Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
“The Barack Obama Show”
Will you be watching Barack Obama’s prime-time infomercial tonight? Do you think this $3 million-plus TV ad buy is a bit over the top? Will America pick up the option on this TV pilot and order four years of episodes starting in January?
What else is on at 8 p.m., you ask?
ABC: “Pushing Daisies,” “Dim Sum Lose Sum”
ION: “Boston Legal,” “Witches of Mass Destruction”
ESPN: NBA Basketball
SPIKE: “CSI: NY,” “Silent Night”
ABC Family: “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: Secret of the Ooze”
MTV: “Paris Hilton’s My New BFF,” “You Gotta Have Class”
A&E: “Dog the Bounty Hunter,” “Run Fugitive, Run”
Comedy: “The Daily Show With John Stewart”
Fox News Channel: “The O’Reilly Factor”
CNN: “Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull”
Headline News: “Nancy Grace”
TLC: “Jon & Kate Plus 8″
TVLand: “The Cosby Show,” “Grampy and Nu Nu Visit the Huxtables”
The resumption of World Series Game 5 will follow Obama’s half-hour on Fox. The other networks carrying “The Barack Obama Show” are CBS, NBC, Univision, BET, MSNBC, and TV One
back to top76 Comments to ““The Barack Obama Show””
I’m afraid it may focus on people’s lives falling apart and much that is allegedly wrong with America so that Obama can present himself as the savior.
Report comment to moderator
I’m going for baseball which, if others in our time zone who are without options are lucky, will preempt the BOBSShow. There is a rumor that will happen.
But then of course, in strictly non-partisan form and as a public service, our local BO Media lap hounds will re-air it numerous times as “news”.
Report comment to moderator
Will I be watching? No. As RonD notes, the “highlights” will show up on the news. And I’ll be watching some black and white movies next Tuesday, too.
Report comment to moderator
Will you be watching Barack Obama’s prime-time infomercial tonight?
You betcha!
Do you think this $3 million-plus TV ad buy is a bit over the top?
Not as over the top as Palin’s shopping spree.
Will America pick up the option on this TV pilot and order four years of episodes starting in January?
I certainly hope so!
Report comment to moderator
Infomercial is the correct term. Who watches those? It will be the equivalent of the home shopping network. Obama will be trying to take your cash in exchange for cheap trinkets.
Report comment to moderator
I will certaily be watching.
This is a classic example of providing the long duration interaction available to a large percentage of America which should probably occur more often during a campaign: 30 second sound bites are very ineffective.
By contrast, the rules around the debates were so convoluted, that the format was effectviely a failure.
Given the failure of the debates, this is the next best thing.
And how is this different from a 30 minute campaign rally?
Report comment to moderator
Obama can present himself as the savior
1) I believe that is known in some circles as “hyperbole.” The accusation, that is. I doubt that Barak Obama has ever presented himself as “The Savior.”
2) The fans of a person they claim to be “The Savior” whom some of us doubt was born of a virgin birth or rose from the dead don’t like competition, even when the competition mostly exists in their not very secure imagination.
Report comment to moderator
RPN
Why are you worried about Palin’s clothes. How much does BO’s suits cost or his wifes? Anyone ask that?
Report comment to moderator
If BHO gets the endorsement of that Oxy-Clean guy, I may decide to vote for him!
Report comment to moderator
Maybe Obama ought to use some of that three million he’s spending on his infomercial to “spread the wealth” around a little bit instead.
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd- 8
It is interesting to me that the cost of Sarah’s clothes was so extravagant, and potentially illegal. It has been a real problem for the RNC, with large donors going so far as to demand their donations be returned.
It should also be noted that the Federal Election Commission is investigating Palin now, as the purchase of personal effects is a violation of election laws.
Do you have information suggesting Obama’s campaign buys his clothing? He was asked and responded that he and his family buy their own clothes.
