I've noticed something about the people who support Obama

[jsamuel]

Not all I am sure, but just an impression from several people. They seem to be putting all their hopes and ideals on the man. The problem being that he doesn't support them.

I think some people are seeing Obama as who they wish or hope he is. It seems like they are making him into their dream candidate, but only in their own mind. Obama doesn't really counter this since he tries to be everything to everyone.

Obama is a politician. People seem to resist that idea. I have seen people spin the "lack of experience" into "that means he isn't a politician" like Hillary. But it simply isn't true. Being a politician may be affected by the time one has been in Washington, but the reverse is not true. Just because someone is new to Washington doesn't mean they aren't a politician.

I only hope that people support their candidate in reality by identifying the issues they believe in and following the candidate most aligned with those beliefs. Don't go into denial about who is who.

[bryant69]

1. Interesting

This has long been a canard among a certain kind of liberal/leftist.

"Come on you don't really support that sell out Bill Clinton; you are just supporting him because you think he can win, but in your heart of hearts you wish Ralph Nader was President."

"Come on you don't really support that politician Barak Obama; you are just supporting him because he can win, but in your heart of hearts you wish Dennis Kucinich was our candidate!"

Some people are moderate not because they are weak willed or because they are sell outs but because they genuinely believe the moderate liberal position to be the right answer.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Lerkfish]

4. "certain kind of liberal/leftist"

I always love that label.

[bryant69]

21. Well what would be a better label?

Do you have any suggestions?

[Lerkfish]

35. "democratic majority" would be nice.

:)

its just that when you use "liberal/leftist" you're trying to characterize the majority of dems as an outer fringe, when in fact, "centrists" are in the minority in the party, especially when it comes to the war in Iraq.

so, I'd prefer "the majority of democrats".

[bryant69]

44. So the majority of Democrats will vote for Kucinich over Obama?

Is that your contention?

I guess that's pretty testable.

Bryant

[Lerkfish]

51. are you on crack?

where did I mention Kucinich or Obama?

stop stuffing words in my mouth to make yourself feel smug about your ideological prejudices.

[bryant69]

56. I guess it is in the context isn't it?

The original post was discussing Obama; I brought up Kucinich. I thought that was what we were still talking about. I apologize; what are we talking about?

Bryant

[jsamuel]

5. I can see what you mean

As long as people really and truly believe in what issues Obama professes to be his main issues, without being in denial, that is fine with me.

[IndyOp]

2. Good article "Barack Obama Inc." from Harper's Magazine...

Please keep in mind that I LIKE Barack and I am more than willing to give him a chance - I am not yet sold on him. Obama is a politician.

Barack Obama Inc. - The birth of a Washington machine
Originally from November 2006. By Ken Silverstein.

In July, on a typically oppressive summer day in Washington, D.C., roughly a thousand college students from across the country gathered at a Marriott hotel with plans to change the world. Despite being sponsored by the Center for American Progress, a moderate think tank founded by one of Bill Clinton’s former chiefs of staff, John Podesta, the student group—called Campus Progress—leans decidedly farther to the left. At booths outside the main auditorium, young activists handed out pamphlets opposing nuclear power, high pay for CEOs, excessive profits for oil companies, harsh prison sentences for drug users, and Israeli militarism in Gaza and the West Bank. At one session, Adrienne Maree Brown of The Ruckus Society—a protest group whose capacious mission is to promote “the voices and visions of youth, women, people of color, indigenous people and immigrants, poor and working class people, lesbian, gay, bisexual, gender queer, and transgendered people”—urged students to “break the fucking rules.” Even the consummate insider Podesta told attendees, with unintended ambiguity, “We need more of you hanging from trees.”

Around noon, conference participants began filing into the auditorium; activists staffing the literature booths abandoned their posts to take seats inside as well. The crowd, and the excitement, building in the hall was due entirely to the imminent arrival of the keynote speaker: Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Having ascended to political fame through a stirring and widely lauded speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, Obama, the U.S. Senate’s only African-American member, is now considered to be the party’s most promising young leader—especially among those who, like the student organizers present, are seeking to reinvigorate its progressive wing. In terms of sheer charisma, Obama is certainly the party’s most magnetic leader since Bill Clinton, and perhaps since Robert F. Kennedy.

