Election Central Sunday Roundup
Obama Meets With Karzai, Calls For More Troops In Afghanistan
Barack Obama met this weekend with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a leader whom he has criticized for a lack of effectiveness in fighting terrorism, and later reiterated his call for more troops to be sent to the country. "I think the situation is getting urgent enough that we have to start doing something now," Obama told CBS' Face The Nation.
It's Official: Obama To Speak At Berlin's Victory Column
The Obama campaign has officially announced that the candidate will speak in Berlin at the Victory Column, not the Brandenburg Gate. The Obama campaign had originally looked at the Brandenburg gate as a site for the speech, but was discouraged by the German government that frowned upon using the site of Ronald Reagan's "Tear Down This Wall" speech for electioneering purposes.
Iraqi Government Walks Back On Maliki's Support Of Obama Plan
The Iraqi government is backing off of Prime MInister Nouri al-Maliki's seeming endorsement of Barack Obama's proposed withdrawal timetable, saying his remarks were "not conveyed accurately" by Der Spiegel. Nevertheless, it's hard to see where there could be room to misunderstand Maliki saying troops should leave "As soon as possible, as far a we're concerned," unless it's outright fabrication -- which the government is not contending.
McCain Campaign Now Using Up Cash Reserves
John McCain's campaign has entered a new phase of their fundraising strategy: From this point out, the campaign will be spending far more than it takes in, running out its reserves before the candidate gets his public funding for the general election and would thus be barred from using private money. "Up to this point we have been accumulating capital; now we will start spending down that capital," said campaign manager Rick Davis.
Lieberman: Obama's Iraq Visit Is Proof Of McCain Being Right
In an appearance this morning on Fox News Sunday, Joe Lieberman advanced the latest argument from the McCain campaign against Barack Obama's overseas trip: "The fact is that if Barack Obama's policy on Iraq had been implemented, Barack Obama couldn't go to Iraq today. It wouldn't be safe."
NYT: Hillary Being Vetted For VP, But Is A Long Shot
The New York Times reports that Hillary Clinton is being vetted by the Obama campaign as a possible running mate. That said, the chance of actually being picked is reportedly not very high, with sources saying her chances have actually gone down in the last month.
Obama better be careful on Afghanistan. If he let's that become his war, we're just going to have one more President with his ego getting in the way of a clear eyed assessment of what is in the interests of the American people.
July 20, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it likely Obama would allow himself to be defined by the conflict in Afghanistan the way Bush is defined by his unnecessary occupation of Iraq. For one thing, he isn't engaged in an Oedipal struggle to prove he has bigger cojones than his old man and thus is more deservin' of Ma Bush's good lovin'.
July 20, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but they all get tempted. JFK got pushed to the right and we got the missile crisis, then LBJ got invested in Vietnam... Even the ones who aren't warmongers by nature get seduced.
July 20, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
JFK was a Cold Warrior from the outset and the Bay of Pigs invasion (admittedly, planned by the previous administration) preceded and subsequently set the stage for the Cuban Missile Crisis.
(Pssst! Please don't mention any of this to Dana Perino.)
LBJ was a product of the communist paranoia/domino theory too. If I have a point, it is that both of those guys were foreign policy hawks all along. It might not have made a huge difference in their foreign policy which was centered on the perceived necessity of countering the Soviet Union, but the economy was humming along pretty well back then. I think a President Obama will be compelled to focus more on his domestic agenda.
July 20, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep hillary being vetted doesnt mean she will be chose, I wish people could calm down on that development.
I think we do need to go fight the war on terror in afghanistan pakistan region, thats where bin laden is, and finally the bush administration is seeing that.
Video of unenthusiastic PUMA, Just Say No Deal Protest
July 20, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite right, bluebell. Why can't the argument be we'll get Osama anyway necessary, which probably won't entail being embroiled in an occupational war. Getting bin Laden does not require the use of our entire military force. Nor should it.
July 20, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right and since the Democratic Party has yet to demonstrate any capacity to actually stand up to Republicans to end the war in Iraq, promising to increase our commitment to Afghanistan while he's got Democrats unwilling to get out of Iraq, wanting to get into Iran and others wanting to fund every defense contractor in their home district is a heck of way to be totally over committed. Plus, Dubya will probably arrange a stock market crash as his last act in office.
July 20, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The federal government is pushed along by a kind of bureaucratic inertia and corporate influence. I confess to some skepticism regarding whether even the best intentioned individual can change that, however I wish Obama well.
Of course, for real change to occur, the American people have to demand more from their government. Unfortunately, that requires that people be well informed and lets face it, if most Americans were so inclined McCain wouldn't still be polling as high as he is.