Report comment to moderator
“If BHO gets the endorsement of that Oxy-Clean guy, I may decide to vote for him!”
Thank you StuBob!
Report comment to moderator
Well, actually that money Obama is spending tonight will get “spread around”. Everyone from the camera operators to the guy who will sweep up after everyone leaves will get paid something. Just think of it as Obama “going shopping” (per George Bush’s exhortation).
What’s refreshing about Obama is that he isn’t playing by the traditional rules of the game. When is the last time a candidate bought 30 uninterrupted minutes to speak to people? His acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention was another “breaking the rules” moment. His plans for an outdoor celebration in Chicago on election night is another “breaking the rules” moment.
Yeah, the Republicans are super jealous, but I think most Americans like it.
In any event,
No more drama,
Vote Obama!
No more hate,
Vote “NO” on 8!
Report comment to moderator
lloyd post 8,
well I posted one link which indicated one of Michele’s dresses cost $148.
But I believe you will find that neither Barack nor Michele is charging their clothes to the campaign!
You might also ask how much Cindy’s dresses cost? which would be just as ungermane since she is buying them herself.
Hint: political fashion
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – “No More Drama Vote Obama”? “No More Hate Vote No on 8″? This election has had more “drama” and “hate” than any other I can remember and I’ve observed many. Obama is a very controversial figure. It is likely that after the election the “drama” and “hate” will only continue and worsen. And that is an issue that should concern all of us, conservative or liberal.
Report comment to moderator
Sarah Palin (the only non-millionaire of the four in this race) was so middle class, they had to buy some new clothes for her. And now they are going for charities.
But seriously folks, clothing as an alleged issue only shows the craven cynicism and lack of ‘gavitas’ among the Obamedia.
The media’s campaign strategy for Obama is to throw up smoke and mirrors and prevent any serious focus on real issues and demonize anyone out there who tells the truth. They are in his tank which is a betrayal of the American people and of their mission as journalists.
They (at least the LA Times) also hide and cover up incriminating videos of Obama praising spokespersons for terrorists.
BTW, her non-millionaire status may not last long.
Report comment to moderator
Carolinagirl post 15,
and why should the drama continue after the election? What form of drama are you suggesting?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 16,
no actually the clothes appear to be an explicit violation of the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance act.
The investigation is in progress, and when it is complete we should presumably know for sure.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark-
Your misinformation on the Palin’s net worth has been corrected a number of times. That you now repeat it says much.
“Add up the [Palin's] 2007 income and the estimated value of their property and investments and they appear to be worth at least $1.2 million.”
And, the campaign can not legally buy her clothes. That is why the FEC is investigating.
Report comment to moderator
Um, the Palin’s are worth an estimated $1.2 million bucks. They are not middle class.
Report comment to moderator
I figure that if he says anything important, Rush’ll tell me.
Report comment to moderator
The Palin house is the largest asset. They ARE middle class.
Report comment to moderator
OK, I peeked. I saw white union workers (and part time Obama phone operators) who are crying out for Washington to save them. That’s just what Washington is about to do for GM (again!). Nobody tells them to start building good cars.
At the end Obama said, “I will always tell you the truth!”. That’s great! What he didn’t say is when he would start.
Report comment to moderator
Out here in the real America, 1.2 million bucks is not middle class. Maybe it is in a wealthy state like New Jersey. But it sure ain’t in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky…
Report comment to moderator
I have a suspicion that we have just witnessed a tidal wave which threatens to overturn the conventional model of politics as usual.
I am sure that the detractors will assert that there were no specifics. I suggest that short of actually writing the bills, his statements were as explicit as possible and certainly at or more specfric than McCain’s pronouncements.
We will have to see if it had any impact on the election, probably first visible in the late weekend or Monday polls.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: I’m in my mid-40s and I doubt I’ve spent $150,000 in clothes over my whole life. That you guys keep trying to pretend that’s anything close to a reasonable amount of money, and trying to pretend that having campaign finances pay for it is ok says a lot.