<snip>

Obama complained of an American culture that “discourages empathy,” in which those in power blame poverty on people who are “lazy or weak of spirit” and believe that “innocent people being slaughtered and expelled from their homes halfway around the world are somebody else’s problem.” He urged the assembled activists to ignore those voices, “not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate than you, although I think you do have that obligation . . . but primarily because you have that obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. It’s only when you hitch yourself up to something bigger than yourself that you realize your true potential.”

<snip>

Although the senator did not elaborate, E85 is so called because it is 85 percent ethanol, a product whose profits accrue to a small group of corporate corn growers led by Illinois-headquartered Archer Daniels Midland. Not surprisingly, agribusiness is a primary advocate of E85, as are such automobile manufacturers as Ford, which donated Pike’s car. The automakers love E85 because it allows them to look environmentally correct (“Live Green, Go Yellow,” goes GM’s advertising pitch for the fuel) while producing vehicles, mostly highly profitable and fuel-guzzling SUV and pickup models, that can run on regular gasoline as well as on E85. Obama had essentially marshaled his twenty minutes of undeniably moving oratory to plump for the classic pork-barrel cause of every Midwestern politician.

[Lerkfish]

3. I've noticed something about the people who support Clinton

Not all I am sure, but just an impression from several people. They seem to be putting all their hopes and ideals on the woman. The problem being that she doesn't support them.

I think some people are seeing Clinton as who they wish or hope she is. It seems like they are making her into their dream candidate, but only in their own mind. Clinton doesn't really counter this since she tries to be everything to everyone.

Clinton is a politician. People seem to resist that idea. I have seen people spin the "experience" into "that means she is a good politician" like (insert name here). But it simply isn't true. Being a politician may be affected by the time one has been in Washington, but the reverse is not true. Just because someone is new to Washington doesn't mean they aren't a politician.

I only hope that people support their candidate in reality by identifying the issues they believe in and following the candidate most aligned with those beliefs. Don't go into denial about who is who.

--------

just making a point that what you said could be said about supporters of any candidate, at this point.

[jsamuel]

8. exactly, it does apply to any candidate

I have just noticed Obama supporters doing this.

[sasha031]

16. Hillary is 100% DLC

The DLC is what has destroyed the Democratic Party, I think Obma is also, could be wrong.

I don't support either one.

[Pastiche423]

53. Yes, you are wrong

“I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC,” said Obama."

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

[jobycom]

23. I was going to say that, but without bashing anyone.

A lot of people see their candidate that way. No big deal, really. As Wesley Clark said the other day, we pay too much attention to individual policy ideas, and not enough to the abilities of the person, at times. What a particular candidate accomplishes in office usually has less to do with what they want to do in office, and more to do with their ability to persuade others.

So a candidate who can persuade people to believe and trust in him or her has part of the skill they need to do the job. Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Clark (though I'm starting to think he's not running, after all) all seem to have that ability, which is why they are front-runners.

Not saying ideology isn't crucial, only that after a while, all these plans and platforms of all these candidates in each party begin to meld together. Look at 2004. Kerry and Edwards started out the primaries vying for who was the most pro-invasion. By the end they had adapted Howard Dean's position, and since, both have been strong opponents of the invasion. (Not saying this as a comment on Dean, Kerry, or Edwards). Dean and his conviction didn't persuade them to change, the will of the voters persuaded them to change. Then they used their abilities to sell it to their supporters (and pick up more supporters along the way).

We've got a slew of great candidates. Most of them can develop that type of loyalty in their followers. They each have similar ideologies, even if their followers necessarily focus on the differences between them. Which means any of them will progress the cause, and will inspire others to follow them. That's a good thing.

And yes, I know how badly anyone still reading this wants to tell me that that it is not true of whichever candidate they think is the boogeyman.

[Lerkfish]

36. who did I bash? no one.

I just inserted "clinton" in place of their own words about Obama, to make a point.

