his latest over the top admiration for Obama’s speaking skills as the MSNBC anchor admitted that Obama’s speech created a “thrill” in his leg: “It’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.<<<<

  Do you think he meant, the thrill running DOWN his leg?

  I want to see a show of hands, who cries when Obama speaks of his kingdom?

  coulter, no need rasing your hand, it’s a given.

• 3. SEW  |  February 13th, 2008 at 9:59 am

  Matthews can be forgiven for not having that feeling with Hillary, but with Obama? Where are the morality sting police when you need them?

  On topic, I would really like to see a “Democratic” convention battle over disenfranchised voters, entire states, Florida and Michigan. Thousands of lawyers, Florida Supreme Court. What a great spectacle that would be. And poetic.

• 4. coulterfan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 10:09 am

  Who scream like a little girl when Bush says ‘Islamofascists’?

  Seriously, I even tear up at some of Bush’s speeches (when he talks about meeting military families who have lost loved ones, for instance). I also cried when Reagan spoke about the Space Shuttle disaster in 1986. In fact, Bush himself seems to tear up fairly often, not to mention the King of Tears Boehner!

  Usually, though, when Bush stammers. . . I’m just embarrassed for him.

  It’ll be nice to have a President Obama who can actually speak eloquent, inspirational English!

• 5. MagicalPat  |  February 13th, 2008 at 10:09 am

  What about this possibility? Let’s say Hillary knows she is going to lose. Let’s also say that she knows that if Barack gets elected, then it may be 2016 before she gets another chance which we all feel would be too late for her. Is it possible that she would do enough damage to the Democrat party so that Barack would LOSE in the general election, thereby giving her a chance again in 2012? She would not be too old by then and since the Dems rarely re-nominate the loser from the last election, Obama would not be a threat.

• 6. coulterfan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 10:09 am

  BTW, Hillary will concede after 3/4/08.

• 7. coulterfan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 10:14 am

  >>Is it possible that she would do enough damage to the Democrat party so that Barack would LOSE in the general election, thereby giving her a chance again in 2012?

  How about this? Under Pres. Obama, Hillary is appointed to the first open Supreme Court Justice position?

  Since the Republicans STRONGLY support an ‘up or down vote’ on ALL judicial nominees (and are strongly opposed to filibusters), she will sail through the nomination process and be on the bench for another 30 years!

• 8. kjstrouble  |  February 13th, 2008 at 10:31 am

  Coulterfan,

  That last scenario is the one that would make me sick. An agenda driven justice - rather than driven by constitutional law. And we all know that Clinton, whether it is Bill or Hill, would follow their agenda not the constitution.

  I will admit Obama sounds good when he speaks, it is just that what he speaks of is so liberal that I could never support it.

• 9. SteaM  |  February 13th, 2008 at 10:32 am

  I am getting really excited now! It really does look like Obama is going to take this election and rightfully so.

  For ten years I have waited for genuine leader to actually win the hearts of the American people. Having voted twice for candidates who would never win. Finally I think people are coming around.

  How do you guys feel about President Barack Obama?

• 10. kjstrouble  |  February 13th, 2008 at 10:39 am

  Sick. I hope we do not see it. Any other foolish questions Steam? This is a Republican blog, why would you think we would want another far left (according to his voting record) liberal?

• 11. Kahn  |  February 13th, 2008 at 10:41 am

  SteaM:

  Listening to him, I’m having a hard time understanding his positions. Can you outline them for us? Not just the platitudes, what is his plan?

• 12. kjstrouble  |  February 13th, 2008 at 10:45 am

  Kahn,

  Don’t worry about plans, the dems aren’t. They just want someone who can speak well, look good, and appear to be sincere. God help us if in this time of war they get the White House.

• 13. neocon  |  February 13th, 2008 at 10:47 am

  It’s obvious SteaM and coulter have just left a DailyKos pep rally.

  The lemmings are on the march. BTW, wouldn’t you think Hillarys affiliation with the Sojourners, a group that wants to bring Jesus back to Capital Hill and Baraks speech to the Baptist congregation wherein in his speech he used the term “White Folk”, is a little unsettling and a departure in what they profess to believe in?