Report comment to moderator
I figure that if he says anything important, Rush’ll tell me.
LMBO!
Report comment to moderator
Well, I just watched it on youtube, and it was an awesome video! It was hopeful, positive, and showed what a fine country we have. Barack Obama will make a good president. I don’t know if he will be a great president, but he will be a good one. It reminded me of Reagan’s “It’s morning in America” commercial.
Listen to your momma,
Vote Obama!
No more hate,
Vote “NO” on 8!
Report comment to moderator
I actually sat down and watched Obama’s half hour ad. It was very well done, with vignettes of all these families who are suffering financially interspersed with Obama’s commentary on what he’ll do to help them once he’s elected.
If he doesn’t win the election, I could see him having his own weekly network series. Something like Touched By A Marxist.
But there’s really nothing he or McCain or anyone can do to address the coming systemic crisis when all the boomers start retiring. There’s just no way millions of people can have “comfortable retirements” with pensions, Social Security, Medicare and prescriptions paid for when there aren’t enough workers to pay for them.
Obama’s special featured a couple whose names were (I think) Larry and Juanita Johnson. She has crippling rheumatoid arthritis and needs a dozen different prescription medicines each month to treat them. That’s got to cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars a month, if not in the thousands. Now multiply that by the millions of boomers who will soon be hitting retirement, and just think how much money that will take. It’s simply not sustainable. If everyone had been having 7 and 8 kids like they used to before Social Security came along, it would be more doable. But that’s the curse of government retirement programs. They depend on an ever growing population base to sustain them, while their very existence encourages people to have far fewer children, since they won’t have to depend on them in their old age. It’s a recipe for disaster. And please don’t tell me that immigration will solve the problem. What a laugh.
He also showed this couple in Kentucky who worked at a Ford plant. She’s been laid off, and he’s only working every other week. And what is one of the biggest reasons US auto makers are in trouble? It’s their massive financial obligations to retirees in the form of pensions and health care.
Again, this situation is simply untenable, and can’t continue for much longer. Many older people will suffer, and even the ones who don’t have it really bad will find out that their “golden years” aren’t going to be golden at all, except that many of them will be going back to work at places like The Golden Arches, simply to survive.
We are headed for a massive, unimaginable crisis, and there’s no way to avert it.
Report comment to moderator
NT:
http://www.presidentialdebt.org
It’s the most concise statement of our affairs and how we got there that you will ever see. Just two charts.
Banks are learning that too much debt results in other people owning you. Now it’s time for our government to learn that.
We, and in particular the Republicans have spent like madmen while granting huge tax breaks. The spending was financed by debt.
Now we are going to have to finance the government with tax dollars.
And a huge proportion of the income in this country goes to the top 5% of taxpayers. Obama knows that. He is going to start by rolling back the Bush tax breaks, which even McCain was against before he was for them.
My guess is that more will be needed, especially given current economic crises…
Report comment to moderator
More will be needed? Uh, yeah.
Once the great boomer retirement wave hits, it’s going to require that every worker in America pay something like 60% of his/her income just to maintain Social Security, Medicare, and the prescription drug plan.
That doesn’t include defense, prisons, roads, schools, fire, police, anything. Just 60% of their income right off the top in order to support retirees.
That’s simply not going to happen. Workers simply won’t put up with it.
No one knows how it will all turn out, but it’s going to very, very unpleasant.
Report comment to moderator
If I were approaching retirement age in the next 15-20 years, I would be doing everything I can to build up my health and physical fitness.
In the future, a person’s health and fitness will be their pension plan. It’s going to enable them to keep working and earning money as long as possible.
Which will be one of only two choices the elderly who aren’t independently wealthy will have.
The other will be euthanasia.
Report comment to moderator
series. Something like Touched By A Marxist.
LOLOLOL!
