• on a comment on VP as Friday news dump? over 5 years ago

    if it is someone famous (Hillary etc.) it will be during the convention, if it's someone recognised, but not universally known, it will be today or early tomorrow. Gives the news orgs time to research and write up for Sunday.

    If it's totally from left field, I haven't a clue.

  • Yeah, but I'd much rather Obama got the media and his surrogates to do this for him (however difficult that might be). McCain has nicely demonstrated how slippery the slope is once you start negative attack ads.

  • comment on a post Ad Watch: Obama Hits Back Hard on Celebrity Meme over 5 years ago

    attacks, but at least the music is nice and upbeat and there aren't any lies.

  • comment on a post Obama injects race over 6 years ago

    Stop being stupid.

  • on a comment on Barack, Prove Them Wrong over 6 years ago

    whatever.

  • on a comment on Barack, Prove Them Wrong over 6 years ago

    Good point. Maybe you should mention that over at NQ.

  • on a comment on Barack, Prove Them Wrong over 6 years ago

    You sound deluded - Obama is not going to be listening to your advice, Republicans don't give a shit about what you or I say.

    By the way, I'm still waiting for you to reject and denounce Larry and Su, as you insist Barack does with everybody you conceive to be questionable. And there is a difference - I don't find Rev. Wright or Ayers the "terrorist" to be despicable human beings.

  • comment on a post McCain Scores on World Knowledge Again... over 6 years ago

    I wouldn't believe it if he made the same mistake twice. And even worse now that Medvedev is president in Russia.

  • on a comment on Barack, Prove Them Wrong over 6 years ago

    So do you denounce and reject the bullshit Larry and Susan post?

  • on a comment on Barack, Prove Them Wrong over 6 years ago

    We're not on the same side if you post at No Quarter.

  • on a comment on Barack, Prove Them Wrong over 6 years ago

    "But the amendment did more than just urge the president to name new terrorist groups. It also expressed the sense that it is "a critical national interest" to prevent Iran from "turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force." Some Democrats, such as Jim Webb of Virginia, argued that the amendment "could be read as a back-door method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate."

    Obama did not actually vote on the amendment - he was campaigning at the time. But he did publicly oppose it, calling it excessively provocative:

    Obama press release (Sept. 26, 2007): Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today."

    The rest of the factcheck
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ soft_on_iran.html

  • on a comment on Barack, Prove Them Wrong over 6 years ago

    a rather obnoxious ass, you might want to provide some links to all your assertions.

    Oh, and another sure fire way to gain some credibility - stop posting at NQ. You will never find a greater hive of scum and villainy. Cept maybe Hillis44.org.. but even you wouldn't post there, would you?

  • on a comment on Barack, Prove Them Wrong over 6 years ago

    You want to know what Kyl-Lieberman was? It was an attempt to label the Iranian revolutionary guard as terrorists in order to allow military strikes against them, essentially starting a war with Iran.

    Thankfully it hasn't lead to anything.

  • on a comment on Barack, Prove Them Wrong over 6 years ago

    It would be useful to have people on his VP search team that actually supported him. If you put a Republican expert on there then they're just gonna offer you Kucinich, you put a bunch of Clinton supporters on they'll just say "Hillary is the best choice". You want some people who are going to look at the best options for Obama. People who supported him are going to do that.

    Isn't this really obvious?

Diaries

Advertise Blogads