July 20, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most Americans, having better things to do on Sunday afternoon than blog (my lawn is calling me), don't have a lot of information, true, but that being the case, I'm not sure how they tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans. They both do the same "support the troops" visits to the war zones, and they both mouth empty promises about "progress" and "timelines" and blah, blah, blah. Democrats never want to do anything radical like, say, offer Americans a choice.
Obama today defines Afghanistan as the central front in our war against terrorism. (Gee, still fighting the "war" against "terrorism". Change?) He may regret saying that. What foreign nation has ever won a war in Afghanistan?
July 20, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure how they tell the difference, but they clearly perceive a difference, whether it's there or not. Otherwise, those polling questions about "Who do you trust with the ecomony" and "Who do you trust with national security" would produce a more even division between Democrats and Republicans than they do.
July 20, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think "national security" just falls into the greater ethos of the Republicans that they're the party most likely to kill people for you be they criminals or foreigners. Pandering to the emotional fixation Americans have about obliterating threats, real or imagined, can't be at the expense of a long-term strategy that actually makes sense for Americans. We can't "win" on that issue regardless, so don't make stupid policy decisions.
July 20, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have sometimes argued that the two major parties are like two fat maggots gnawing on the bloated corpse of American Democracy. Regardless of which maggot is currently positioned to take larger bites, the prognosis for our country remains rather grim.
Obviously, a viable alternative party would put some pressure on the two dominant parties to improve their performance but if that EVER happens, it won't be during this election cycle. In the presidential race it comes down to Obama and McCain. We can vote for the one we like best or dislike least, or choose to sit this one out. I think that covers the available options.
July 20, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Lieberman as surrogate mouthpiece helping McCain with the Conservative base? Or is it a case where the campaign believes that independents/centrists will notice Lieberman more than the base Republicans who will vote McCain because of the Supreme Court Justice issue regardless.
July 20, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but we cannot trust Lieberman to be fair and even handed about the Middle east. Somehow, he is incapable of making sound decisions about the area, no doubt, due to his own religious feelings. He has never had the ability to divorce that need in favor of an even-handed approach to the middle east. He obviously is a hater of all Arabs.
July 21, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone please let Lieberman know that if the nation had followed Obama's strategy, we would not have sunk $1 Trillion dollars into the sands of Iraq, nor lost 4100+ soldiers (and countless wounded, not to speak of the countless number of Iraqi dead and wounded). There would be no NEED to go to Iraq if we had followed Obama's strategy/advice.
Dumb ass.
July 20, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think McCain supporters (and everyone else) is as creeped out by Lieberman as we are. He is only there to shore up McCain's false assertion of being willing to reach across the aisle and because (unlike McCain) he can remember the talking points for longer than five minutes.
July 20, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Iraqis must be pleased that their country is officially safe enough for a presidential candidate is able to travel there under complete secrecy with an contingent of Secret Service agents and likely other military protection.
July 20, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate LIEberman.
Can we say that on this site?
Cus I really, really hate him.
July 20, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama's policy on Iraq had been implemented (don't invade), there wouldn't be any reason to be there in the first place.
July 20, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it incredibly interesting that the media is devoting more time to say that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was misquoted in statements of endorsing Barack Obama's proposed withdrawal timetable, than they actually devoted to the original story. Thus, they are attempting to discredit a story that they largely ignored in the first place.
July 20, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
ON the front page of CNN.com, the Ticker says: WH forwards praise of Obama plan.
Must not have gotten the memo from the McCain campaign.
July 20, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The White House hasn't quite gotten the hang of these internets yet, despite appointing Ted Stevens as sysadmin. They probably sent that story down the wrong tube.
George W. Bush: "Have you heard about this Internet thing?"
John McCain: "Internet?"
George W. Bush: "Yeah, its the inner netting they invented to line swim trunks. It provides a comforting snugness."
July 20, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference is that Obama may not be fighting against Afganistan, like the British, Russians, and Bush did. I hope that he will be fighting against the people who attacked us.
July 20, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to disagree but before we got there, for better or worse the Taliban WAS Afghanistan. Every invading country establishes and supports (for awhile) a new government. The question is, how long can it last?
July 20, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that the taliban were well liked by the bulk of the afghan people. Afghanistan is a bunch of minority groups patched together by a weak central government. One major diff between afghanistan and iraq is that we kicked out the loonie taliban, a pashtun group, and proped up a pashtun as the country's new leader karzi. It's not like we totally upset the governing structure like we did in iraq. Also, I think we are welcome by and large by the afghan people in afghanistan, while the iraqis by and large hate us. Call me optomistic, but if we do afghanistan right, which we haven't to date, we can be otta there in short order and leave behind a functioning democracy. Right now we are just diddling around in afghanistan. Set the mission, wipe out the al queda leadership, and get our troops out asap. It's really not rocket science.