Report comment to moderator
NT – “If he doesn’t win the election, I could see him having his own weekly network series. Something like Touched By A Marxist.”
UnAmerican Idol
That ’70s Radical Show
La Educacion es Revolucion!
The Best Damn Tax Show
Sex in the City, with Barney Frank
Everybody Loves Ayers
Diary of an Angry Black Woman
Report comment to moderator
NT: I gather you are not in favor of additional income taxes? If not, where do you propose to get money to fund the government as we currently know it? Or which government agencies do you propose to close down?
Adding debt is simply out of the question. If you looked at the link, http://www.presidentialdebt.org you would see that
A)Since 1976 national debt per capita has gone from 56% of income per capita to 113% of income per capita.
B) It has also gone from 35.8% of GDP to 66.3% of GDP
C) That the overwhelming blocks of those increases came while tax-cutting Republicans were in the WH. During the Reagan-Bush 1 years that figure went from 32.9% to 65.9% During the Bush 2 years it went from 58.7% to 66.3%. And that doesn’t include the huge costs of the recent bailout. The shorthand here is that Republicans, by cutting taxes and borrowing money instead of taking tax revenues have virtually bankrupted the country.
Like it or not the American people are not going to sit still for massive benefit cuts. And corporations are going to continue to get their massive handouts and bailouts.
So, the money’s got to come from somewhere…
Report comment to moderator
For sheer stage management, the jump from infomercial to live speech was pretty whacked. This is first-class stagecraft the way Ronnie’s team used to do it.
And speaking of Ronnie: ‘fess up, they had more utterly feel-good images in that thirty minutes than I think I have seen since 1984.
Loved the technical stuff. The stump speech parts? heard it and heard it better at actual Obama events, so nothing new there.
Report comment to moderator
I’m afraid it may focus on people’s lives falling apart and much that is allegedly wrong with America so that Obama can present himself as the savior.
Joel you already played the “savior” card in another thread. Once a day limit, please.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
I’d dump both the NEA and the Dept. of Ed, for starters. NASA, too, while we’re at it.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron-
But how will we ever send Bush to Mars?
Report comment to moderator
The millions to Planned Parenthood that kill our children would be a real good cut in spending.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron – “I’d dump both the NEA and the Dept. of Ed, for starters. NASA, too, while we’re at it.”
North Dakota doesn’t pull it’s weight either.
Report comment to moderator
Planned Parenthood helped my wife and me not have children until we were ready! Practice makes perfect. woo-hoo!
Report comment to moderator
Obama could gain from this because voters watched his infomercial. That sounds unlikely to me, but we shall see what the ratings are.
The other possibility is that almost every political commentator in the United States will watch the infomercial and comment on it. So Obama will monopolize the commentary for a couple of days at a critical stage of the campaign, with a chance to explain his plans without McCain being able to respond, and take attention away from McCain while doing so.
But Obama has received lots of contributions, and he can spend the money any way he thinks will win the election. If this works, similar tactics will be used in future campaigns. Or maybe the stunt will fall flat, in which case Obama will most likely still win.
In any case, the proper comparison for Sarah Palin’s clothes would perhaps be what actresses spend on the Academy Awards, with allowance for the fact that Palin has been in the public eye much longer. I do not care whether the expenditures were legal or not – the FEC can look into that – but spending a lot of money on making Palin look good makes sense. None of the other candidates are particularly attractive, and she might as well use what she has. Certainly her thoughtful positions on domestic and international affairs will not earn her a great number of votes this election. If she has the sort of appeal once enjoyed by Princess Diana, nothing forbids her using that for whatever it is worth.
Report comment to moderator
ANLIR(13): What’s refreshing about Obama is that he isn’t playing by the traditional rules of the game. When is the last time a candidate bought 30 uninterrupted minutes to speak to people?
About 40 years ago. Either you are a relative youngster or you aren’t up on your history. It was quite common in the 50’s and early 60’s.
His acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention was another “breaking the rules” moment. His plans for an outdoor celebration in Chicago on election night is another “breaking the rules” moment.
I guess you could call them that. They are certainly consistent with his image and ego.
Report comment to moderator
I did not watch the infocommercial. I was working late earning my hard-earned dollars that Obama wants to give to everyone else “more deserving” to “spread the wealth”.
You Obama supporters, do you really want what Obama truly has in mind for America–no freedom of speech, enforced takeaway of your income, substandard living conditions, no freedom to choose your own healthcare plan, etc., etc.? DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN AMERICA WITH THE LIVING STANDARDS OF CUBA? That’s what you’ll get for voting for Obama!
See this from the Investor’s Business Daily:
IF BAILOUT PLAN IS TOO SOCIALIST, JUST WAIT FOR OBAMA LEVIATHAN
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307665441951152
Report comment to moderator
lloyd post 40,
except that this is private funding!
Report comment to moderator
Deafgal post 45,
if you suggest that Obama wants to eliminate freedom of speech, can you show where in Obama’s proggram he professes this?
And if you look at the Obama healthcare plan he expliicitly allows you to keep your present heatlh care:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
see bullet 1.
As your last comment points out, the bush administration with strong bipartisan support form both the Republicans including McCain and Democrats including Obama have already nationalized the financial system. And you are now worried about Obama?
So references please?
Report comment to moderator
Dr Dave post 44,
well since I watched Reagan’s “infomercials” in 1964, I guess you are right it is a back to the past. Are the conservatives clamoring over the OBama 30 minutes also upset that Reagan did it?
Good memory Dr. Dave!
Report comment to moderator
Richard Everitt post 43,
an excellent commentary which sums up the situation well.
I might add one note: it looks like it was a choice between Palin’s clothes and one more week of advertising in Colorado.
The decision which was made seems to support your analysis, but is very telling: perhaps 1 senate seat lost as a result.
Report comment to moderator
I’m glad I didn’t come back here last night. I wouldn’t have been able to sleep wondering what LMBO means. (#27)
Report comment to moderator
With apologies, I post some of Mark Steyn’s comments about the infomercial last night:
“the show itself was slick only in a drearily generic way. The waving wheat and music made it seem like a standard campaign commercial, only longer — ‘It’s Morning, Noon And Night In America,’ which is a big enough problem thanks to the media’s Obama cultists without the candidate himself piling on. As for the King Barack Meets [Insert Name Of Downtrodden Subject Here] stuff, aside from the fact that I don’t recognize the hellhole this country apparently is, there’s something faintly ridiculous in doing it in the middle of the Phillies winning the World Series. Maybe on Super Bowl Sunday, instead of Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunctioning, Obama could come out and interview people about how our entire rotten society is malfunctioning. And then The Daily Show kibbitzing stepped all over the infomercial even more.
“This is an amazing race. The incumbent president has approval ratings somewhere between Robert Mugabe and the ebola virus. The economy is supposedly on the brink of global Armageddon. McCain has only $80 million to spend, while Obama’s burning through $600 mil as fast as he can, and he doesn’t really need to spend a dime given the wall-to-wall media adoration. And tonight Chris Matthews’ doctors announced that his leg tingle has metastasized leaving his entire body like a vibrating cellphone whose ringtone is locked on ‘I’m In Love, I’m In Love, I’m In Love, I’m In Love, I’m In Love With A Wonderful Guy.’
And yet an old cranky broke loser is within two or three points of the King of the World. Strange.”
Report comment to moderator
Yup, we got the expected Republican response to the program: jealously, bitterness, cynicism and anger. That’s why the American people are running away from them in this election.
No more drama,
Vote Obama!
Report comment to moderator
David L post 51,
your comment here:
“And yet an old cranky broke loser is within two or three points of the King of the World. Strange.””
is why I have argued that tactically McCain has run an excellent campaign.