[jobycom]

40. Then why did you mention Clinton?

:shrug:

[rebel with a cause]

43. Why did the OP mention Obama and his supporters.

I have been taking the high road and not saying anything negative about any of the candidates or their supporters, but I have plenty I could say about both. If these attacks continue and include me, because I am a proud Barack Obama supporter, you never know what could be posted in the future.

[jobycom]

46. Because the OP had an issue with Obama

And that's what I commented on. However, the response that used Clinton as an example claims he wasn't attacking Clinton. Fair enough, but why use her name, then?

[rebel with a cause]

48. Fair enough,

I take it that Clinton was just an example of how any name would have fit in (and maybe because she is considered the top runner), but frankly if I was going to do one on another candidate I would change it to better represent that candidate. I guess I am just getting tired of being nice. ;-)

[Lerkfish]

50. answer in #49

and I used Clinton because the OP used clinton as the foil against Obama. Reread the OP. So, to reverse the OP , I used Clinton, but I could have used any candidate, as WAS MY POINT, which sailed completely over your head.

I was using the EXACT SAME LANGUAGE as the OP, just swapping Clinton where it said Obama, and (insert name here) where it said Clinton.

Honestly, I think EVERYONE"S way too touchy to discuss candidates, which again, WAS MY POINT.

[rebel with a cause]

55. Lerkfish,

At this point, even I am getting tired of how people chose one candidate and their supporters to go after, and you were much nicer than I would have been today if I had used this example. Clinton would not neccesarily have been my choice of names to go in there, but that is another matter.

Frankly, I believe a new rule that should be observed from now on is that if anyone is going to attack another candidate and their supporters, then they should state the candidate that they support so the persons being attacked have a fair chance to voice their opinion on that candidate's supporters. The saying is "turn about is fair play". Like I said before, I am getting tired of being nice.

[Lerkfish]

59. not a bad idea. I, for one, have not selected a candidate yet.

I just know that when the primary comes, I'll be looking at an aggregate of issues. However, the biggest issue by weight and importance to me is the war in Iraq and how the candidate deals with that.

I didn't look at what I did as nice or not nice, I simply parrotted back, nearly word for word, the OP and swapped candidate names to make a point.

[Lerkfish]

49. I was making a point: I inserted "clinton" into everywhere the OP said "obama". I could have

picked a different candidate...did you miss my note at the end of it? I was saying you could say that about any candidate.

:shrug:

[jobycom]

54. I saw the note

I'm just so used to seeing Clinton bashed I figured you were trying to turn the tables. As I said, I was thinking of doing the same thing, but I wasn't going to single out any one candidate like that.

[blondeatlast]

39. Exactly. That's why I have no candidate as yet. nt

[blogslut]

6. meh

n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

7. And now, into the Wayback Machine!

I've noticed something about the people who support Bush.

Not all I am sure, but just an impression from several people. They seem to be putting all their hopes and ideals on the man. The problem being that he doesn't support them.

I think some people are seeing Bush as who they wish or hope he is. It seems like they are making him into their dream candidate, but only in their own mind. Bush doesn't really counter this since he tries to be everything to everyone.

Bush is a politician. People seem to resist that idea. I have seen people spin the "lack of experience" into "that means he isn't a politician" like Gore. But it simply isn't true. Being a politician may be affected by the time one has been in Washington, but the reverse is not true. Just because someone is new to Washington doesn't mean they aren't a politician.

I only hope that people support their candidate in reality by identifying the issues they believe in and following the candidate most aligned with those beliefs. Don't go into denial about who is who.

-----

The "outsider" candidacy is nothing new. And btw, I agree Obama isn't the Second Coming. However, that doesn't mean he's the Antichrist, either.

[jsamuel]

9. of course it doesn't mean he's the Antichrist

That is not the point at all.

[sasha031]

10. my memory of Obma

Was when he voted for the bankruptcy bill....

He doesn't represent the Black Caucus, that's for sure....or any of us, Oprah likes him, so we must make him President.

[NYCGirl]

12. You're wrong. He voted "no" on the bankruptcy bill.

So what are your other problems?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

[sasha031]

18. sorry I was wrong

[sasha031]

20. NYCGirl

I have noticed your other post, to me you seem to have your fist up allot of times.

what is your problem?

