Sunday, February 3, 2008

Obama Video



Can anyone even imagine anything like this for Clinton?

Oh, and Moneymonk, whatever your reservations about Obama, it looks like the one endorsement that matters to you has come in. Now you have to do your part to give Scarlett Jo the Big O.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

6 comments:

Chuck Butcher said...

I'll vote Obama, mostly because I can't abide Hillary's political shennanigens (SP?). I'll vote against her. That sucks and I'll hold my nose and vote Democratic in the fall and that sucks also. In an election where a populist progressive Dem could beat any Republican I get these two.

If you think your civil liberties will be protected by either, I have a piece of that puzzle, BOR #2, you don't get to pick which piece of the BOR you want to violate without being GWB's type.

Sure, you can try the "well regulated milita" game, your problem is all historical evidence and plain English grammar says, "BS" and no, that's not the NRA talking, it is historical fact.

I'm not trying to start an argument, just laying out a piece of the picture.

February 3, 2008 at 11:42 PM
moneymonk said...

What's a Bill of Rights? I think they stopped teaching that in schools.

February 4, 2008 at 7:43 AM
moneymonk said...

finally got to watch the video.
it's aight, i guess. it does put me in a weird position considering two of my personal commandments: "Love and honor yon Scarlett Jo" and "Thou shall NEVER listen to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar." The guy was great in Airplane, but a total baby on the court.

February 4, 2008 at 7:53 AM
The Arm said...

Why doesn't Obama ever really say anything? I'd vote for him if he had the balls to actually discuss what and how he would implement "change".
I rogue strike on Pakistan doesn't sound like much "change" to me. It just floors me how I have to leave the democratic party and vote for a libertarian/republican candidate (Ron Paul) in an election where the country is starved for a new foreign policy. Maybe if Obama would address our failing "empire" than that would be a step in the right direction. Or if he would talk to us about our current economic situation in real terms and with real applicable solutions instead of hurling catch phrases.
The fact that many dems out there are willing to vote for party over substance proves that we have already lost. I agree with Chuck. In an election that you need to win, you put out these two candidates. Has the DNC not been paying attention to the last two General Elections? It almost seems like they set up to fail purposefully, to help keep their neo-con comrades in power. If Ron Paul does run as a third party or independent, he will steal more votes from the Democrats than the Republicans, in my opinion. And this might cost the Democrats another election. And they will have deserved it.

February 4, 2008 at 9:52 AM
moneymonk said...

I too agree w/ Chuck. That's why I was into John Edwards aka the Progressive Dem you speak of. Just shows to go ya that the DNC and the beltway isn't interested in cleaning up Washington, because they're already "cleaning up" with the status quo, if you catch my drift. Edwards wasn't the be-all-end-all progressive candidate, but he was trying to push against that power without appearing radical. He was shut out by the press, not taken seriously because he used public funds on principle, and basically was not allowed to keep his head above water by the powers that be.
Read Greenwald today too, why are Dem capitulating to and fearing the GOP, when common sense and polls say its a bad BAD move?

February 4, 2008 at 10:34 AM
The Swan said...

As anyone who looks at my previous posts knows, I was a John Edwards booster, and VERY critical of Obama. Am I still concerned about Obama's policies and the vaugueness of these things called "hope" and "change"? Yes I am, but I've also given it a lot of thought, and have decided to support Obama for strategic reasons.

Strategic voting sucks, and I know it, but the arguments that there's no difference between the parties just doesn't cut it for me any more. Does anyone really think that Gore would have been no different than Bush?

There ARE differneces between the parties, and I believe in the Democratic party more than any other political party at this point. So the question for me is how best to ensure A) the health and viability of the party, and B) how to grow it towards the kind of populist progressive party I'd like it to be.

For reasons I will explain in a separate post, I've come to the conclusion that Obama is the candidate who's best for the Democratic Party right now, and I also happen to think that of all the candidate in the field, he will be the best for the country.

A I say...more later.

February 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)