I'm beginning to see Obama as sort of deluded. Perhaps his intentions are good; he was raised among nice people (white guilt liberals, at least his grandfather).

But somehow Obama got the idea that the only way to be realistic and win is to do dirty Chicago style backroom stuff -- like getting ALL your opponents thrown off the ballot (see Alice Palmer story at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/polit ics/chi-0704030881apr04,0,6468332.story

Now Obama is gaming the system in other ways, rather than letting the voters decide by making an honest up-front case to the voters on the issues. That is, Obama will do anything to win. It's like he thinks his personality will be so great for the world that the end justifies any and all means. See quotes below....

I'm beginning to see Obama as sort of deluded. Perhaps his intentions are good; he was raised among nice people (white guilt liberals, at least his grandfather).

But somehow Obama got the idea that the only way to be realistic and win is to do dirty Chicago style backroom stuff -- like getting ALL your opponents thrown off the ballot (see Alice Palmer story at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/polit ics/chi-0704030881apr04,0,6468332.story

Now Obama is gaming the system in other ways, rather than letting the voters decide by making an honest up-front case to the voters on the issues. That is, Obama will do anything to win. It's like he thinks his personality will be so great for the world that the end justifies any and all means. See quotes below....

President - Barack Obama

I was supporting Edwards, but his campaign is dead in the water. Obama is about as conservative as Clinton on most points, and I'm a little concerned about his pandering to the religious set with "family values" rhetoric. He's voted for the Patriot Act. And his new "I'm the liberal Reagan" schtick is grandiose and annoying, to say the least of whitewashing the teflon corruption of the 1980s decade with the comparison (yes, I know he was talking policy). He wants to be Kennedy and Reagan. He doesn't want to be Nixon or Clinton. I'm concerned he'll be Carter and Ford.

He talks in generalizations, with very little in terms of real plans. His positions on a number of issues are stealth in nature and I'm concerned that his resistance to being pinned down to specific policy positions will amount to a Clintonian mush which does nobody any good. The "politics of consensus" to me evokes images of a decade ago with a presidency trying to be something for everybody.

This past Tuesday, Devilstower over at DailyKos suggested that Democrats should extract themselves from the issue of gaming with the possible anticipation that in doing so, would bring forth a possible cadre of evangelicals, and thereby improving the electoral chances for Democrats in November of next year.  Devilstower's article is titled, "Double Down Nation" and I suggest that you wander over to DailyKos and take a gander to get your full value for political Thought and Action.

And since I am not a member of DailyKos but I am a member of the mydd, thusly, I offer my rebuttal.  However, be advised that this effort was posted earlier today at the "Cactus Juice Commentaries" at www.chicanoveterans.org and which is focused on issues important to military veterans. So, follow me below the fold, and enjoy

Gaming tribes are rolling in moolah - approaching $20 billion a year in revenues - pay little in tax, and want to keep the gravy train on track. (Non-gaming tribes? Uh oh...)

They express their appreciation in the usual way to the pols who make this possible.

And loopholes in the campaign contribution limits help them out.