Edwards on Obama: "He has a different view. His has a more of a friendly view..."

[jenmito]

This was regarding dealing with "powerful, entrenched interests." He said Obama believes you can sit at a table and negotiate with them and somehow they'll compromise away their power. I believe we have to take 'em on..."

Then when he was asked if he thinks Obama has the experience to be president, he once again painted him as weak...it's a question of whether or not he has the "toughness" to be president among other things. So is this his new approach? Painting Obama as too nice and too weak to fight? :eyes:

How tough was Edwards when he was busy co-sponsoring the IWR while Obama was publicly calling it a dumb war (right before running for the U.S. Senate?)

[joeybee12]

1. Oh come on, this is politics...

...John Edwards has a right to spin things any way he wants...you don't have to agree with him, but it ain't the end of the world!

[jenmito]

2. I didn't say it's the end of the world. It just bugs me how he's painting Obama as "soft."

[joeybee12]

5. Hell, maybe its' just GDP...

...everybody posts everything!!!

[killbotfactory]

3. It will be hard to take on corporate interests head on

Half of our party is in one corporate pocket or another, and they own the mainstream media. The problems go a lot deeper than just the presidency. If you take a confrontational tone, they'll just force the system into gridlock until the voters are fed up with everyone involved, while the news shows and pundits regurgitate their propaganda against anything that stands to harm corporate profits. I'm not convinced Edwards will do this, and from his past involvement with a hedge fund, the IWR, and trying to pass a bankruptcy bill under Clinton, I'm betting this kind of rhetoric changes drastically if he gets the nomination. We need a huge informed grassroots movement that's not easily swayed by the mainstream media to be able to take on corporate interests.

If anyone can accomplish the latter, I think it's Obama, who has spent pretty much every day of his life after college fighting for, and most importantly, organizing the little guy, even when he didn't stand to profit from it.

[jenmito]

6. Yes-good points...

Edwards is NOW trying to be the "fighter of special interests" while claiming ignorance about his involvement in the hedge fund, claiming he was wrong about the IWR, and other things, too. As soon as he got out of the Senate and the war went bad, he became the "fighter for the people." He's a phony.

[gmudem]

20. The hedge fund thing

It's funny how much Edwards bashers talk about his involvement in hedge funds yet both Clinton and Obama have received nearly a million dollars from hedge funds while Edwards has received a quarter of that amount.

I wouldn't want facts to get in the way of some good Edwards bashing though.

[jenmito]

32. Edwards made an ingenuous claim that it was to "learn" about them...

just one of many phony claims.

[ChiciB1]

65. Yeah, That Was A Great Post Earlier Today By bvar22! Both Clinton & Obama

have some pretty high numbers!

[killbotfactory]

70. Yeah, gee, I wonder which is worse

A candidate who worked for a hedge fund, or a candidate who got donations from people who work for hedge funds. Yeah, I can see how the latter would be worse.

[ClarkUSA]

4. Funny, Obama passed comprehensive lobbyist reform in the Illinois state legislature

He got bipartisan support for a bill that was initially laughed off because no one thought it would ever come close to passing.
As a senator, he also passed the transparency in government act which opened up to the public the names of all corporations
getting contracts and how much they're getting and what they're providing. The website just went up this month.

Obama clothes his steel fist in a velvet glove... and despite being a liberal, he has the most crossover appeal of any Democrat
running for president. Edwards can bring up his opinion all he wants, but that doesn't change the facts about Obama's legislative
record or his own.

[jenmito]

7. EXACTLY...

Obama's tougher than Edwards. He DOES have a steel fist in a velvet glove. It looks like Edwards is trying to take a page from Hillary about not being tough enough to handle special interests (or the GOP in Hillary's claim).

[ClarkUSA]

8. Yes, this "tough enough" argument is one that both of Obama's rivals have been pushing

To no avail, if recent polling is anything to go by. I believe Iowans understand this is simply political rhetoric. Besides, many voters
are tired of all the pugilistic posturing, having been worn out by partisan deadlock and bickering since the 90's until today.
That's why Obama (and his message) has the most crossover appeal, despite his very liberal record.

