So, we have an admitted opponent "source" saying: It also said: Now. Forget the crappy journalism again, stating "sources say" as if this equates to credibility. Here's the clicker. If it's "great ammunition," this background ammunition, why hasn't this "great ammunition," this "background check," been revealed in all its full glory? Man, talk about the motherlode of all campaign stoppers! - proof that Obama is a damn liar? Yet, magically, it remains floating out there in the ether, despite being called into question...this irrefutable proof that would absolutely destroy Obama and garner "political opponents" the nomination in his party, and remove a serious threat to opponents in the G.O.P. to boot, is, uh, just not coming out to quell the serious questions raised about its validity? And you believe this? This is the proof you rest on?
Every day we find out something new about Obama. With all the drugs he has been using, Obama probably doesn't remeber attending a madrassa. I believe that the information about Obama came from Hillary using classified documents that she had access to when she was in the white house. There are seems to be something behind the stories. I didn't beleive John Kerry's denial of the swift boats, Bill Clinton's denial of Jennifier Flowers, that he didn't have sex with that women, whitewater, and that he didn't inhale. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk7AfHTtj-c "From NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan and NBC’s Domenico Montanaro Obama today talked to a group of high school students in New Hampshire about his adolescent drug use, drinking alcohol and being a “goof off†in high school. It is certainly not the first time Obama has spoken on the subject of his drug use, but it is the first time he has discussed it on the campaign trail. Obama wrote at length on it in his best-selling memoir, Dreams from My Father." http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/20/475471.aspx
Bogart - You believe these documents "came from Hillary using classified documents that she had access to when she was in the white house..." On what basis do you believe this? You are avoiding the obvious. If she had the documents, they are a bombshell for her campaign that would destroy him. Again, I ask, why not come forward? All you are doing is making insinuations based on air, and I'm afraid I can't respect that. You are also saying the guy is holding secrets regarding his stupid days as a kid, when HE DISCLOSES THEM FULLY IN HIS BOOK! And he is doing it not to say, "how cool!" But as a service to kids, to say, "how stupid!" You have a problem with that? Why are you so hell bent on proving the attacks on Obama are ridiculous?
To tell you the truth I don't really care about Obama. I don't believe that he will be elected anyway. If you want to vote for Obama then go ahead. I don't have any problem with that. If the documents were classified FBI files and Hillary had access to them in the Whitehouse she won't have a right to release the documents and could face charges. So that's my theory on why she would leak the files as opposed to releasing them. The Clinton's have a real shady past and I'm sure that Hillary has built up a nice database of information that she can use as political ammo.
Ultimately I think Democrats are afraid to cast stones because for most of them, any stone throwing they do, comes back to hurt them ten fold. It's pretty obvious that there is something not quite right with Obama on several different levels. It is pretty easy to see he was recruited for this job. I mean, come on, who really ever heard of this guy? Even in Chicago? He, like Hillary was a transplant, purposely moved to a location where he could quickly gain publicity and notariaty. He is obviously backed by some one or some groups agenda, again, much like Hillary.. The difference however is that we know who is backing Hillary and her move to NY, then towards the White House. With Obama, it's a different story. I would not be surprised if it were some crazy militant Islamic group. The tell tail signs of Obama's disdain and hatred of the US is shown in his refusal to wear his American Flag lapel pin. His refusal to cover his heart with is hand during the Pledge and or National Anthem. Aside from the several levels of apparent, blatant, and purposeful lacks of patriotism, he openly condemns anything positive in America. Sadly, in the end, there is not a single Democratic candidate that has a chance in hell of winning.. God I wish Lieberman were running... He'd get my vote. I'd cross a party line in a heart beat if the Democrats could give me a candidate that actually gives a damn about me, America, and our basic principles as outlined in the Preamble to the Constitution. So far, every candidate is running on 3 fundamental principles: 1. Bush Is bad 2. America Sucks 3. I'm the best Democrat I've not seen any one of them tackle education, lowering taxes, veterans benefits, anti-strike laws, or most importantly, dealing with environmental issues... Not a single democratic candidate has done or said anything positive. They have just continued to spout their doom and gloom campaign, mud slinging with each other, and disgusting clothing choices... Want to impress me? Talk like me, walk like me, dress like me, and most of all stop trying to be everything to the minority of people who feed on self - loathing and regression... It's really counter productive to those of us who get up every morning with a positive outlook on life. Obama is a plant.. That much is quite obvious.
lol, talk about delusions. I hate obama too but the idea that he is run by militant islamists when his biggest sponsors are jewish, just makes me laugh.
I can't agree, Jeremy. What you're seeing is a classic paradigm shift. The nation has said it wants a wholesale change. It won't be the first time someone has come from relative obscurity to the national stage in quick order as a perceived antidote - rightly or wrong, I might add - to what is seen as business as usual. "Dark Horse" candidates are not new to American politics. Carter comes most immediately to mind, but several others throughout our history achieved a "miraculous" accounting by coming from out of relative obscurity to win the nomination, or presidency. I'd say, on the Republican side, the success of RP in gaining the ground he's gained would be considered by many a kind of dark horse notoriety. (Interesting to see, in fact, the number of "surprise" candidates who have come from exactly what you are saying, relative obscurity to the national stage - to achieve the nomination and/or Presidency. Wiki goes into it a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_horse_candidate So, I don't feel this is a "plant" at all, any more than Carter was in his time. If he is a plant, some nefarious subterranean force at play, then I would have to say so is the reversal in congress that took place, in a rebuke of this President's administration. Obama is simply in synch with the mobilized call for newness, a "youthful vigor" to the perception that Washington is unresponsive to the national mood. Personally, I think the guy is untried, full of lightness and air (but sharp as a whip, and skilled at sniffing the wind afoot in "young, hungry America"), and Clinton is nothing more than a political animal; but then, there isn't a single candidate from either party I admire. But this is a far cry from being put in place by fundamentalist Islamist concerns, in some kind of pre-emptive move to overthrow America. This latter campaign of rumor and witch-hunting is what bugs me. I'm fine with condemning the guy on any number of things, but not on innuendo and baseless rumor. As I've always said, judge the man, harshly, if that is what you find, from a close observation of his merits. But don't crucify on some pre-conceived smear campaign. It wasn't fair with JFK and his "papist conspiracy," and it isn't fair with this candidate.
Obama really did come now where. He delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention while still an Illinois state legislator. Jimmy Carter had a lot more of a past. Carter was a United States Naval Academy graduate and served 8 years in the Navy. He served in the Georgia State Legislature and was the 76th Governor of Georgia.
Bogart, please read the wiki article - it has happened many, many times. How about Wendell Wilkie, for starters? ( Wha? Never held a single elected office???? Not a "mere" state senator before just speaking at a political convention, but, damn! The whole kit and caboodle, the party's damn nomination, all without an hour in public office? Islamic Militants pushed Wilkie through to the nomination????? What's going on, here, America??? C'mon. Obama represents perfectly what the democratic party wanted to show itself as being - representing "new, young America." A fresh faced kid with the goods, Harvard Law brilliance, etc. And, shock of shock, he is a United States Senator, running for the Presidency. As I said, right time, right place. Hate him, love him, nothing to see here, folks - no conspiracy, and he should be judged by his politics, not the average smear campaign.
Where does Obama get his middle name Hussein from if he isn't a muslim? Baracka Hussein Obama sure sounds muslim to me.
Good lord, man! The guy's name is now a problem???? This is what it comes down to, the basis of the claim? A little tidbit: there are these creatures called parents, and when a child is born, they give their child a name, you see. Mindblowing, I know, but the habit's been around for a long, long time. Sorry to turn sarcastic, but I really have tried to remain on facts. I can see it won't be possible. I am sorry to say I am deeply disappointed that what is putatively called the American Dream: "work hard, and you, too, can someday grow up to be President," is being so cynically dragged in the dirt.
The plain hard facts about Obama and no matter how pragmatic or diplomatic one tries to be with comments The hard facts are the guy is a nothing and will NEVER be the USA President
So we summarize by saying that Obama is in the presidential campaign just to make up the numbers and of course blatantly waste all the donation money he will receive
Bogart, you are an Islamophobiac... You should consult a psychologist... God, whats the matter with this guy?
The man is a United States Senator, mounting in the polls with Clinton, and in a head-to-head with Giuliani, ahead of Giuliani, across virtually all polls. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_obama-228.html#polls Yep, "nothing." Probably why the guy has those funny little guys in bad suits and bad shades following him around, because for good or ill, this nothing might just become the next President of the United States. Like I said, "new ideas.": http://www.abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=3887274&page=1
9-11 is what's a matter with me. North: Seems a lot of people have "Wendell Wilkie' syndrome. Take a guy out of nowhere and everything will be all right. Good thing that FDR beat his ass. In fact, Jimmy Carter the other guy that you mention that came out of nowhere was Presidency was a disaster. He gave away the Panama Canel, left the US in a recession with 20% inflation, the Iran hostage crisis and the military in shambles. Let Obama go back to the Senate and come back in 2012 or 2016 so that we know what we are dealing with.
Oh, that's fine, Bogart - my issue isn't with believing the guy will make a lousy president, my issue is saying there is a wholesale conspiracy in place - and likely, "radical islamists" at that - when that's just a crock of crap. You indicated he came from nowhere, etc., and that this means he's an Islamist plant, etc., and I showed you plenty of candidates who similarly "came out of nowhere," who weren't some "Star Chamber" candidate mouthpiece for an overthrow of the U.S. As I have said from the beginning, judge the man on his merits.
Oprah comes into prop up the sinking campaign http://www.chicagotribune.com/servi...enov27,0,2632252.story?coll=chi-ent_music-hed Likely to be another wasted life support effort, whats the point in all this ?
Britishguy, I honestly can't tell whether you are trying to paint a picture that isn't there, or just aren't aware, but either way - you are simply wrong. Obama is closing in and the race is tightening. Here in the states, first states are tremendously important and by all accounts Obama is leading in Iowa, the first and most important primary. Here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900940.html You'll have to try another tack if this guy bugs you this much.