[NYCGirl]

22. I've seen other posters say that Obama voted "yes", and I don't want that to

become "conventional wisdom". I'm just trying to correct the record. I'd even do it for candidates who I'm not necessarily fond of.

Edited to add: I also remember during the '04 primaries, we Dean people were often being told that we "didn't understand what Dean really stood for". This post feels the same way — and it's insulting to the people who support Obama.

[jobycom]

27. You are confusing that with the "class action 'fairness' act"

Obama voted against the bankruptcy bill, but for the CAFA, which limited judgements in class action lawsuits. Clinton, Byrd, Kerry, Kennedy, and all the usual liberals voted against it, Obama for it. It may have had to do with a clause also restricting attorney fees so that a class action suit could not result in a loss to members if they won.

That bill was part of the same grouping as the bankruptcy bill, so it gets mixed in there.

Every candidate has some bill or action that looks bad, sometimes because we just don't understand their reasoning for it. The fact is that the three major Dem candidates are all more conservative than their supporters believe them to be, and far more liberal than their detractors claim. They are all lefties campaigning towards the middle, with varying degrees of compromise on certain issues to keep their constituents and their donors happy. It's the latter--the compromises for donors--that is the most dangerous, obviously.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00009#position

[ariesgem]

45. He voted against the bankruptcy bill.

[OHdem10]

11. These are some interesting observations you

have made.

We still do not know where Obama falls on the
chart. Can he be described as similar to DLC
or will he be forced to go centrist to stay
in favor with the Media and Powers that be?
Or does he have more liberal leanings??

At some point he is going to have to show what
he really believes in his gut. The only thing
we really know is he has been against the Iraq
War from the get go.

you are right. Thus far, people can make Obama
whatever they want in each person's own mind.
This can lead to great dissappointment or
happiness.

[stillcool]

13. Maybe there is something in....

supporting people, rather than principles. Perhaps the test should be not according to the package, but rather the content.

[jsamuel]

32. you think personality is the content?

Personality is the package. Principles are the content.

[stillcool]

33. Principles vs Personality

my personality can be massaged for any audition, be it a job, making a first impression, coming off in a certain way. My principles...how I've lived my life, what difficulties I've over-come, how I've treated others, say much more about me than my looks....but even in my insignificant life form is often much more important than function.

[ecstatic]

14. Of the people running now, who stood against the war?

And how much does it matter to you?

[TwilightGardener]

15. Maybe people just like the guy, or see great potential in him? I support

Obama, and I go with my gut about a candidate's honesty, intellect, motivations and intentions. I don't kid myself that he's not a politician, of course he is. A talented one. I'm not sure what you mean by saying Obama can't support people's hopes and ideals. Why can't he? Why can't any candidate? I am not a policy-and-resume voter, I am a character-and-vision voter, which is why I'm drawn to Obama--his message about ushering in a new kind of politics, transcending ideology, resonates with me. So don't presume to understand his appeal to people, because we all are looking for different qualities in our candidates, and your yardstick is not mine.

[FourScore]

17. Your kidding!!!

You mean a politician is running for President??? :sarcasm:

[jsamuel]

31. yeah, exactly, but people have been claiming he isn't a politician

that's the only problem

[H2O Man]

34. "people have been claiming"

I haven't seen anyone make that claim.

[H2O Man]

19. I'm hoping that you

will explain your belief that democrats who are interested in Obama because they bellieve he is opposed to the war in Iraq are wrong? Could you support your claim that, "The problem being that he doesn't support them"? Thanks!

[jsamuel]

29. If the IWR is the sole issue for a person, then I can see why that person would support Obama.

[H2O Man]

37. I would not

vote for a candidate for any "sole issue." But I will not vote for some candidates in primaries if I disagree with their stance on Iraq. And I think it is important to understand and appreciate that our policy in Iraq will have a direct impact on many other significant issues.

[radfringe]

24. Drink the sand

the movie "The American President": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112346/

Louis (Michael J.Fox): "People are so thirsty for leadership they'll crawl through the desert and when they find it's only a mirage, they'll drink the sand."

