BS: Popular Views on Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 11:53 PM

I hear ya Ron I just thought it would be funny calling Hillary a virgin.

I still don't want any of what Carville is drinking.

I think the whole idea is creepy that the Clintons would expect personal loyalty over a considered judgement of what is best for the party. I am glad that they are not going to be President again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 12:06 AM

I am not sure this is going to help.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 12:47 PM

A Canadian perspective from Price George, BC:

"...This is going to be one of those contrary days.
For openers, electing Barack Obama as the next U.S. president would be the best thing to happen in American politics since former president Dwight Eisenhower, and for a lot of the same reasons. His election could be good for Prince George as well, and I'll get to that later.
To open on Eisenhower, if he were alive today I think he'd be supporting Obama.
Eisenhower, a Republican and Allied commander during the Second World War, understood better than most the horrible cost of war. Not only in the death it caused, but in the responsibility and consequences of its aftermath.
When he left the presidency in 1961, Eisenhower offered this warning, saying: "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex."
He went on to say: "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defence with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Eisenhower would not be happy with the current gunslinger policy of the Bush White House.
To push the text of his warning, current American foreign policy has come unmeshed and the country's security and liberty have not prospered in the least.
Now to Obama and his take on the Bush war on Iraq.
On the invasion of Iraq, Obama said this: "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaida."
Wow, did he nail that one. Moreover, he made that speech in October 2002; the invasion of Iraq came less than six months later, in March 2003.
In one short paragraph, Obama not only correctly laid out the faulty military strategy of an Iraq invasion, but the terrible geo-political consequences as well.
..."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:12 PM

I'm with you also, Ron...

The so-called blue collar Clinton supporterd are gonna have some reased euebrows when they find out just how filthy rich the Clintons have become... And that's just the tip of the iceburg... Where they got the dough is what is gonna sink the USS Hillary...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 03:53 PM

This is a long thread. Maybe we ought to start calling it a yarn!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:13 PM

SOme of is fluff, some of it stringing you along. And never the twine shall meet.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:59 PM

Carter is cagy, but it looks like Obama!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 10:28 PM

You're right, Jack. In fact Carter has already said as much while in the US--along the lines of how wonderful it is to see the positive campaign Obama is running and the way he has energized the young like nobody else in decades. He's in Obama's corner--it's only a matter of time before he declares.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 09:43 AM

On the face of it, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine's statement this morning on CNBC that he reserves the right to defect if Clinton loses the popular vote sounds more inside baseball than headline news. But consider these factors: Corzine endorsed Clinton more than a year ago as part of Clinton's initial sweep of superdelegates. (Yesterday was the anniversary of that announcement.) A defection by Corzine would mean the foundation is crumbling. Also, Clinton won the New Jersey primary by 11 points on Feb. 5. Jersey is in her backyard, and the fact that the governor would consider siding with the popular vote over the overwhelming opinion of his constituents won't go overlooked by other superdelegates from states she won. If Richardson is "Judas," what would that make Corzine?

Meanwhile, Obama announced $40 million in donations to his campaign in March, including more than 200,000 first-time contributors, according to the press release. The Clinton campaign was reticent on their own figures, which likely won't become public until the campaign files with the FEC down the road.
(Salon.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 11:24 AM

Last month we found that Obama raised 55 million in February and that Clinton raised 35 million, this month we find that of that 35, 20 could only be used for the General election because she had retapped donors who had maxed out to inflate her numbers and appear to be competitive when in fact she was not. Yet I am still seeing articles in places like MSNBC and the LA Times saying that "Obama raised 55 and Clinton raised 35.

This month Obama announces that 400K donors gave him 40 million, of those 200k were new donors. Chinton, "leaks" that she raised 20 million but will not release the official numbers until April 20th, two days before the primary. The have hit the iceberg and Hillary is telling the band to keep playing and telling the passengers there is no reason to panic.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 09:51 PM

Then there's this from Froma Harrop!


Obama and the Skeptic-Free Campaign

Big-time political writers are busy people. With all the blogging, the parties and appearances on TV, skeptical examination of widely accepted beliefs seems a waste of time. The Obama campaign has done many a time-starved commentator a great service. It has composed the story for them — that Hillary Clinton can't possibly win the Democratic nomination and is a horrible person besides.

But now and then, the liberties taken with reality reach a pitch where protest is unavoidable and the bias against Clinton becomes the center of conversation. A recent barrage of ludicrous assertions has created another of those breaking points. The writers at "Saturday Night Live" should have an easy week.

The latest collapse started some days ago on what is normally a four-star destination for good journalism, PBS's "NewsHour." The news summary started off with this: "Clinton's fellow Democrat in the Senate, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, today urged her to leave the race for the good of the party."

The "fellow Democrat" also happened to be one of Barack Obama's most ardent supporters, but whoops, they forget to mention that. For days even mainstream media were portraying Leahy, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and other members of the Obama team as "elders" thinking only of the party.

Over at The New York Times, columnist David Brooks purported to explain how "it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes." And to buttress this view, he quotes two writers for Politco.com quoting an unnamed "important Clinton adviser" who reportedly said that Clinton has no more than a 10 percent chance to win the nomination. "Now, she's probably down to a 5 percent chance," Brooks opines. And to give his instant statistic weight, he dramatically repeats it: "5 percent."

Who, pray tell, is that masked Clinton adviser? Could it be someone about to be fired? Or negotiating for a job with Obama campaign? Politico.com has real journalists, and so I'm going to assume that the adviser exists.
But how credible is an adviser who would drop that kind of stink bomb on his or her employer's prospects for success?

This comes a mere month after the Times suffered a prolonged spanking for a story that suggested a possible romantic involvement between John McCain and an attractive female lobbyist — based on the testimony of two former McCain associates who were never identified. (McCain and the lobbyist both denied the account.)

Clinton's misstatement about coming under fire in Bosnia — whether a memory lapse or a tall tale — was lamentable. But the stampede to portray her as a consummate liar, as opposed to everyone else on the campaign trail, was an extraordinary media pile-up.

No one made a big deal when Obama, eager to portray himself as an adopted Kennedy, said that his father had come to the United States thanks to Kennedy largesse. In fact, the clan had nothing to do with it. Obama also claimed to have played a big part in crafting the immigration legislation, which even his ally Dodd said was not so.

Thank goodness for the independent voices that have called attention to the ongoing gang warfare against Clinton. The Washington Post's media writer, Howard Kurtz, has listed the particulars of the obsessive "Hillary-bashing." Over at CNN, the tenacious Lou Dobbs hacks nightly at the weak assumptions underpinning the agitprop that Clinton can't possibly win.

Why do so few commentators worry about defending their Obama-centric viewpoints? Because much of the public already has been indoctrinated and believes them to be fact. The Obama campaign really knows how to plow those fields — those guys are good.

COPYRIGHT 2008 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 09:57 PM

Possibly the idea that Obama will win (I think he will, btw) springs from the desire to see someone honest and real in the White House. I am tired of seeing the American people getting sucked in by sleaze and hype. Perhaps it's that simple. When senile folks like Reagan or guys like Billy--fu#k, gimme a break, what the hell kinda president gets his tweeters woofed in the Oval Office--or this present clown get elected, dontcha think it undermines the office of the president?

It may be the most powerful office in the world, but right now (after decades of tripe being in there) it's a sick joke. Maybe the USA needs someone real. Maybe Obama is it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 11:54 PM

Clinton invites a certain amount of the bashing by (a) her own duplicity and (b) her own or her campaign's evident ruthlessness.

Obamas strives to maintain a level of honesty and dignity and intelligence not often seen in the American political theater., People sense his fundamental decency and are opting for it left and right.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 12:14 AM

Congratulations Riginslinger,

You have found a very biased wannabe columnist on a vanity press website who agrees with some of your more dubious assertions.

But even you can't possibly believe that "the Times" printed that thing about McCain because the Obama campaign told them to.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 12:21 AM

Ms Harrop,

I have taken your advice and applied skeptical examination to your opinion piece. Your website suggests that I ask my local editor to include your columns in his paper. I will not be doing so. I am not interested in reading the opinions of people who wrap their libel as innuendo and print it as opinion. You have hinted that PBS and David Brooks are attacking Hillary because the Obama campaign has told them to do. You offer no proof, just more innuendo. You also seem to be blaming McCain's trouble with "the Times" on the Obama Campaign. Also you seem to be giving them credit for CBS's showing film to expose Mrs. Clinton's exaggerations.

Calling that series of lies a misstatement after Mrs. Clinton repeated them three times and Her campaign denied them twice, demonstrates that you have a bit of bias yourself. Did Hillary's campaign instruct you to do that? Maybe you should consider some skeptical examination of your own.

Please consider that the "onslaught" may have been because she did not address the issue honestly and forthrightly from the start and that the lack of an onslaught over the Kennedy thing may have been because Obama, admitted his mistake and corrected it as soon as it was pointed out to him.

Congratulations for getting yourself on a website that claims that you have talent.

I however, am skeptical. Jack

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 09:21 AM

Jack - You might want to check out Froma Harrops credentials. She certainly dosen't qualify a "vanity press," and her columns are carried all over the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 09:37 AM

I could not care less about her credentials. She writes with less logic and clarity than almost everyone on this forum. Have you read the article that you posted?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 09:46 AM

Froma Harrop
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born March 18, 1950 (1950-03-18) (age 58)
Birth place Template:New York, NY
Education New York University

Occupation Columnist
Notable credit(s) Top 100 Syndicated Columnists

Froma Harrop (born March 18, 1950 in New York City) is an American writer who "displays an independent voice on politics, economics, and culture."[1]

She is best known for her nationally syndicated column which appears twice-weekly in more than 150 newspapers including The Seattle Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Denver Post, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, Detroit News, and Newsday.[2] Media Matters for America ranks Harrop 20th among the top 100 syndicated columnists for total reader reach and 14th based on average circulation.[3]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 10:10 AM

What is a columnist, anyway? Is that a print version of a 'talking head'? Another member of the punditocracy commentariat?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 10:14 AM

Carol - If you're making the case that the wrong people have captured the radio station, I'm with you. But Jack was under the impression that Froma Harrop was a "vanity press" creation, which she obviously is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 10:27 AM

The website, creators syndicate I found your copy pasted article in looked like vanity press. Apparently it was not. So I withdraw that remark and apologize for it.

On the other hand, she is lying in that article as well as making absurd, non sequitur statements. I hate to admit this, but Guest, Guest often make more sense than this woman.

I now repeat my question. I hope that you will read the article and answer it.

This is the thesis of the article.
>>Big-time political writers are busy people. With all the blogging, the parties and appearances on TV, skeptical examination of widely accepted beliefs seems a waste of time. The Obama campaign has done many a time-starved commentator a great service. It has composed the story for them<<

It is repeated and reinforced at the end of the article.
>>Why do so few commentators worry about defending their Obama-centric viewpoints? Because much of the public already has been indoctrinated and believes them to be fact. The Obama campaign really knows how to plow those fields<<

In between there is this.
>>Times suffered a prolonged spanking for a story that suggested a possible romantic involvement between John McCain and an attractive female lobbyist — based on the testimony of two former McCain associates who were never identified. <<
Do you believe what she is clearly implying? That the Obama campaign's spin is so good that they convinced the New York Times to make false accusations about John McCain?

If she is getting tripe like this printed in one hundred and fifty news papers then we are all in the wrong business.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 10:31 AM

I was just struck by the term that was being used to describe her. Even though I've been seeing and hearing it used for a long time, it just suddenly came to me that I had no idea what it really means. I know what the word 'journalist' is supposed to mean (although most who bear that descriptor really aren't journalists, but corporate shills). A columnist is one who writes columns? What's a column? A bunch of words in some sort of print media? How do we determine who deserves to be seriously called a columnist? One whose credentials arise entirely from the number of people who read their words?

I don't know. Sometimes things just hit you in a way they never did before and in a way that you didn't ever expect them to.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 10:48 AM

For anyone who equates Columnist and Journalist, please remember that Bill O'Reilly and Robert Novak and Dave Barry are columnists.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 11:36 AM

Full version of Obama on Hardball

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 11:59 AM

I think the theme of Froma Harrop's column is basically correct. The media simply is not critical of Obama in the way they have been of the other candidates.

             As far as Carol's concern about how people managed to get elevated to the ranks of the most printed columnists, I think it would be worth while to check to see who is in control of the many media outlets, and then try to determine what the political objecives of "those people" are.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 12:14 PM

Already did that, Riginslinger. It's bleak.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 12:34 PM

Yes Riginslinger, I know that you believe that. But neither you nor Froma Harrop can back up that feeling with facts.

Can you point to one thing in the article that proves that anyone is saying any of those things because Obama's campaign is telling them to.

I happen to think that the media has been a lot easier on McCain than on Obama. It is also clear that the Media is buying Mark Penn's narrative about the horse race lock stock and Barrel.

They are still saying that she raised 35 million to Obama's 55 million even though she is not allowed to spend 20 million of it.

They are still saying that she won Ohio and Texas even though Obama won the delecates in Texas.


I think that the main reason for the difference in the coverage is that Obama is running a better campaign and to prove that, I will use your columnists own example.
How about this?

>>Clinton's misstatement about coming under fire in Bosnia — whether a memory lapse or a tall tale — was lamentable. But the stampede to portray her as a consummate liar, as opposed to everyone else on the campaign trail, was an extraordinary media pile-up.

No one made a big deal when Obama, eager to portray himself as an adopted Kennedy, said that his father had come to the United States thanks to Kennedy largesse. In fact, the clan had nothing to do with it. Obama also claimed to have played a big part in crafting the immigration legislation, which even his ally Dodd said was not so.<<

Have you followed these stories? The Clinton story was a big deal because she repeated the lies even after they were pointed out, because she defend the statements, after Sinbad contradicted her until she was proved wrong on tape and because her story was so patently silly. That the President sent his wife, his daughter, a comedian and a female singer because it was too dangerous for him to go himself, when he had actually gone there himself months before.

The Obama story had no legs because it was a much more understandable mistake and because it was corrected right away.

>>Writes Dobbs: "Obama spokesman Bill Burton acknowledged yesterday that the senator from Illinois had erred in crediting the Kennedy family with a role in his father's arrival in the United States. He said the Kennedy involvement in the Kenya student program apparently 'started 48 years ago, not 49 years ago as Obama has mistakenly suggested in the past.'" <<

http://paxalles.blogs.com/paxalles/2008/03/obama-airlift-f.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 12:34 PM

It is in fact!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 01:12 PM

And Obama wasn't alive at the time anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 02:04 PM

"Already did that, Riginslinger. It's bleak."


                                    Yes it is!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 08:37 AM

Sorry, Rig, you're all wet.

Hillary has made her own bed, and is now lying in it. The media just reflect this. You may think the sniper incident was blown out of proportion. Her problem is it is part of an ongoing pattern-in her supposedly strongest suit--experience.   In every one of her supposed areas of foreign policy experience---Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Macedonia, China and Rwanda, her claims have been exposed as a house of cards.

You have provided precisely no evidence to counter this.

And the sniper incident assumes even more importance when you realize--if you are capable of thinking this through--that it is likely to hurt her in an unexpected way with a group she desperately needs--blue collar white men--who include many veterans and others who know what sniper fire really is--and that you would know if you had experienced it.

If anything, the media--so far--have mostly let her off the hook in the most recent example of her spectacularly bad judgment---her most vulnerable area. The visit of Mark Penn, her main spokesman, to Columbia--to promote a trade agreement she supposedly strongly opposes, highlights her wretched record in judgment.

And you might also note that Mr. Penn's firm also represents John McCain--another fact the media have let slip by to a large extent.

She and her supporters have no cause to whine about the media.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 11:29 AM

Well, there is no doubt in my mind right now that Obama is definitely a mainstream candidate. We're taking some food to the volunteers at the Obama headquarters this afternoon. We called ahead to see what time to bring it, and they said wait until about 1:30 this afternoon because all but one of the volunteers are in church.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 12:21 PM

We've got some real weirdos in Colorado. I just received this from a media watchdog group:

Discussing Sen. Barack Obama, guest John H. McWhorter of the conservative Manhattan Institute stated on the April 1 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show, "Obama didn't grow up with two black parents like I did. Barack Obama has something to prove. Barack Obama decided 20 years ago, 'I am going to be black.' You know, if you have a white mother and an African father -- and I've tried not to say this too loud in public, but it's true -- you're not black-American culturally if that's your background. You're just some kind of mutt. I am a great admirer of the man, but that's not black."

Unbelievable...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 01:08 PM

Oh yes, one more thing about this, Rig.

It is actually absurd to complain about "the media"--since there is no such thing. There is a huge difference, as I've pointed out before between the WSJ and the NY Daily News, as between Olberman and Limbaugh. And they are all part of "the media".   Now, more than ever, "the media" is a totally meaningless term--especially with the ongoing splintering of opinion due to the Net.

Even "mainstream media" is close to meaningless--since there are huge differences even between the large newspapers and between the various broadcasters.

So your chosen column is nothing but a rather desperate attempt to fill up the space the columnist was allotted for that day. No surprise that you would cite it--it's right up the alley of an unthinking conspiracy theorist.

Cheap entertainment--but full of sound and fury and signifying....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 01:22 PM

"...there is no doubt in my mind right that Obama is a mainstream candidate. We're taking some food to the volunteers at the Obama headquarters this afternoon. We called ahead to see what time to bring it, and they said wait until about 1:30 this afternoon because all but one of the volunteers are in church."


                Wow! That is scary!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 01:26 PM

Well, it might just be a cautious spin. I mean - "they haven't come back from the pub yet" might backfire. Especially if it was the truth...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 04:20 PM

Going to church on Sunday is pretty ordiary, although I have never engaged in the practice since I was old enough to squirm out of it, myself.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 05:24 PM

And coming back at 1.30 would give time to drop into the pub for a drink after Mass.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 05:27 PM

It's a little ironic that he's only "African-American" in a literal sense, and not in the normal politically-correct sense of that expression. That means that some black Americans may not identify with him as someone who has not really had the black American experience, whereas some whites may be sufficiently racially prejudiced to vote against him (though I imagine not many of them would vote for Clinton instead if she were the Dem candidate).

It's unfortunate that what might have been a dream Dem ticket is now unthinkable because their respective camps are tearing the two of them to pieces, making McCain look statesmanlike just by virtue of the fact that he can just sit back and leave them at each other's throats.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 06:25 PM

"And coming back at 1.30 would give time to drop into the pub for a drink after Mass."


                      Tis it Mass you think they've gone to then?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 06:43 PM

Well, so far as the ones who'd drop in for a drink on the way back, very probably.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 09:00 PM

It seems that they went to several churches, they were trying to register voters. They were mentioned from the pulpits as people from the Obama campaign who would help people register, if they wanted that help.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 10:12 PM

Sounds like they're trying to turn him into another George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 10:22 PM

They are just going where the people are. Politicians have been going to churches since there have been politicians and churches.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 11:15 PM

It's the kind of people we're conerned about!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 11:26 PM

Rig:

Stit, stir, stir....yawn.




A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 11:50 PM

Rig

I have no idea what you are talking about. These are nice young men and women. They are going where the people are to help them register to vote. Its pretty simple, but If you have any further questions or concerns, I will try to answer them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 12:32 AM

an essay on America and religion - Neil MacDonald CBC News

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:58 AM

I think Obama has run a great campaign. What I doubt is his electability against McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 10:28 AM

"'It is actually absurd to complain about "the media"--since there is no such thing. There is a huge difference, as I've pointed out before between the WSJ and the NY Daily News, as between Olberman and Limbaugh. And they are all part of "the media".'"

                     Ron - I don't think you've begun to grapple with the problem until you consider that the sources you mention above might all be on the same side, in the greater scheme of things.

                     Amy Goodman with "Democracy Now" is probably not on their side, for instance, but she's not considered very mainstream either.