When we examine the strategic implications of McCain’s tactics, however, it would appear to my eye that things are a bit more dicey.
By contrast Obama has been running a superb strategic campaign with what I perceive as the goal of winning with as much strategic governing opportunity after the win as possible.
Tactically 50%+1 is an excellent approach (Rove was the master here). But it makes it difficult to truly govern.
An effort to ensure a wide range of inclusion, while tactically more difficult, would seem plausibly to make governing latter more tractable.
Report comment to moderator
I decided long ago I”m not voting for McCain for President this year.
I’m voting for Palin. Whoo-hoo!
A Hero and a Hottie ‘08!
Report comment to moderator
I saw a few minutes of the Obama special, only because it was on when I turned on the TV. It seemed to be really well done, and I can’t criticize Obama’s effort. I wish McCain could afford to do the same thing.
In the little bit that I saw, Obama was talking about the Iraq war, and it got me thinking that the war is the one major issue where I agree with Obama more than McCain, largely because of the spending. It is foolish to spend so many billions of dollars on a country that has a surplus. If Iraq wants our help in reconstruction, they should foot the bill. If they don’t want our help, bring everyone home. Those resources could be better used here.
Where I disagree with Obama is that he’d like to use that money on healthcare and education–I’d like to just give it back to the taxpayers.
Report comment to moderator
#54,
A hero???
Report comment to moderator
Nevermind #56. After looking back, I assume you mean that McCain is the Hero and Palin is the Hottie. I’d agree with that.
For a minute I thought you were calling Palin both Hero and Hottie.
Report comment to moderator
I’m glad I didn’t come back here last night. I wouldn’t have been able to sleep wondering what LMBO means. (#27)
I’m pretty sure it’s a “Christianized version” of LMAO.
Report comment to moderator
The only reason Obama could pay for that infomercial was that he blatantly broke his absolute promise to use public financing. What other promises is he willing to break for political gain?
Report comment to moderator
And, Joel Mark, because he’s received huge amounts of donations (no one will ever know how much exactly) from people like A. Hitler and S. Hussein and Doodad Pro. His campaign’s web site, unlike McCain’s, disabled basic security measures that would have prevented illegal donations. Way to run an exemplary campaign, Your Highness! Good thing the media are uninterested in the criminal fraud of a presidential candidate.
Report comment to moderator
“The only reason Obama could pay for that infomercial was that he blatantly broke his absolute promise to use public financing.”
Then there is the calculated decision to deactivate all the default security settings for web donations so that people like S. Hussein, J. Stalin, A. Hitler and illegal overseas contributors can flood his coffers with small credit card donations. How aggressively will those illegal campaign donations be investigated in the event of an Obama victory?
Report comment to moderator
Ree, I don’t know what LMAO means either, I’m sure it means “Let Me –” but I’ve forgotten about it now.
David & Ken, McCain is constrained by his own stupid “Campaign Finance Reform” bill. If the results weren’t so drastic, I’d asy “serves him right”.
Report comment to moderator
Chas,
In case you haven’t found out by now:
Laughing My (insert any word for backside) Off
It’s like LOL on drugs.
…and I can’t believe I just used LOL on a post. I need a shower.
Report comment to moderator
Nielsen says 21.7% of households watched ObamaVision last night, with 26 million viewers.
You can watch it on youtube here:
American Stories, American Solutions: 30 Minute Special
Report comment to moderator
#38, #40
Good start–How about cutting all those grants for studying lizards and turtles and insects and such?
Definitely cut NPR, and PBS as well. If they’re marketable, they’ll survive. If nobody cares, they’ll fold.
At least cut way back on EPA as well. They have some valid functions, but too many agents–cut ‘em back to a level where they can’t harass property owners anymore.
Best of all, eliminate the IRS and replace the awful tax system we have now with the Fair Tax to make the US more attractive to corporations, so we can get more jobs and investment back here.