President Shepherd (Michael Douglas): "People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference."

----

I mentioned this a few years ago, using different terms - I called it looking for a political messiah. Same idea. Although I disagree that it's just Obama supporters - it's all of America no matter who they support

We are looking for two things:

1. Leadership

2. Leadership we can trust

What has me concerned is to realize just how thirsty we are - by "we" I mean all Americans. How thirsty are we really? You only have to look at the poltical fighting going on between people of different parties, even those among the same party but support different candidates. We're beating each other up all across the political spectrum to get to what we hope is an oasis.

The time is ripe for people to go flocking behind one person whom they perceive as being a savior - and that makes it dangerous. Hitler talked a good talk, people rallied behind him, he told them what they wanted to hear. We're at that same point in time.

last year when Feingold introduced his proposal to censure bush - you couldn't "refresh" the screen fast enough to see all the Feingold for President posts.

Same thing when Webb gave the Dem response to bush's SOTU this January.

I swear, there would be a brazillion "SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS for President" posts is one of the cartoons had a episode where Spongebob did a smack down on a Dubya the Sea-slug.

frankly this scares me more than another 2 years of the bushies - in our need to find a leader we want we may end up with a leader worse than the one we have.

Who do I support? Too-Dang Early. I watch I listen I read and I process the info, but I'm not ready to jump on anyone's band wagon expect for Too-Dang Early.

[jsamuel]

30. You make good points.

[lectrobyte]

25. "He doesn't support them" How do you figure?

[OHdem10]

26. This does not necessarily apply to Obama

as I see much poltential.

However, I have watched so many elections which boiled
down to "whom do like"? It is my belief our country
is in "bad shape". This election is a most important
one; and there is a need for a president with many
qualities.

What I am saying is we cannot permit the Media to make
it a "Personality Contest."

There is such an incestuous relationship between the
Media and Washington (WH, and Capital Hill) they
cannot see the disintegration going on around the
country. Some call it Potomac Fever.

[never cry wolf]

28. Interesting essay on Obama's work so far and how he is supporting citizens

At least as of six months ago.

But I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.

His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way. According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.

This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama's bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors.)

So my little data point is: while Obama has not proposed his Cosmic Plan for World Peace, he has proposed a lot of interesting legislation on important but undercovered topics. I can't remember another freshman Senator who so routinely pops up when I'm doing research on some non-sexy but important topic, and pops up because he has proposed something genuinely good. Since I think that American politics doesn't do nearly enough to reward people who take a patient, craftsmanlike attitude towards legislation, caring as much about fixing the parts that no one will notice until they go wrong as about the flashy parts, I wanted to say this. Specifics below the fold.

a lot more---> http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

[951-Riverside]

38. "The problem being that he doesn't support them"

Huh?

Support them on what exactly?

I think some people are seeing Obama as who they wish or hope he is.

and what is that?

Obama is a politician.

...Yes

People seem to resist that idea.

Who are these "people"?

[Blackhatjack]

41. No slam on Obama, but here is why it is difficult to elect truthful politicians....

To win an election you need to receive 50% plus 1 of the valid votes cast in the election.

All candidates start with 100% of all those individuals who will actually vote in the election.
Pick a party to align with, and you will guarantee yourself a certain percentage of 'straight party line' voters, and you will lose a certain percentage of opposition party straight party line voters.
So you are now appealing to less than the 100% by aligning with a party, and the votes still up for grabs represent a smaller group than the entire pool of valid vote casters.

Next, there are a host of 'controversial' issues that are bound to be raised(ie. abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, etc.) that have their own set of 'one issue voters', further reducing the number of votes still up for grabs.

Next, tell the truth about issues like 'raising taxes' or 'fixing social security problems' and you will find that a large number of the remaining voters up for grabs will vote for your opponent who lies by promising that these measures are not required. More valid vote casters lost by the candidate telling the truth.

Lastly, your opponents use opposition research to dig up 'personal information'(ie. drug use, plagarim, etc.) that can be used against you, to attack your credibility in the eyes of the voters --even though the 'personal information' may be inaccurate and/or totally unrelated to the performance of the duties of the position you are seeking. This peels away even more valid vote casters.