• 14. hermie  |  February 13th, 2008 at 10:50 am

  Obama had plenty of chances to lead when he was in the Illinois Senate. There was (and still is) plenty of corruption that as a ‘reformer’, he could have addressed. But he went along with the corruption; remaining silent and getting ‘favors’ from Tony Rezko and others who dealt with the Chicago-Daley machine.

  His ‘present’ votes indicate that he was all too willing to go with the crowd and the ‘conventional wisdom’ rather than take stands on legislation he was against. Again, this was no ‘leader’.

  When John Stroger, the aged and infirm Cook County Chairman died, Obama went along and supported Stroger’s son Todd for the Chairmanship. Again, no sign of leadership and willing to accept nepotism and corruption in public office…as long as it was the party bosses that were the beneficiaries.

  When Justice Alito was being confirmed, Obama joined the Dem partisans who tried to filibuster and prevent a vote. He provided no reason for his action other than he expressed ‘concern’ about Alito. He provided no further specifics. That was ‘Leadership’? That was more like a knee-jerk reaction to placate the far left/MoveOn crowd than a reasoned legislator.

  He speaks of ‘change’, but he has demonstrated that he knows how to say the word, but he has never put it into practice.

• 15. coulterfan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 10:54 am

  >>Listening to him, I’m having a hard time understanding his positions. Can you outline them for us? Not just the platitudes, what is his plan?

  Again, just go to his web site and download the 84 page PDF which details his positions. Look, does McCain lay forth specifics in his speeches (other than, “There will be more wars!)?

  You will find a GREAT DEAL of substance if you read through Obama’s positions. Look at the 800 bills he sponsored during his tenure in the IL Senate. In contrast, McCain doesn’t even have a position on HEALTH CARE on his web site! McCain’s ‘positions’ seem hobbled together and there are no specifics (let alone a large PDF download) McCain has also missed more votes in the Senate (like 58%)- more than anyone else who didn’t suffer a brain hemorrage!

  It’s a nice talking point that Obama is all talk and no substance. Unfortunately for the GOP, it is also demonstrably false!

• 16. SteaM  |  February 13th, 2008 at 10:56 am

  http://www.barackobama.com/issues

  Kahn,

  if you are curious feel free to read.

• 17. coulterfan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 10:56 am

  Deleted - unsubstantiated allegation.

• 18. Retired Spook  |  February 13th, 2008 at 11:00 am

  On topic, I would really like to see a “Democratic” convention battle over disenfranchised voters, entire states, Florida and Michigan. Thousands of lawyers, Florida Supreme Court. What a great spectacle that would be. And poetic.

  SEW, careful what you wish for.

  Just some random thoughts. First, when did the Clintons EVER do anything that put the interests of the Democrat Party first? I personally don’t see Hillary giving up unless she is mathematically eliminated between now and the convention. A more likely scenario is that she will begin leaking dirt on Obama and sue to have the Michigan and Florida delegates seated at the convention, thus stealing the nomination. Since blacks have a tendency to riot when they don’t get their way or perceive themselves to have been wronged, the resulting riots will make 1968 look like a Sunday picnic. Whomever the Dem candidate ends up being, McCain wins a 42 or 43 state landslide.

  I wouldn’t go so far as to make this a prediction, but it’s not all that implausible either. Seriously, what, if anything, has the Democrat Party done recently that would lead anyone to believe they have the collective presence of mind to avoid such a scenario?

• 19. SteaM  |  February 13th, 2008 at 11:01 am

  http://origin.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

• 20. SteaM  |  February 13th, 2008 at 11:04 am

  Since blacks have a tendency to riot when they don’t get their way or perceive themselves to have been wronged, the resulting riots will make 1968 look like a Sunday picnic.

  Well that’s a racist thing to say. Nice job genius.

• 21. Tractatus  |  February 13th, 2008 at 11:25 am

  Since blacks have a tendency to riot when they don’t get their way or perceive themselves to have been wronged, the resulting riots will make 1968 look like a Sunday picnic.