[Radical Activist]

12. You don't get elected on the South side of Chicago without being a machine candidate

unless you're tough as nails. There's no better training ground for politics than Chicago.

[ellisonz]

22. Exactly.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZC8C_JH2eQc

Barack Obama: Tougher Than Nails.

[jenmito]

34. Yup. That's what I keep telling people who claim he's a DINO-a sell-out because some Repubs. like

him. He's true to his beliefs and even though he's liberal Repubs. still like him for being honest, refreshing, and inspirational. Very much the opposite of Hillary and Edwards.

[K Gardner]

9. Can you provide a link for your quotes? I'd really like to see them in context. n/t

[jenmito]

36. Not yet. He was live today talking to Wolf Blitzer on "Late Edition."

But I kept pausing the tv to get the words in quotes right.

[ellisonz]

60. He said the same thing on This Week.

[jenmito]

61. Oh. OK. I tivo This Week and will be watching it in a little while...

I watch every political Sunday show. MTP with Romney was hilarious. Flip-flop--Flip Mitt.

[Cha]

10. I'd love to see an Obama/Edwards

ticket not necessarily in that order. I never liked Edwards view(or Kerry's) the way he thought in 2003 for awhile but they both changed or I wouldn't be for him.

I don't care that Obama doesn't have experience in that "vaulted" senate that's been a damn farce supporting chimphead for the last 5 years..I'm looking at his life and except for that damn mcclurkin idiocy I've liked what I've seen.

[Radical Activist]

11. So Edwards never negotiated a settlement with a corporation

during his law career?

Come on. Even the most left wing anti-corporate activists know that at some point you have to be willing to sit down and talk with the other side.

I can't believe this Johnny come liberal lately expects us to forget his DLC moderate record in the Senate. Why weren't you saying this stuff 6 years ago John? Obama has a far more progressive career record than Edwards.

[jenmito]

38. Of course he must've, which is why I consider him to be a

phony, "Johnny-come-lately" just like you. :hi:

[BeyondGeography]

13. Edwards is worth $54 million, much of it coming from civil settlements with corporations

He puts half his money into a hedge fund, which is the ultimate high-torque money-making machine on the Street. And this is the guy we're supposed to put out there as our anti-greed symbol? If you're worth $50-plus million and you plow half your dough into a fund that seeks 20-30-40% returns, there's only one conclusion to be reached: you are one money-lovin' greedy SOB.

And Edwards is supposed to have more credibility on the matter of fighting greed than Obama, who has passed on opportunities to make money at every turn in his life in order to work for communities and protect civil rights?

Is there any common sense at all in Edwards Land? The man would be eviscerated, torn to bits for these apparent contradictions (and, notice, I haven't even mentioned the house...oops, Mark Penn moment there).

[annie1]

15. What is wrong with being worth 50 million dollars?...

he was a great lawyer, and nothing wrong with making money and nothing wrong with playing the wall street game. i hate this argument about edwards. same one against gore for having a big house and being an environmentalist.

[BeyondGeography]

16. He is so easily lampooned as a greedy person who rails against greed

Take the blinders off.

[annie1]

19. the point is what is the actual problem with it? that's how you're stating it...

as if it is in itself a problem. it's pathetic that people buy it yes, and that's the worry, but it sounds like you're buying into it too.

[cali]

37. Nothing wrong with his having money. A shitload wrong with

investing 24 million dollars in a hedge fund. A shitload wrong with working for one. Hedge funds are the sleaziest, most unregulated and most corrupt players in the financial services sector. period.

[sandnsea]

14. USASpending.gov

I don't think exposing all these corporate contracts is exactly "friendly".

I think Obama invites them to the table so he can tell them to their face why they aren't going to get their way.

[jenmito]

41. Exactly. Just like meeting with our enemies...

doesn't mean they're going to get their way. I guess Edwards is just trying to explain his new "tough" approach, phony as it is.