July 20, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
O good - I've been busy for a week with guests and I come back and here we are bashing Lieberman - one of my favorite pastimes.
;)
July 20, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You missed the seething troll fest that "Top Dem Party Officials Send Sharply-Worded Email Demanding That Hillary Donors And Supporters Get Behind Obama" turned into (and still is). The Obama haters, masquerading as Clinton supporters, were out in full force.
Link: Watch out! It's getting ugly in here
July 20, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad you are back Tena!
July 20, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm impressed with the revisionist or confused history that has seeped into TPM. Lest we forget, Afghanistan was about going after Osama Bin Laden and his organization. It was also an action that most of the rest of the world supported. It had a clear objective -- to rid Afghanistan from a parasitic shadow government. This objective was attainable.
So what happened?
Bush also went into Iraq. Which was *not* a country in turmoil (despite having a repressive government). In other words, the status quo was unstable in Afghanistan, but was stable in Iraq. It was a "preemptive" war. The world did not support it. The objective to the war was not clear (aside of getting rid of Saddam - can anyone really articulate the objective?). It diverted funds and effort from Afghanistan, and made the situation worse by providing another base of operations for bin Ladan and his organization.
So, when talking about making Afghanistan "Obama's War", let's recall that Afghanistan was always American's war. It was Iraq that was Bush's War.
July 20, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
well put.
July 20, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama is elected that will be ancient history, he'll be held just as accountable for Afghanistan as LBJ was for JFK's war in Vietnam. I'm just saying that without an exit strategy, promising to increase forces in Afghanistan is the same trap the Soviets fell into and don't think there won't be others in some other country playing "Charlie Wilson" against the US if we stay there.
July 20, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So are you rooting for Obama to fail, so you can tell us all "I told you so?"
Based on the tone of your posts the last few weeks, that conclusion seems eminently plausible.
July 20, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not rooting for him to fail, but I believe strongly that if he adopts the "centrist" stay the course foreign policy he will fail but worse the United States will fail and that will hurt all of us whether we vote for him or not. I want change, but I no longer I'm believe I'm going to get it.
July 20, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as long as we are submitting to the tyranny of the mindless, then nothing really matters in politics at all, right? We can simply warp reality for whatever is politically expedient?
If we can't at least raise the level of discussion on TPM beyond sloganeering, then there is no point to going to the Internet at all.
It's part of your job, as a responsible citizen, to make sure that people around you do remember history. Especially "ancient" history of about 7 years ago.
July 20, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually there is some rocket science involved, those predator drones, etc. don't drop water balloons over there.
I'm all for defining a mission, completing it and getting the hell out. It would be most helpful if all Taliban and Al-Qaida forces will please agree to congregate simultaneously at a single location on the Afghanistan side of the border and provide NATO forces two weeks advance notice.
July 20, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good idea on the two weeks advance notice. A pakistan congregation would be an excellent idea as well. Think about it. They will think that they are safe and we go in and wipe them out. I like it.
July 20, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT Voter -- I'm glad to see your post about the "ugly" thread. To be specific, I'm relieved to know the comments in that thread are over-the-top by normal TPM standards.
I've been sort of keeping away from comment threads in general lately, and feared that this one reflected the current state of progressive blog discussion. Really I felt almost sick after reading it.
Not to mention, the effort of trying to figure out who's a GOP troll, who's really an angry Hill supporter, and who's a total wackjob who just happens to have latched onto this cause -- just to cite a few possibilities -- was really too much. And the venom being spewed at Barack was absolutely disgusting.
July 20, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I'd say that those comments set almost a new standard for ugliness and hate, and many of the commenters (the PUMA Prowlers!) I have never seen before.
July 20, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NyT reports....
On Saturday, Mr. Obama received support from an unexpected corner: Iraqโs prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, told the German magazine Der Spiegel that he endorsed the Obama plan to withdraw most American troops in a gradual timeline of 16 months.
In an interview with Der Spiegel that was released on Saturday, Mr. Maliki said he was not endorsing Mr. Obamaโs candidacy, but called his proposal โthe right timeframe for a withdrawal.โ
The magazine interview was far from helpful to the McCain campaign, and aides to Mr. McCain sought to clarify Mr. Malikiโs remarks......
July 20, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what's frustrating about that? Other than it was buried deep in the story?