  Except, of course, that the last time people got physical over an election was 2000, when a bunch of Goopers put on the Brooks Brothers Riot in an attempt to intimidate vote-counters. (Ahhhh, rioting to prevent votes from being counted–now that’s good old fashioned Republicanism!) But yes, it’s those shifty Black people who are the real threat. Can’t wait for the next thread in which you guys wonder why Blacks don’t vote Republican.

• 22. Retired Spook  |  February 13th, 2008 at 11:27 am

  Well that’s a racist thing to say. Nice job genius.

  Yeah, SteaM, I almost apologized in advance, because I figured someone would take it that way. There was no racist intent on my part. What I said is just an historic fact. I’m sorry if the truth hurts, but what other demographic or ethnic group has the history of rioting that blacks do?

• 23. Retired Spook  |  February 13th, 2008 at 11:32 am

  Can’t wait for the next thread in which you guys wonder why Blacks don’t vote Republican.

  I don’t wonder at all why blacks don’t vote Republican. It matters not a whit to me if a single black person EVER votes Republican. Blacks as a group have been rewarded so well for their overwhelming support of the Democrat Party, why would they ever want to change that?

• 24. Kahn  |  February 13th, 2008 at 11:51 am

  Coulter and SteaM - thanks for the links. I’ll look them over. But to be clear… YOU couldn’t outline his positions on anything?

  Can you? Can any regular liberal poster here outline his positions with referencing an 84 f’ing page document?

  Conservatives - resist the urge to fill in the blanks for them. I don’t think any of them have any idea what Obamas positions are.

• 25. searp  |  February 13th, 2008 at 11:51 am

  It occurs to me that Mark and Matt and the other CPACers have already lost the upcoming election.

  McCain is not their guy, and has made a career of not being their guy. Regardless of what he says now, he will not be reading the CPAC book when it comes time to be the decider.

  The “conservative” branch of the GOP (I think Bush branch) will lose a lot of power and influence, regardless of who wins the next election.

  Time to rebuild, for those of the CPAC persuasion. I don’t underestimate the capability, not at all, but that is where CPAC is at these days.

• 26. TiredofLibBullShit  |  February 13th, 2008 at 11:56 am

  “….wonder why Blacks don’t vote Republican.”

  I don’t have to wonder….votes are bought and paid for by Liberal vote buying schemes…….uh, ah, ahem, excuse me, “social uplift” programs.

  Remember, the so-called “black leaders” reluctantly forgave Clinton for Welfare Reform.

  Truth hurts.

• 27. TiredofLibBullShit  |  February 13th, 2008 at 11:59 am

  “Coulter and SteaM - thanks for the links. I’ll look them over. But to be clear… YOU couldn’t outline his positions on anything?

  Can you? Can any regular liberal poster here outline his positions with referencing an 84 f’ing page document?”

  Khan, these two do the same when they talk about global warming.

• 28. SteaM  |  February 13th, 2008 at 12:12 pm

  Kahn,

  I can I just don’t have time because he actually has good enough plans that are a bit detailed and so they take a while to explain. That’s why people have to read for themselves. Besides, I don’t think I can lay it out as well as he can.

• 29. Almiranta  |  February 13th, 2008 at 12:32 pm

  I have gone to the Obama web site, and found it to be somewhat lacking, technically, so downloading was slow and awkward. But I did read a lot, and print out a lot—and so far, have found a mishmash of Magical Thinking, government growth, SPENDING!!!!!, and vague platitudes.

  He is very big on concentrating on racial divisions, reincarnating an era in which black woman cleaned up after white folk and then got slammed with billy clubs and attacked with fire hoses. Now THAT’s progressive!! We need another candidate who depends on past sins, who concentrates on negatives, whose agenda is to divide along racial lines. It makes me very suspicious to see a black canddiate going to so much trouble to stir up old racial issues, that are far in our past. Sounds so—demagogic.

  He is also working up the old debunked but emotionally powerful claims of recent voter “disenfranchisement” based on race. The claims were made, they were not supported. And most of the claims were blatantly flimsy even at first glance—police had a crime scene taped off along one route to a polling place, which was translated by the race-baiters as an effort to “intimidate” black voters. That kind of nonsense, but it has been resurrected by Barack in preparation for similar claims in 2008.