[oasis]

17. Obama's perceived to be too Oprahfied to be a tough leader. (eom)

[Adelante]

18. Why, aren't you the clever one? nt

[peoli]

21. Edwards wishes he was Obama

Edwards wishes he came from nowhere. Thats what his main problem is. He is talking the Obama talk without a core to support it. People can see it, that's why he'll lose and thats why he should bow down to Obama. The only reason Edwards should attack Obama is if he learns that Obama dosent want him as VP. That way he has nothing to lose.

[ellisonz]

23. Welcome to the Family!

:toast:

[ellisonz]

24. Edwards is such a phony.

[jenmito]

42. My thoughts exactly.

:hi:

[ellisonz]

57. It's really kind of tragic...

"You never saw so many phonies in all your life, everybody smoking their ears off and talking about the play so that everybody could hear and know how sharp they were. Some dopey movie actor was standing near us, having a cigarette. I don't know his name, but he always plays the part of a guy in a war movie that gets yellow before it's time to go over the top. He was with some gorgeous blonde, and the two of them were trying to be very blasé and all, like as if he didn't even know people were looking at him. Modest as hell. I got a big bang out of it."

:hi:

[jenmito]

59. It sure is...

Is that quote from a movie? Or a song?

[ellisonz]

66. Great American Novel.

Catcher in the Rye, Holden Caulfield.

[annie1]

45. Edwards is the man. And he stuck up for your boy Obama...

and told hillary where she could stick it. He didn't have to, and he did. Don't believe the pubs, that's what they'd have you believe about edwards. next you'll be complaining about his haircut.

[ellisonz]

47. You know where Edwards lost me...

When he ardently supported our invasion of Iraq and then turns around apologizes for it while running for President in 2004 and then when that's not enough and he loses with Kerry then he suddenly comes out of the gates calling for the Senate to stop funding the war after he's left the Senate! Real courageous <snark>

I don't care about his haircut. What I care about is the extent to which he uses rhetoric to try to sell himself as some sort of miracle boy. You can't just demand something and get it, success in politics is the art of compromise, not the art of being compromised!

And Hillary has never done an honest day's work in her life!

[jenmito]

50. And another thing...

besides all that (which I agree with), he had the NERVE to say he would forego matching funds in order to be competitive, but then when he was unable to raise anywhere NEAR as much as Obama and Hillary, he suddenly "chose" to take matching funds claiming it was for MORAL reasons, challenging Obama and Hillary to do the same thing. What a PHONY! And what gets me is his supporters BELIEVE he "chose" to take matching funds for moral reasons, even though there are quotes of him saying he would NOT take matching funds last Feb.

[annie1]

54. alright, i hear that.

[jenmito]

52. He stuck up for him before making snarky comments about him (with a smile)

exactly what I put in quotes. It was not a compliment. And I'm not a Repub.

[annie1]

55. i love it when edwards gets bitchy. :D. it's one of my fave things about him.

[Skip Intro]

25. The ease of offense on the Obama side is startling.

At the slightest, non-praising word somehow the great Obama has been slighted.

Candidates are going to call into quesiton the readiness of their opponents to do the job. Everyone else isn't there to cheer on Obama.

I would hope a candidate who claims to be ready would be able to shine under the scrutiny such a valid question brings.

[ClarkUSA]

29. Coming from one of the thinnest-skinned Hillaryworlders in the world, this is very amusing

Unlike Clintonians, we're not busy churning out hit pieces on Edwards for daring to express a critical opinion about Obama.

[Skip Intro]

51. aw - you flatter me. As usual, a true representative of the "change" and "hope" new kinda politics.

you never fail to shine

[ClarkUSA]

56. I never flatter.

And you never surprise me.

[jenmito]

43. Obama's not worried about what Edwards says about him...

I'm simply pointing out Edwards' statements about him.

[laureloak]

26. Your post isn't true. I saw the interview and nothing Edwards said

was remotely insulting to Obama or Clinton. Edwards was very polite and complimenary of both.

[jenmito]

44. If you saw the interview you'd know what I put in quotes is exactly true.

The rest is my opinion/conclusion of those words.

[laureloak]

48. Stop trying to mis-inform. Edwards didn't insult anyone.

Those few words that you put quotation marks around mean nothing. Stop making up crap.

