Old guard fights rear-guard action: Gerry Ferraro makes a bunch of bad arguments (trust the superdelegates, seat the Florida and Michigan delegations, primaries don't really count anyway) for nominating Hillary even if she loses.
And Kristol writes a column that would not feel out of place at WorldNet Daily...although the questions about Obama's patriotism raised by his lack of a flag lapel-pin should trouble any decent American.
Damn that liberal New York Times.
A thought on the Obama backlash meme: of course Obama will disappoint people. All candidates disappoint people. Reality is much harder than rhetoric. The question isn't, How awesomely awesome is he, 4evar, but, What will he try to do, and how much of it might he get done, and how do those things stack up against the same questions applied to his rivals?
You're all insane! Obama needs to explain no more. Three magic words do the trick just fine. His record speaks for itself, inside and out of the beltway. Obama revolutionized the way things are done in Springfield by "voting not to vote, and voting to vote at the same time." Masterful! In Washington, well look around, he's changed the way things are done in Washington in only four years. Obama singlehandedly changed the district, and therein changed the entire world.
Speaking of change, he wants change. His fans want change too. After all, he doesn't have supporters like normal politicians, he has fans, much like Gary Glitter. In fact, he and Gary Glitter are no different. They both preach the exact same message.
From now on, when you see Obama go on stage and bullshit the mindless paeons in the crowd, think to yourself, "Gary Glitter does this, too."
Posted by: Alan Cone Bulluck | Feb 25, 2008 at 08:46 AM
I think that it's good Obama is being scrutinized. Hero worship is out, IMO, and just gets us a leader who can't move in circles wider than his supporters.
Like you, I think any candidate that makes it to the white house is bound to disappoint us on occasion but the important thing is to have sufficient trust that we are expected to be engaged in the process and respected as citizens rather than treated like we have no right to question poor decisions by our leaders. I don't like the spying or the lying that is typical of leaders who have poor opinions of the people they lead.
So if Obama, or whoever is ultimately chosen does these things then we should summarily act with outrage no matter how much we like(d) them or liked what they said when they were courting us.
Posted by: Ishmael | Feb 25, 2008 at 08:58 AM
ACB, you are really freaked out by the possibility of a President Obama, aren't you? Makes me think that if the irrational are against him, he's probably the one to vote for.
Posted by: Roch101 | Feb 25, 2008 at 09:56 AM
I heard he's planning to change something.
Posted by: Patrick | Feb 25, 2008 at 11:42 AM
ACB, you are really freaked out by the possibility of a President Obama, aren't you? Makes me think that if the irrational are against him, he's probably the one to vote for.
It "freaks" me out to an extent in that Obama refuses to wear an American flag lapel pin, but more he refuses to place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegence. I find both acts disrespectful especially from one whom is running for the top job of the country that both those symbols represent!
Posted by: Beau D. Jackson | Feb 25, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Beau:
"more he refuses to place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegence"
If that's the case, you can hereby reduce your level of freakedness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svo9mutE6TM
He obviously does not refuse to put his hand over his heart during the pledge.
Posted by: Anthony | Feb 25, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I heard he's on the down low with McCain.
Posted by: Jim Rosenberg | Feb 25, 2008 at 12:42 PM
But what if he's saying some sort of secret Islamoprayer in his heart, huh, Anthony?
Can your magic pictures PROVE that he is not?!?
Posted by: Ed Cone | Feb 25, 2008 at 12:43 PM