That the Times doesn't explicitly acknowledge that John McCain's aids are blatantly trying to spin reality. The Times just prints that as if it was today's weather report. Our nation's finest stenography.
July 20, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric, would appreciate if you guys can open a thread for today's Frank Rich column. It's a must read, especially this sunday.
Here is an excerpt:
Mr. McCainโs fiscal ineptitude has received so little scrutiny in some press quarters that his chief economic adviser, the former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, got a free pass until the moment he self-immolated on video by whining about โa nation of whiners.โ The McCain-Gramm bond, dating back 15 years, is more scandalous than Mr. Obamaโs connection with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Mr. McCain has been so dependent on Mr. Gramm for economic policy that he sent him to newspaper editorial board meetings, no doubt to correct the candidateโs numbers much as Joe Lieberman cleans up after his confusions of Sunni and Shia.
July 20, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good idea on the two weeks advance notice. A pakistan congregation would be an excellent idea as well. Think about it. They will think that they are safe and we go in and wipe them out. I like it.
July 20, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. that was for ratfood. I wonder how that happened.
July 20, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is going to get us into a war with Pakistan which is a lot worse than picking on Iraq, think Nuclear Bombs. The guy is compltely clueless on Foreign policy and quite frankly it is embarrasing having him represent the USA given his ruthless ambition, lack of principle, association with unsavory types in Chicago politics, and his empty record, devoid of any leadership on any issue. .
July 20, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a delusional fool.
July 20, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is going to get us into a war with Pakistan which is a lot worse than picking on Iraq, think Nuclear Bombs. The guy is compltely clueless on Foreign policy
Hmm...Right on Iraq Timetables, Right on more troops to Afghanistan and Right on talking with Iran. You are ruthless in your hatred towards Obama. Pakistan, perpetually threatens to fall into the hands of Al-Q, and yes they have nukes and Bin Laden apparently smokes hukka in the Musharaf's backyard with the services of local landlords. All Pakistan needs is a politcal collapse and a military coup (the country has a rich history of both)for Al-Q to get hands on there defense arsenal. God help us since we have a lot like you who are allowed to vote.
July 20, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously Dem (?!) did not listen to Obama then, as your comments indicate complete cluelessness to his position. You are embarrassing, not Obama.
July 20, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny that many world leaders favor Obama, including the Europeans. They say he's the most sensible. But not you, eh?
[laughing@you.com]
July 20, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as someone with an MBA, I think it should be pointed out that typically you don't 'spend down' your capital, you invest it. The one reason you would be spending down your capital would be if you are going out of business, i.e. liquidating - or in the case of an individual, retiring. I assume Davis' remark means he is not a business man. And I'm not a politician or a political operative, so I'm sure he has more expertise than I do in that area. But I expect he doesn't want to give the impression that the McCain campaign is going out of business.
July 20, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spamming my e-mail list
July 20, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
To some extent, McCain is going out of business, or at least his primary campaign is drawing to a close. After the convention he will be accepting public financing and won't be able to use the money he has raised to this point. The McCain campaign has determined that they need to begin spending their money so they can use it up by the convention.
July 20, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the self-canceling phrase dept
Bush think tank opponents mount final battle AP
July 20, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can anyone deny US influence of an Iraqi retraction statement that didn't come from the originator of the statement and was released through Centcom? Why not a retraction/clarification/mis-statement/mis-translation claim from Maliki?
It will be interesting to see what Maliki has to say when he meets with Obama.
Oh, and Dem BillC . . . I don't think anyone realized we were just "picking on" Iraq. Make sure your homework is finished before school tomorrow.
July 20, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an interesting read on obama's foreign policy. I like it and it actually is very conservative. The claim that obama is a liberal is really absurd.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/147763
July 20, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for reminding me Obama is not a liberal.
July 20, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're welcome.
July 21, 2008 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is obama's first interview overseas on foreign policy. God, the guy is brilliant. He actually can pronounce the names of countries properly. It will be awesome to have a well spoken, smart, informed and respected president. Wow!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/20/barack-obama-lara-logan-c_n_113904.html
July 20, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That a candidate for president can pronounce words correctly and this is cause for celebration illustrates just how much Bush has stained the office.
It's pretty dispressing.
P.S. Thanks for the Newsweek link.
July 20, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree and my pleasure on the link. I actually like reading stuff other people post that I don't always catch, so I like to return the favor when I see something fascinating.