  But then his church, on its website, says it is “unashamedly Black” so he is clearly working the race thing for all it’s worth.

  His Civil Rights focus seems to really concentrate on expanding the Thought Police, as he openly states he wants to “expand” hate crime legislation and enforcement.

  Great—we need more government intrusion into our very thoughts. We need more bureaucrats telling us what we MEANT and THOUGHT—and punishment for those thoughts—–and we need more stratification of our our laws, so a white man killing a black man is more awful than a white man killing a white man, based of course on the assertion that the killing of one of another race (or gender) is worse, somehow. I love the idea that when a whilte man kills a white man, there was no hatred or negative emotion involved—and so, of course, it’s not as important.

  Oh, and at the same time, out of the other side of his mouth, he pledges to UNITE Americans. Maybe after they have been divided some more, his Brave New World government can reshuffle everyone and put them back together in a collectively satisfactory way.

  And it goes on, and on, and on—platitude after platitude, rash promises based on wishful thinking or, worse yet, Magical Thinking.

  He also seems to think he is running for the position of King. It is “Obama will reverse” this and “Obama will ban” that and “Obama will strengthen” the other. Too bad his YEARS AND YEARS of experience in the state legislature didn’t educate him a little better regarding the way the country works. The Pres certainly does not have the power to “reverse” or “ban” or “strengthen”—or “provide” or “give” or “empower”.

  Oh, and there’s lots and lots and LOTS of spending. You would be hard pressed to find a more Socialist platform unless you actually could find a candidate willing to wear a big red star.

  He’s going to “improve” education—wanna bet that involves giving the teachers’ unions more money and power, and stomping on the idea of school vouchers? I didn’t see a commitment to re-establishing the idea, and reality, of free speech on college campuses, which would sure be an improvement—though antithical to the indoctrination that goes on now.

  He’s going to add more jobs for the disabled, while at the same time taxing businesses to the max. How’s that gonna work, exactly? I’ll bet the State will pick up the tab.

  And so on……………..

• 30. coulterfan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

  >>There was no racist intent on my part. What I said is just an historic fact.

  Umm, okay. . . Like the ‘Boston Tea Party’ which was instigated by black people? Or the revolutionary war, the civil war (the most traitorous act in our nation’s history, BTW), etc, etc. . .

  How about you read “Rioting in America” by Gilje who talks about the earliest history of rioting in America:

  “The colonial elite, seeking to resist British power, mobilized their countrymen, extensively using mobs (there were 150 riots between 1765 and 1769 and at least an equal number during the 1770s), to propel the movement; but as Gilje argues in “Rioting in the Revolution,” the plebeians started to get out of hand as the revolution idealized the sovereignty of the people and the concept of individual and equal rights. As more men participated in public life and a more universal definition of rights emerged, the political and social order was altered and the patricians shrank back from social upheaval, quickly seeking to eliminate mobs and public disorder. Though there were some very important riots and instances of public disorder between the 1780s and 1820s”

  America was started by rioting against the British.

  Kahn-

  I could speak extensively of Obama’s plans, but what’s the point? I mean, which specific areas are you interested in? His plans for expanding community service (Americorps and the like) for which college students would get a $4000.00 per year tax credit? His plans for spending 150 billion on alternative energy research over the next 10 years (we spend $177 MILLION per DAY in Iraq!) Maybe you’re curious about his health care plan, which would reduce the cost of health care for those whom already have coverage an average of $2500.00 per year. . .

  It’s all there on his web site. . . Let me know if you want more specifics in any one area and I’ll help you understand.

  BTW, what is McCain’s plan for health care (one of the top 5 issues for ALL Americans in every poll)? Where can I find out specifics on McCain’s health care plan? Please explain it for me or tell me where I can find out about it!

• 31. coulterfan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 12:40 pm

  >>And it goes on, and on, and on—platitude after platitude, rash promises based on wishful thinking or, worse yet, Magical Thinking.

  “Magical Thinking”? Like “they will welcome us with flowers and chocolates”? “They will greet us as liberators”? “Freedom is on the march”?

  Hey, if you think that we can’t afford Obama’s plans. . . then you CERTAINLY can’t think we can afford the ‘War in Iraq’! It has cost almost a TRILLION DOLLARS- the deficit for this year is 400 BILLION!!!

  If we can’t afford to spend money rebuilding America, why can we spend money we don’t have rebuilding Iraq?

  I think we should rebuild AMERICA FIRST!!!

• 32. SteaM  |  February 13th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

  Almiranta,

  Do you feel better now that you’ve said all of that? I think you are very frustrated, confused, illinformed, feel a bit screwed over by your party, and are projecting it on us in the form of histarical anti-Obama tirades that are baseless in truth.

• 33. Almiranta  |  February 13th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

  How quickly the radicals rush to hurl the ephitet “racist” when they are told something they do not like.

  Tell us, please, oh namecallers, where we can link to videos, or even just plain old print stories, of Hispanics rioting when a Latino is convicted of a crime. Or people of Asian descent rioting and looting when an Asian is arrested, or convicted? (Stealing televisions being a time-honored method of political dissent, doncha know..)

  And of course we all remember the terrible White Riots in L.A. when O.J. Simpson was acquitted—oh, the HORROR!!!!!

  Nope, guys, acknowledging a historical fact is not racist. A huge proportion of the black population of this country has been conditioned by their Liberal masters to consider themselves an Official Designated Victim Group, to be above the law, and to feel entitled to special status. The Dem Party has callously played one race off against another for decades, for political gain. Look at the invented stories of racial discrimination during the last two national elections—stories fabricated to turn one race against another and to sow dissent, distrust, and suspicion, as well as to undermine the rightful authority of those elected. It is sad, and it is found offensive by conservatives who feel that all people, of all colors, races, religions, and backgrounds should be judged on their merits as individual human beings, and treated equally.

  The Democrat Party has been buying black votes for decades with a mixture of bribery—”here is (barely enough) money to live on” and fear/hatred—”white people are your enemies, hate you, will harm you, and you need us to protect you”. We saw that in New Orleans when people were absolutely terrified to leave their own little neighborhoods, “knowing” how dangerous it would be for them out there in WhiteLand. What a surprise it was when the relocated people found warmth, acceptance, help, homes, jobs—the opposite of what they had been fed in the pursuit of maintaining the plantatiion mentality the Dems need to guarantee that voting block.

  Anyone who doubts that we could easily face rioting and other signs of racial unrest and anger should Obama be defeated is simply historically ignorant.

• 34. hermie  |  February 13th, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  coulterfan:

  Obama gave the money to charity AFTER it was discovered he had done so…In short, he got caught so he had to give up some cash which by that point it didn;t put a crimp in his pocketbook.

  and BTW, why are you bothering mentioning Bush? You seem to forget that Obama took the money…this same supposedly squeaky-clean agent of ‘change’ who is no more different than his fellow machine Dems.

  ‘Change we can believe in…with some folding money to go with the change… and a piece of choice real estate would be nice too.”

• 35. Almiranta  |  February 13th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

  coulterfan, if you are capable of shame, you have earned it with your two nonsensical, irrelevant, tirades about things like the Boston Tea Party.

  You, of the party that whines “But that is in the PAAAASSSSTTT!!!!” when anyone brings up any of the Clinton shenanigans.

  I am usually amused by your ardent and unquestioning radicalism, but this time I am truly embarrassed for you.

  But let’s look at your comments:

  “…..plans for expanding community service (Americorps and the like) for which college students would get a $4000.00 per year tax credit…” SPENDING. Funded by punitive taxes on the most productive Americans, a scheme which has, historically, inhibited economic growth, a plan which dramatically expands the scope of government. You illustrate my point.

  “….plans for spending 150 billion on alternative energy research over the next 10 years…” SPENDING, you illustrate my point.

  “…. (we spend $177 MILLION per DAY in Iraq!) ” Irrelevant. But I’m sure it was emotionallly satisfying..