[jenmito]

53. He said what I put in quotes. I didn't make up crap. He talked crap.

If the words in quotes mean nothing, why did he say them?

[SaveElmer]

27. Edwards has pulled this before...

In 1998 he ran a similar campaign...talking against the entrenched power in Washington yadda yadda yadda...how he will only work for the people and not the special interests...

And then he gets there, and votes middle of the road...for IWR, for YUCCA Mountain, for China Trade, ran against universal health care in 2004...

Not that I disagreed with him on everything he did there...but he is again, trying to make himself out to be something he is not...

[Maven]

28. I love how Team Obama keeps bringing up the IWR vote to sing his praises

meanwhile Obama said he didn't know how he would have voted on the IWR, and in 2004 he discussed missile strikes on Iran and military intervention in Pakistan. Obama has "hawked it up" plenty when it was convenient to him. Stop trying to paint him as some sort of prescient antiwar activist.

Kucinich is the only Dem candidate who can lay claim to that title.

[ClarkUSA]

30. Yeah, you'd like us to forget about that, wouldn't you?

Everything you said is slight-of-hand BS. Obama only said what he did about the IWR vote in the run-up to the 2004 elections because he didn't
want to embarrass the pro-IWR Democratic ticket, which I thought was gracious of him. Link to where he discussed missile strikes on Iran and
military intervention in Pakistan because I have a feeling you are leaving out a lot of conextual facts to make a venal point.

Obama was a prescient antiwar politician who strongly and publicly opposed the war in 2002. Sorry if that steps on Kucinich's sainted toes but
that's the truth.

[Maven]

31. Nice try.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

And big fucking whoop about the 2002 speech. ONE SPEECH, in Illinois, while he was a State Senator and Dick Durbin was in the Senate. Durbin actually voted against the IWR and got reelected with 60% of the vote. In other words, there was no political downside for Obama to oppose the Iraq war in that one speech in Illinois. And since being elected, Obama has continued to vote for more war funding time after time. His Iraq war plan calls for phased, not immediate, withdrawal and provides for a residual force of troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely.

The fact is, during his short stint in the Senate, Obama hasn't done ONE THING that shows real guts, i.e., taking on real political risk, to do the right thing, whether it comes to the war or anything else. Voting against the war funding--that's guts. Sponsoring a bill to impeach the criminals who started the war--that's guts. That's "strong opposition." That's Kucinich. Once again, in order to paint their phony progressive candidate as an agent of "change," Obama's supporters attempt to lay claim to status he hasn't earned.

And by the way, if I supported Obama I wouldn't even bring up the IWR vote for another reason: the fact that he wasn't even elected yet and wasn't there to vote on it only highlights what a short time he's held national office and how little national experence he has. Oh, I know, I know--in Obamaland, experience is a bad thing because it means you've been tainted by "Washington insiders." But you didn't think everyone was buying that line, now did you?

[ClarkUSA]

33. No proof of any of the BS you were saying about Obama, I see...

Everything else you're saying is BS, too. You're misrepresenting his Iraq war plan and his tenure in the Senate. Wipe the spittle from your mouth
and go worship at the altar of your idol and stop falsifying Obama's positions through omission and commission. Me, I prefer a candidate who
has always been pro-choice and antiwar:

'Why I say "ugh" to Kucinich': http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/23/113236/176

[Maven]

35. Ironic response coming from someone whose support for their candidate is more fanatical

than fact-based.

Wipe the spittle from my mouth? I'm surprised you have any saliva left.

I see you don't care to address any of the particulars I presented to you. Might interfere with your idol worship. And speaking of social issues, that article I linked to has a nice little snippet of Obama pandering to fundie bigots by "clarifying" his position in favor of a discriminatory definition of marriage. Oh, I forgot--we GLBTs should try to find "unity" with homophobes, right? That Obama--what a daring idealist! :eyes:

Just another day for the Audacity of Hype.

[ClarkUSA]

39. Um, I defend my candidate with facts and ask for proof, of which you have NONE, as usual.

I don't address ad hominem attacks. I asked you for proof of your "particulars" about Obama and you offered nothing but more vitriol opinion with not a
shred of fact backing you up. For a Kucinich supporter, you seem to spend an awful lot of your spare time trashing Obama. :eyes:

[Maven]

40. I gave you a link which you chose to ignore.

I referred to several parts of the article linked to, which you also chose to ignore.