Shrink gov’t!
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Graceland, I didn’t know that. Just naieve, I guess. I really thought the first words were “Let me ..”
Momof5: I got an e-mail today about the Dept. of Energy. I can’t verify it, but they claim the DOE was created by Carter to reduce US dependence on foreign oil.
But just think how much foreign oil we would be using if it wasn’t for the DOE!
No, I don’t know what they really do except spend money.
Report comment to moderator
If we got rid of the Dept of Education, we could return management of schools back to the local level, and maybe see less social experimentation (ie, multiculturalism, etc…), and more of the 3 Rs. For much less money!
That’s a two-fer! Shrink fed gov’t, and empower local citizens and parents.
Report comment to moderator
How many Departments does the federal gov’t have, anyway?
Report comment to moderator
I was electrified by the transition from the beautiful photography and editing to the live broadcast of Obama speaking to “Florida” from a stadium. The man in the flattering film was suddenly the guy before our eyes in real time, seamlessly and wonderfully materialized out of our own hopes and mythic memory.
He truly is the Messiah — or a fantastic executive and flawless organizer of the most complex and difficult of all social objectives in the modern world — a presidential campaign.
Report comment to moderator
Nielsen says 21.7% of households watched ObamaVision last night…
Hopefully that translates into voters; as in, only 21.7% will vote for Obama!
Report comment to moderator
#69
Does it make something happen with your leg? I’ve hear of that problem being caused by this guy.
Report comment to moderator
Obama is gay friendly to the max, but I detect no erotic vibes, homo- or otherwise, regardless of the listless, if not extinct, rumors. He could have had gay experiences, like Churchill and Lincoln did, but who cares? He’s obviously, totally unavailable, one of the least flirtatious humans on the planet. The polar opposite of Palin.
Report comment to moderator
Dave #44:
Ross Perot did an infomercial in the 80s. Remember “voodoo economics” and those hokey charts he used?
Deafgal #45:
“no freedom of speech” – I’m much more afraid of a Republican president when it comes to my civil liberties being denied. Warrantless wire-tapping anyone? No habeas corpus?
“enforced takeaway of your income” – Both candidates support “enforced takaway of my income” in that neither candidate is advocating we scrap the tax system. The only question is how much, and where it’s going to go. I stand to break even under Obama’s plan, or possibly come out ahead.
“substandard living conditions” – Huh?
“no freedom to choose your own healthcare plan” – like I have a lot of freedom now? Basically I get to choose from…whatever my employer offers, since it’s so incredibly expensive to purchase my own. Currently my employer offers…one plan. So, no choice.
Report comment to moderator
Mona Charen wrote: “If Barack Obama is elected president and Democrats control large majorities in the House and Senate, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate will move the country decisively in the direction of dying Europe — low productivity, high joblessness, low birth rates, high taxes, and limp foreign policies. The triumvirate will do this at a time when a vibrant America is more necessary than ever — with Iran seeking nuclear weapons, Pakistan teetering, al-Qaida regrouping, China and Russia telegraphing hostility, and Iraq just barely emerging into the sunshine.”
Report comment to moderator
When Barack’s elected and Democrats run Congress, you’re going to see bulldozers and dump trucks everywhere and workers building stuff.
Soon.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm, Joel,
I believe we are seeing Iran seeking nuclear weapons, Pakistan teetering, Al Qaeda regrouping, an dchina and Reussia telegraphing hostility, and the republicans have been in charge for eight years.
I am rminded of the 1964 election quip: I was told that if I voted for Goldwater, there woul dbe bombing in Vietnam and rioting in the streets. Sure enough, I woted fro Goldwater and there was bombing in Vietanm and rioting in the streets.
Given the present dismal state of American foreign affairs, I suggest that it will be hard for Obama to do worse and there are good reasons to suggest he may do better.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!