  “…..his health care plan, which would reduce the cost of health care for those whom already have coverage an average of $2500.00 per year.” How? Doesn’t it involve more State involvement (read: control over peoples’ lives..) and how would it be funded? SPENDING. SOCIALISM. You illustrate my point.

  You sneer, from your self-defined position of the Higher Moral Ground, “..Let me know if you want more specifics in any one area and I’ll help you understand.”

  I understand his HOPES—hopes for CHANGE, if I remember correctly, and furthermore CHANGE one can BELIEVE in. The only thing you could possibly ‘explain’ to me that would be of any interest whatsoever is which of his “plans” depend on a free market system, the strength of the individual, and the freedom from government intervention to allow expansion and problem-solving. As long as his “plans” are really just expansions of the Democrat Sociailst Agenda, whether they depend on Magical Thinking or actual confiscation of private property for redistribution by the expanded State, there is not much else to say.

  And steamy, you are not even trying. I gave some honest, objective, examples of what Obama says he wants to accomplish, in his own words, from his own web site. And I gave my opinions on those statements.

  How glib, though silly, of you to try to dismiss what I said as “….histarical (sic)anti-Obama tirades that are baseless in truth….” Nothing I said could be construed as “anti-Obama”—you silly hyper-emotional radicals seem so dependent on reacting to objective analysis as personal attacks when they make you uncomfortable—-and honest questions about the reality of his own statements is hardly a “tirade”.

  You don’t address the concern that this whole “hate crimes” thing is just another way to introduce and empower Thought Police—since when is what a person is THINKING grounds for increased punishment? Not in a free society, it isn’t.

  You don’t address any of the relevant points I made about specifics in Obama’s bogus “plan”. You just felt bad when you read what I wrote, so figured I was wrong. No thought, no reason, just blind irrational EMOTION—the bedrock of the Obama campaign.

• 36. Almiranta  |  February 13th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

  steamy, did you ever pick up on the irony of accusing me, when I quote from Obama’s own web site, of being “illinformed”?

  And your projection of how you think I FEEL about my “own party” is silly. And irrelevant. And silly. And irrelevant.

• 37. Retired Spook  |  February 13th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

  coulter, “Boston Tea Party”? Give me a break. Can you come up with a significant riot that involved mass violence, looting, burning buildings and smashing store fronts in, say the last 50 years that was instigated by other than a black mob?

  And the “Brookes Brothers riot, Florida 2000? LOL, no one was even arrested — pretty lame, but then that seems to be par for the course with most of your posts.

• 38. Ricorun  |  February 13th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

  Almiranta: “….plans for spending 150 billion on alternative energy research over the next 10 years…” SPENDING, you illustrate my point.

  Actually, I consider this more of an investment that could pay off handsomely.

• 39. Mark Noonan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 1:55 pm

  SteaM,

  You keep coming here and saying “detailed” about Obama’s plan. We keep going there and noting that whatever else one might want to call it, “detailed” isn’t the word to use…so, please stop calling it detailed.

• 40. Mark Noonan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

  And - HEY!!!! - back on subject, everyone: we’re talking here not about whether Obama is a wonderful man or not, but whether either Hillary or Obama will step aside for the other.

• 41. Ricorun  |  February 13th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

  Mark: You keep coming here and saying “detailed” about Obama’s plan. We keep going there and noting that whatever else one might want to call it, “detailed” isn’t the word to use…so, please stop calling it detailed.

  Then how was it possible to come up with the “Obama Spendometer”?

• 42. SteaM  |  February 13th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

  Mark,

  Don’t lecture me on what the meaning of “detailed” is. Come on dude.

  Almirants,

  A Republican president and a GOP led congress screwed the nation and bungled a war in the middle east.

  A lot of Americans recognize this and are voting with this in mind.

  Just sayin.

  Also, Mark, I would love it right now if Hillary stepped aside. It’s unfortunate because I like her almost as much as Obama. But I don’t think she will or should step aside just yet. We are still deciding, voting, talking, debating, etc. We The People of the United States of America have the right and duty to debate the issues and study our candidates up to the last minute before choosing a leader. It is that important to take our time and do this right. Had we done that with President George W. Bush we would have known that something’s not right and we would have chosen better leadership, if not the first time, definietly the second term.