You might also want to look here.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/pdf/Fact%20Sheet%20Iraq%20Final.pdf

He is, after all, your candidate, not mine.

Here's just one of the parts I was referring to:

Residual Force to Remain: Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region. These
American troops will protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al
Qaeda in Iraq. If Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we would also
continue training the Iraqi Security Forces. In the event of an outbreak of genocide, we would reserve the right
to intervene, with the international community, if that intervention was needed to provide civilians with a safehaven.

I await your next impertinent screed.

[ClarkUSA]

69. You did not prove your point at all.

You said Obama Iraq war plan would let troops stay there "indefinitely"... nowhere does it say that, however. I also don't see anything in his
plan that I disagree with. :shrug:

You do know that Samantha Powers is one of Obama's top foreign policy advisors, right? She's the antithesis of a neocon (unlike Hillary
who has neocon icons Michael O'Hanlon and Lee Feinstein advising her as well as the "surge" architect Gen. Jack Keane):

She is a scholar of foreign policy especially as it relates to human rights, genocide, and AIDS. Her book A Problem from Hell: America and
the Age of Genocide, won the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 2003... According to the November 4, 2007 edition of The New York
Times, she is currently serving as a foreign policy adviser to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

Alongside her work with Obama, Power has been involved in several efforts to increase awareness with regard to genocide and human rights
abuse, most particularly regarding the Darfur conflict. In 2006, she contributed to "Screamers", a movie telling about Darfur, Armenian and
other genocides of 20-21st centuries. She endorses the Genocide Intervention Network.

In 2004, Power was named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 top scientists and thinkers of that year. She appears in Charles Ferguson's
2007 documentary No End in Sight which alleges numerous missteps by the Bush administration in the U.S. war in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

Your anti-Obama screed is misplaced. If anything, he and Kucinich share a common bond: they are the only candidates who opposed the
Iraq war from the beginning. And this should clear up your confusion as to what Obama said vis-à-vis Pakistan. It comes from a memo
sent out to the press by Samantha Powers this past August:

Terrorist Sanctuaries: For years, we have given President Musharraf hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, while deferring to his
cautious judgment on how to take out high-level al Qaeda targets - including, most likely, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Here is the result:

Bin Laden and Zawahiri - two men with direct responsibility for 9/11- remain at large.
Al Qaeda has trained and deployed hundreds of fighters worldwide from its sanctuary in northwest Pakistan.
Afghanistan is far less secure because the Taliban can strike across the border, and then return to safety in Pakistan.

By any measure, this strategy has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us defer to Musharraf in perpetuity. Barack Obama wants
to turn the page. If Musharraf is willing to go after the terrorists and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base of operations, Obama
would give him all of the support he needs. But Obama made clear that as President, if he had actionable intelligence about the whereabouts
of al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan - and the Pakistanis continued to refuse to act against terrorists known to be behind attacks on American
civilians - then he will use highly targeted force to do so.

Barack Obama's judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era that moves beyond the conventional wisdom that
has brought us over-reliance on an unreliable dictator in Pakistan and an occupation of Iraq.

Nuclear Attacks on Terrorist Targets: For years, Washington's conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not
by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway. When asked whether he
would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear
force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians. Conventional wisdom held this up as a sign of inexperience. But if experience
leads you to make gratuitous threats about nuclear use - inflaming fears at home and abroad, and signaling nuclear powers and nuclear
aspirants that using nuclear weapons is acceptable behavior, it is experience that should not be relied upon.