So who is left? The undecided, which are really a smaller group than most people understand.

Now, add up all the votes you lost for one of the reasons set out above, and compare that total to the votes you are assured of receiving. In a hotly contested race, usually the number of votes you can rely upon before the election is less than the total number you need to be elected.

So what does all this mean? A politician that wants to be elected in a hotly contested race (like the upcoming race for the Democratic Nominee for President) can keep from 'losing' votes by presenting a perception rather than solid positions on issues that he/she knows will alienate a certain percentage of voters.

AS a first time political candidate in this race, you can get by with the 'perception' for only so long --and then your opponents begin staking you out on the issues. As voters learn what your positions are on key issues to them, the support begins to wane.

Obama will experience this guaranteed. Can he overcome it? Who knows. But if he speaks the truth to important issues, and takes solid positions on controversial issues, he will find he is fighting with the other candidates for the small percentage of voters that have not yet made up their minds.

I support John Edwards, and I believe his having been through the Presidential Campaign process in 2004 provides him with a certain vaccination against 'surprises' coming out this time about his background and his positions.

However, if you support Obama you can look at what Edwards experienced in 2004 as a roadmap of what is to come for him. I like Obama and many of his ideas, but you can bet he will have many rough patches ahead. IMHO it is how Obama handles these issues that will resonate with the public, and determine his fate in his attempt to obtain the Democratic Party Nomination.

[flaminbats]

42. Obama voters tend to be younger..

in their twenties, healthy, but haven't been exposed as much to the dark side of politics.

I think there is a tendency for younger people to put their high hopes and ideals into political candidates. That happens more often with politicians who make that first lasting impression on young voters. but never fear, Obama will either need to provide plenty of details to win more votes..if he doesn't, the high hopes and expectations of the young voters will be what ultimately brings him down!

[rebel with a cause]

47. actually most of Obama's long time supporters are older people.

I am sixty-one and I was one of the younger of the volunteers for his campaign here in Illinois in 2004. He has a lot of younger supporters now, and he will need them in the time to come, but you look at his crowd and you will see more older faces than you will at most political rallies. It is us older people that he appealed to from the beginning, and still appeals to. We are not star struck or hero worshiping. We see something in him that we do not see in some of the other candidates. What is it that we see in him? It is someone who tells us what he thinks, whether it is what we want to hear or not. I don't always agree with Barack, and he knows I don't, but I still support him because I trust him and I don't trust many.

I have met the man, I have talked with him, and I have asked him questions that made him stop and think. He answered them honestly and deliberately, and sometimes I agreed with him and sometimes I did not. I am a peon, a poor woman with no connections. He had nothing to gain by talking to me, there were a lot more important people there for him to impress, but he gave me as much time as he did them and just as much concern. I don't see him as a perfect man, there is no such thing, but I see him as a half way decent man and that is more than I can say for many in government today. Say what you will, but don't ever accuse me of hero worshiping the man or of thinking him something that he is not. To me he is just a man, a man that I support for the presidency of the United States of America.

[Czolgosz]

52. I've also noticed something about the people who support Obama:

They are generally Democrats. That's good enough for me.

[rebel with a cause]

57. I feel the need to speak my mind on this issue, and for some reason

I cannot stop myself from doing so.

Evidently you have a problem with Obama, but the question that comes to my mind is why you singled out Obama supporters to attack. Almost on any day there are two candidates, one declared and one not, that have anywhere from five to twelve threads about them on this portion of the message board. (Obama rarely has even one.) These candidate's supporters say things about them that are not only irrational but at times is very close to making them appear to be saints.

I'm sorry but your choice of who is the hero worshipers on this message board is way off and shows your true venue. You don't like Obama that is fine, but leave his supporters alone. They have a right to support what ever candidate they like and so do you. So like I have said before, don't step on my toes and I won't step on yours.

Edited to add: the only time you will find multiple Obama threads is when there is an attack on him, as there is at the moment when anti post from days ago have resurfaced. I believe this proves my point. this is ridiculous

[rinsd]

58. I think you could apply this to most supporters of any candidate (nt)