  I still think back and think how things would’ve been different had Al Gore actually won. But he didn’t. You guys had your chance. Now step aside, or be united with your country and lets “move on” and make some “progress”.

• 43. Kahn  |  February 13th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

  Cauncey Obama. In the Garden, there is winter. But it’s floowed by spring and summer…

• 44. Kahn  |  February 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm

  yikes - followed.

• 45. Casper  |  February 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

  “Can you come up with a significant riot that involved mass violence, looting, burning buildings and smashing store fronts in, say the last 50 years that was instigated by other than a black mob?”

  How about the antiwar riots outside of the 1968 Democratic convention.

  Actually, there have been hundreds of riots by whites over the years, including the draft riots during the civil War and dozens of labor riots during the late 1800s and the early 1900s.

• 46. SteaM  |  February 13th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

  Pfft… I live in a college town in the midwest. Take any friday night outside the strip where all the dance clubs are. You’ll see white people rioting, puking, trashing the place.

• 47. TiredofLibBullSh**  |  February 13th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

  “Pfft… I live in a college town in the midwest. Take any friday night outside the strip where all the dance clubs are. You’ll see white people rioting, puking, trashing the place.”

  So using your logic, all the blacks who rioted in 1968 and after the Rodney King case were drunk coming from a night club.

  Okaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy.

• 48. Retired Spook  |  February 13th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

  How about the antiwar riots outside of the 1968 Democratic convention.

  That’s ONE, Casper.

  Actually, there have been hundreds of riots by whites over the years, including the draft riots during the civil War and dozens of labor riots during the late 1800s and the early 1900s.

  Thanks for making my point.

• 49. SteaM  |  February 13th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

  Spook,

  It’s a racist comment no matter how you paint it for us.

• 50. David.B.Schmidt  |  February 13th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

  How did I hear the Democratic Convention referred to? Or quite possibly, it could be their slogan for ’08 I heard.

  ”Selected ~ not Elected”

  I can not see Senator Clinton giving up but I wouldn’t doubt with some strong-arm tactics and backroom deals Senator Obama could be “persuaded” to drop.

• 51. hermie  |  February 13th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

  Well, I’m waiting for the first Clinton surrogate to produce a picture of Obama in bed with the dead underage hooker.

• 52. Retired Spook  |  February 13th, 2008 at 5:02 pm

  It’s a racist comment no matter how you paint it for us.

  SteaM, take it however you want; I couldn’t care less. What you think of me is of ZERO importance. Just don’t be too surprised when the Clintons pull out the sharp knives and go after Obama. “Whatever it takes”; that’s their motto.

• 53. Fmr Marine  |  February 13th, 2008 at 7:00 pm

  Steam-bath

  Racist but CORRECT.
  What is racist? how do you come to that conclusion?
  If I say 95% of AIDS infected people are homosexual’s or intravenous drug users is that a statement of fact? or an attack on homos and drug users?
  The “racist” card is the marxist way of stopping all dialog.
  Since the 1950’s it is a FACT nearly every major city has had portions of it ruined by black riots.

  You want to talk about money spent, do a study this has cost the taxpayer, and report back here with your results.
  I still say ANYBODY but -Satan or hillery.

• 54. phnx  |  February 13th, 2008 at 8:53 pm

  “Change we can believe in”

  Does this mean that Barry Obama supports reparations for the decendants of slaves?

  How about you Obamaniacs, so you also support reparations?

• 55. phnx  |  February 13th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

  Re dropping out: Hillary will have to be dragged kicking and screaming from the stage when she loses.

• 56. Mind Numbed Robot  |  February 13th, 2008 at 9:42 pm

  If Barry is the Dem nominee, I hope that someone asks both he and McCain what their position is on reparations. Its a no win question for Barry.

• 57. SteaM  |  February 13th, 2008 at 11:37 pm

  spook and fmr marine,

  Still sounds really super racist to me.