Barack Obama's judgment is right. Conventional wisdom is wrong. It is wrong to propose that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist
training camps in Pakistan, potentially killing tens of thousands of people and sending America's prestige in the world to a level that not
even George Bush could take it. We should judge presidential candidates on their judgment and their plans, not on their ability to recite
platitudes.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sheldonmotley/Cp8W

By the way, I agree with you -- I am impertinent. :-)

[jenmito]

46. Thanks for the link. It doesn't back up what you said...

You make it as if Obama gave one speech against the war and so it meant nothing. Does that mean Bush's famous "16 words" meant nothing since there were only 16 words? :eyes: And from your link:

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.
...
A last resort

Obama's willingness to consider additional military action in the Middle East comes despite his early and vocal opposition to the Iraq war. Obama, however, also has stressed that he is not averse to using military action as a last resort, although he believes that President Bush did not make that case for the Iraq invasion."

ibid

[Maven]

49. Did he or did he not talk about missile strikes against Iran if their nuclear programs continued?

Of course, we now know those programs ended a year before. (But how could Obama have been so easily fooled by Bush misinformation?)

And no, I don't think his speech is on a par in political significance with those 16 words. That wasn't even my point. My point was that despite his words at that speech or thereafter, since becoming a Senator Obama hasn't taken significant political risks to end the war that would entitle him to status as a strong antiwar candidate.

[jenmito]

58. Just like ClarkUSA figured,

you left out a lot of conextual facts to make a venal point. That's why I quoted more of what he said-"as a last resort," and "us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in."

[Maven]

62. Just like ClarkUSA

you shift focus to something secondary to distract from a larger, valid point.

While we're on the subject, how do you explain his statements on Pakistan?

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

How about his Iraq plan, which calls for residual forces left indefinitely to strike against al Qaeda in Iraq?

Or his continued votes to increase war funding?

These statements and decisions don't seem to me like the actions of someone strongly committed to standing against more war regardless of political attitudes. They look more like the same ol' triangulating on military intervention that Obama criticizes his opponents for. In fact, this article speculates that Obama's antiwar position in 2002/2003--and his subsequent flip-flop on war spending--may have been more about political convenience than principle:

Obama told Stephanopoulos it was "political suicide" for him to be against the Iraq war in 2003. However, antiwar sentiment in Illinois was higher than in the rest of the country. In the March 2004 Illinois primary, Obama was helped by being the only antiwar contender.

Against this backdrop, Obama said while running for the Senate that he would not, if in the Senate, vote for an $87 billion supplemental appropriation to bankroll the war and Iraqi reconstruction. Once in the Senate, Obama voted for all of the Iraq war funding bills.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/05/sweet_column_obama_pressed_on.html

Note this assessment corresponds to my earlier post mentioning Dick Durbin's reelection.

[jenmito]

63. Huh? YOU brought up the subject of Iran and selectively quoted his position.

I explain it easily-he said he'd STRIKE inside Pakistan as a last resort, if Pakistan refused to cooperate in getting bin Laden, etc. If you didn't know, that's our policy NOW. And I don't know anyone who disagrees with it, including Biden, the most experienced of 'em all.

He wants to go after those who attacked us on 9/11. You have a problem with that???

I'm going to bed-not ignoring you. I'll reply to anything further tomorrow.

[Maven]

64. No need, I think I've made my point and you've made yours.

I don't wanna keep going around in circles. Goodnight.

[readmoreoften]

72. Don't bother, Harv. Some of these people fight facts so much they must be on the payroll.

It's absurd to say that Obama is an anti-war candidate. You are correct, the only candidate who is anti-war is DK. I respect Edwards for running on a consistant platform of "I fucked up and I'm sorry" although one can't be sure because he has had no ability to prove himself in the senate. But Obama really has quite a bit of nerve posing as an anti-war candidate in my opinion because he doesn't evne make the tough votes or admit to his own words. That's a bad sign in my opinion.

[MalloyLiberal]

67. Oh shut up, he's more likely to endorse Obama if he fails

And then you'll be saying hallelujah, so stfu. He at least likes Obama.

[jenmito]

73. How rude...

"STFU"? I'll point out little digs when I see them. Who are you to tell me to shut up? :eyes:

[Imagevision]

68. Obama is tough and will be tough - those painting him weak are mistaken/

[readmoreoften]

71. Yeah, but then Obama said he had the same position as George Bush on the war in 2004

So, whatever. I have no reason to believe Obama will bring about reform let alone the revolution we need.