July 20, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah on Fox News Sunday Lieberman did go after Obama's Iraq plan and his trip there, but what i thought was great was how Evan Bayh responded to some of Lieberman's ridiculous accusations...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fzr9BCttZ6M
July 20, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bayh was actually really solid in his defense. Lieberman is a slimy bastard, always has been. Gore chose him as his VP to show a complete break from the Clintons after all because Lieberman was a harsh critic of President Clinton and Gore didn't want to run attached to Clinton's baggage at the time. And then Lieberman gives up the Florida fight before it even gets started, essentially cutting off any Gore challenge at the knees. Finally he gets re-elected to the Senate this last time because the State Republicans figure he's better than Lamont and the GOP candidate had no shot at getting elected. Basically this is Lieberman's repaying the GOP for giving him six more years in the Senate.
July 20, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
zachbayside, thanks for that link, I really liked Bayh's performance there. You know, he wasn't very high on my list for Obama's VP, but after seeing that clip he's shooting up my list very quickly.
July 20, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. I've always thought Zakaria's observations were clear-headed and inciteful and his analysis of Obama's foreign policy perspectives is spot on.
July 20, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your welcome. I agree on Zacharia. Totally smart guy with common sense. I am sure I will get blasted for this, but I always thought that bush I had the best foreign policy and foreign policy team in the last 50 plus years or more. I wish that the king would have gone to his father on foreign policy advice and we wouldn't be where we are today. It's really sad. Also, I like the fact that obama recognizes this and basically says that he liked bush I's foreign policy and would employ basically the same type of foreign policy. Obama really is brilliant and definitely post-partisan. The sky is the limit with him, which is awesome.
July 20, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
it was reported on German news that obama speech can draw up to a million people..... how do you think people here will respond to this????? http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3492785,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf
July 20, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just watched the interview by Lara Logan with Senator Obama. I have to say, what an amazing and refreshing thing it is just to hear him pronounce the leaders names correctly, let alone the countries. He has a firm grasp of what the mission is all about and what needs to be done. It is such a stark contrast to what we have become used to with Bush and our media talking heads. He makes McCain appear so lacking in comparison that it is downright embarrassing to listen to McCain tout his "experience". We need intelligence and Obama has it in heaps.
July 20, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi amelie, as almost always, I agree with your spot on observations 1000%. What a great interview.
July 20, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Michael, it was great!
July 20, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was a little disappointed by the snippet of the interview I heard on Face The Nation. Lara Logan has spent a lot of time in Afghanistan and done some pretty good coverage at times. Maybe she asked better questions that weren't aired during the FTN segment. Admittedly, it didn't get my full attention so I might be selling it short.
July 20, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Lieberman won't be happy til it isn't safe for Americans to travel anywhere but Israel.
July 20, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone see this?
After his exchange with Lieberman on FOX News Sunday earlier today, Evan Bayh was interviewed by CNN, where he discussed why he called out Lieberman.
CNN Follow-up Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rccc6Zgfqyk
Original FOX News Sunday Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fzr9BCttZ6M
July 20, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting the links. I thought Lieberman's head might explode but alas, not this time. Kudos to Bayh for the pushback.
July 20, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Hillaryous Holdouts have never received so much attention, never even dreamed of international media attention, ever had a voice, or had ever felt important in their hate-filled, idiotic, dismal and abysmal lives. It's natural that they will do or say anything to keep the spotlight on themselves at any cost, in any manner regardless of what's at stake. It's just too bad they didn't pony up the money for Hillary's campaign.
Just like an ill-mannered child who does not know what it's like to receive positive attention. It resorts to noise, misbehavior, and vandalism to direct the focus on him even though he will only receive chastisement, corporal punishment, or the worst, isolation.
Just like the Hillary Clinton Presidential Democratic Primary Campaign was run, they are short-sited, irresponsible, underhanded, pandering and stupidly stubborn and delusional:
* To spend $TWENTY MILLION$ that the campaign did not have even after her supporters AND super delegates went to the other side??
* To spend $TWENTY MILLION$ that the campaign did not have even though it was NOT necessary since it was known that she was going to win by big numbers in those states anyway??
* To go super negative on non-issues and lose her biggest supporters to gain the support of those who would NEVER vote for Obama no matter what?? She had THEM because of his skin anyway.
These Hillaryous Holdouts will "cut off their noses to spite their faces." They vote with their emotions, not with any intellect, and definitely not on current issues. Otherwise, what else explains the illogic of No Hillary/Ok McCain?
I sincerely believe it was these same people who put George W. B./D. Cheney in the WhiteHouse twice. It's unfortunate that President Barack Obama will serve ALL Americans and their circumstances will improve with him in the White House despite themselves.
What I don't get is how they feel when they read that the majority of the American citizenry with a post secondary education favors Obama.
July 20, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink