I think Obama's doing the right thing in terms of political strategy. In the past 2 weeks he has, essentially, de-fused just about every bomb (guns, wiretapping terror suspects, abortion, death penalty, etc.) McCain and the GOP could use against him to paint him as a looney liberal.

Obama's calculus is that the Dems are so hungry for a win that they will still come out to vote D in November, even if the he doesn't hew 100% to the party line. He's right. An extremely small number of Dems will stay home because Obama decided to grant immunity to phone companies. But he'll pick up 100,000 independent voters in Ohio or 80,000 in Michigan or 50,000 in Colorado.

Obama is making this a campaign where he holds the left and the broad center where McCain is left picking up crumbs among the most extreme right-wingers. I think it's pretty brilliant (but the one risk is that Obama could end up painting himself as just another politician who will say anything to get elected).

Obama is waging a fifty state, electoral college landslide campaign. It's refreshing for a Dem to be in that position and he'll still have my vote and my money come November.

....and no doubt sends chills down the spines of his opposition.

I just picked up a copy of the latest issue of Rolling Stone with Obama on the cover. Fascinating interview. The next aspect of his campaign I will read about is the money making ability. He does address the question of gay rights/marriages again, said that the country is kind of "working through" the idea of gay marriage, and that he opposes any discrimination of any kind. Its clear this guy is REALLY intelligent. I highly recommend this article.

Let's hope idiot Obama thinks his total flip-flopping all over the place is the "right thing to do," because he's going to get creamed in November. Your foolish and stupid belief that Independents will prefer to vote for someone who changes his stance on just about everything (gun control, abortion, Iraq, taxes, etc.) is laughable. More and more people are seeing Obama for what he truly is: a wet-behind-the-ears, ambitious, inexperienced kid who flip-flops left and right just to get him elected. This isn't "change." It's typical Washington politics, something against which Obama has been (falsely) railing. Now the real Obama has emerged, and it's no different from those whom he hypocritically criticized.

He's losing more voters by the week with his being on one side of an issue today and the other side tomorrow.

But that doesn't matter to people like you and fellow Kool-Aid drinker hockeytom, because Obama could shoot up a high school and you blind idiots would still vote for him, but this is typical of unintelligent voters.

No, he's not.

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php

You just go ahead and believe polls that don't reflect voters' knowledge of Mr. Two-face himself. First, national polls are irrelevant, never mind that they show Obama worse off than they showed Kerry, Mondale, and others at the same time period. Second, when voters realize just how typical and indecisive Obama truly is, they turn sour on him. Time and time again, when voters are asked who is the more principled candidate, McCain is the one they choose. This is because he has had the guts to oppose his party when he felt it was necessary. He has worked with the other side and hasn't changed his mind even when it looks like it might hurt him.

Obama, on the other hand, is so extreme and partisan that Socialist Bernie Sanders is considered conservative compared to Obama. Barack Hussein Obama is an extreme liberal--the most extreme and most liberal candidate to have ever been nominated in history--who realizes he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning unless he does an about face on everything he has babbled about for months. This isn't the sign of a leader. It's the sign of an expedient tool with no spine to lead. But hey, who cares when fools like you drink the Kool-Aid with no regard for its effects.

For the sake of argument, let's grant that polls showing a consistent Obama lead aren't accurate. Can you provide any proof that he is "losing more voters by the week"?

Oh Veritas or Mib or whoever you are. We are all so happy that the Bush economy is working so well for you, while its NOT for tens of millions ( more like a couple hundred million or more) of Americans,and everything else is too right? that it doesn't matter who you elect, just so they are Republican right? , As far as Obama being a flip flopper, even if he was, and he is NOT, he has a good teacher, McBush....

Tom

I don't think Veritas is MIB. MIB was polite, and actually had 2 brain cells.

I think Veritas is more likely Matt. The same knuckle dragging, yeehaw, generations of fine inbreeding level of intelligence.

So tell us Veritas. Do you REALLY think that McCain would be better? The man is starting to lose his marbles. If you think the economy is bad now, wait till his economic kool aid takes effect.

Lets recap his financial strategy. Make the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent. And to pay for that, cut medicare, medicaid, and social security.

And now he wants to balance the budget. How will he do it? To put it simply, I have $10 dollars in my pocket, and meant to spend $50. But I got a deal and only spent $40. The $10 dollars I saved (which I didn't have in the first place), will go to pay of my debts.

And while you might not like Obama, there are more than 50% of VOTERS who do.

Hey, maybe Veritas is Jesse Helm's son!

I forgot about Matt...your probably right on your hunch Lk.

OK, maybe I'm not hip enough or haven't been around here as long as some of you veterans, but just who the heck is Matt?

New York Times blasts Obama over his flip-flopping and changing stances.

Keep it up, Barack Hussein Obama, because the more you change sides, the worse you'll do in November. Considering that the media is in the tank for you and that anything you do will be dismissed with an excuse, it's no surprise that your empty-headed supporters here are too blind and ignorant to realize you're slipping away.

Still no evidence to back up the assertion that Obama is losing support.

No, there is no real evidence that Obama has lost the bump since he became the nominee. From what I have seen, he has even put a few other states in play that might not have been a few months ago. However, this race is going to come down to the debates. I would say any lead right now is more artificial.

I do find it quite interesting that you see Obama’s stance on Iraq taking an about face when times are good. This was one of the KEY points of his campaign. He wanted to exit Iraq as soon as possible.

All of these candidates are going to change their positions on certain issues in a presidential campaign. They key is to look at their core values/issues. When they start changing those issues, it starts to tell voters they stand for nothing except for which way the wind blows. With some of the changes Obama has made, he’s going to have to answer pointed questions about his new stances, especially since many of them are in direct conflict with what he said just a month ago.

I think many of the same questions were raised while running against Hillary, but just simply dismissed because it was Hillary against Obama and everyone here wanted Obama above her. I’m interested to see if Obama’s changes his position on offshore drilling within the next month. The polls clearly indicate that is what the voters want. He’s made a clear stance that he will not do this.

I do have one question, why is it that anyone who is not completely pro-obama a fake, someone else, or an operative? Does not come off as a very accepting type of place unless you share one value of thinking.

Hockeytom, I see the McBush line all of the time from you. I was wondering if you might elaborate on how the Housing Boom was any different from the Dotcom boom of the 90’s. Both were very good for the economy and in many ways the bubble was burst in the same way. My only complaint with the Bush economy was that he should have adjusted a few of his tax cuts during the boom, and lowered them now to help offset the sluggish economy which has been brought down via high gas prices and fall of the housing boom.

Clinton left his last year of office not doing much to offset the dotcom boom and congress sat on their hands wanting to make the republican candidate look better. The exact thing is happening now. Both the president and congress should be working together to ensure we do not fall into a recession. This is what drives middle of the road moderates crazy.

Regardless of who Veritas is, why encourage him to post more garbage? Put him on "ignore" and be done with it.



I'm not completely pro-Obama and no one's accused me of being any of those things. (Of course, I'm never voting for McCain or any Republican for president.) Whether Veritas is a unique personality or a copycat of someone else is irrelevant. He's a troll, plain and simple. He wants flame wars, not actual discourse, and people here are foolishly giving him what he wants.

JohnnyMac has already been exposed for what he really is: A McCain supporter disguised as a moderate on the fence and/or Hillary supporter infiltrating discussion boards of likely Obama supporters just to stir the shit. Feed the trolls and that's what you will get.

JohnnyMac may be a troll, but at least that post is respectful in tone and well-written. Maybe if he starts contributing to discussions about SPORTS there's some hope yet.

It is generally agreed that Obama's campaign began to take off against Hillary on the strength of his knock-out speech at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Des Moines. It was a speech that captured all the aching promise of Obama's new politics. Two key paragraphs:



There are seven sentences in those two paragraphs, and Obama in recent weeks has violated the spirit of every single one of them. If you were a young idealistic liberal who believed Obama then, wouldn't you feel duped right now (assuming you're capable of exercising any independent judgment about Barack Obama)?

On another note, Barack Hussein Obama recently said that if he were elected president, he'd immediately go to his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and tell him to "end this war now." What an idiot! He doesn't even know that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not part of the command structure and is not allowed to be! He has no input as to the conduct of military actions and has no authority to tell the military, its commanders, or troops, what to do. Now it's fun watching Barack Hussein Obama squealing, trying to get out of this major faux pas, because he knows it makes him look bad and damages him. Of course, the media will no doubt ignore it considering they're in the tank for this kid.

And this guy claims to have what it takes to be president? Uh huh--143 days in the U.S. Senate. Such qualifications!

Buh-bye, Barack. Time to leave the playground and leave the serious stuff to the adults.

Hey Veritas, since you have all the answers, what would you do? I know, a troll like you is incapable of actually contributing something positive, let alone answer any direct questions without insult, but try this time, won't you? Also, where and when did Obama say that he would march over to the Chariman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and "end this war now"? If he had indeed said this, don't you think it would have made national headlines? Try again, Veritas. Even you could do better than that.

Obama has been in the Senate for far longer than 143 days. If you're going to use pointless statistics, at least get them right.

Boy! You really ARE drunk on the Obama Kool-Aid, aren't you? From Our Lord and Savior Barack Hussein Obama's second press conference late last week to address his ever more slippery position on withdrawing troops from Iraq, he stated:



Tick, tock, tick, tock...

I await your reply that will no doubt try and excuse this ignoramus's statement. I'm sure you'll dismiss it with your typical Obama apologist's flair because, well, he's a brotha and you'd vote for him even if he shot up a grade school and ate puppies for breakfast.

Anyone who does not even understand the military's command structure does not deserve to be its commander-in-chief. Period.

You're even a bigger fool than I thought if you think the media, who are totally in the tank for this idiot, are going to report anything this damaging about Obama. Get real for once.





Sorry, that number is, in fact, an accurate one. I am sure you do not understand why. Here's a hint: compare it to John Kerry when he ran.

BTW, Kerry's service in Vietnam was longer than Obama's in the Senate.

Veritas--officially on my ignore list. I hope everyone has fun dealing with him!

See how much better things are when you use the Ignore feature!

The longtime Chicago political machine? Where do you dig up this tripe? A link would be nice, as I do not believe a word you say, even if your tongue came notarized. Come on Vertias, you should know better.

Shame, shame, shame on Obama for voting yesterday for the FISA bill Bush wanted, expanding unconstitutional wiretapping.

However, as far as the O Man's "new positions" are concerned, Gail Collins of the NY Times points out today in her opinion column they're mostly the ones he's had all along, but which his swooning fans who mistook him for a committed progressive failed to see through their blinders:



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion

Collapsing like a house of cards this kid is!

After almost six weeks of a constant Obama lead, generally in the five to seven-point range, Scott Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll records two consecutive days of a tie race (July 12-13) and a one-point Obama lead on July 14. What happened to the Democrat’s lead?

Part of the slippage is Obama’s fault and part is McCain’s gain.

Obama has carried flip-flopping to new heights. In the space of a month and a half, this candidate - who we don’t really yet know very well - reversed or sharply modified his positions on at least eight key issues:

• After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.

• Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.

• Turning his back on a lifetime of support for total gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.

• Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn’t mean it.

• From a 100 percent pro-abortion position where he opposed any and all restrictions, including those that prohibited the killing of babies about to be born, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.

• For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.

• Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.

• During the primary, he backed merit pay for teacher--but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.

• After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.

Obama’s breathtaking flips and flops are materially different from McCain’s. While McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling and now supports it, the facts have obviously changed. Obama’s shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political calendar.

As a candidate who was nominated to be a different kind of politician, Obama has set the bar pretty high. And, with his flipping and flopping, he is falling short, to the disillusionment of his more naïve supporters. One wag even called him the “black Bill Clinton,” a turnaround of the “first black president” moniker that had been pinned on Bill.

Meanwhile, McCain and the Republicans have finally found an issue--oil drilling--exposing how the Democrats oppose drilling virtually anywhere that there might be recoverable oil. Not in Alaska. Not offshore. Not in shale deposits in the West. The Democratic claim that we “cannot drill our way out of the crisis in gas prices” begs the question of whether, had we drilled five years ago, we would be a lot less dependent on foreign market fluctuations.

The truth is that the Democrats put the need to mitigate climate change ahead of the imperative of holding down gasoline prices at the pump. If there was ever a fault line between elitist and populist approaches to a problem, this is it. In fact, liberals basically don’t see much wrong with $5 gas. Many have been urging a tax to achieve precisely this level, just like Europe has done for decades. This is because when it comes down to it, the Democrats are NOT in favor of lowering gas prices if it means helping the American consumer and economy; rather, they're arrogant elitists who wish to exert control over our lives in such a manner to bring us into their Socialist lives.

Obama said that he was unhappy that there was not a period of “gradual adjustment” to the high prices, but seems to shed few tears over the current levels. After all, if your imperative is climate change, a high gas price is worth 10 times a ratified Kyoto treaty in bringing about change.

Republicans can drive a truck through the gap between this elite opinion and the need for ordinary people to afford the journey to work in the morning. And, with a 16-state media buy, the Republican Party and the McCain campaign are doing precisely that.

If Obama softens his aversion to drilling, it may be the final straw for some of his liberal supporters. Where would they go? Nader is still a possibility. But McCain can attract liberal votes. He doesn’t need to bleed Obama only from the right. His own stands against drilling in Alaska and torture of terror suspects and for immigration reform make him suspect on the right, but quite acceptable to the left. If moderate liberals are disgusted by Obama’s obvious attempts at chicanery and repositioning, they might just cross the aisle.

I'm no diehard Obama fan, but that first item is not a "reversal," and your second is a distortion. (No one bases their "entire campaign" on one issue.)

McCain's long list of shameless, opportunistic reversals (and the media's blithe dismissal of them) is breathtaking:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080707/alterman



Where will leftists "go"? Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party nominee, is a more likely refuge than Nader for those of us in states that aren't in play.

Obama raised more than $52 million in the month of June. Things are looking good. I heard one analyst say this morning that he thinks Obama could become the first political candidate to ever raise $100 million in a single month and he predicts it will happen in September. That would be amazing.

Talking about the sums politicians raise is just as exciting as movie grosses discussions! And just as substantive.