Comments on: Obama Tells Letterman VP Not For Me

"You Don't Run For Second," Ill. Senator And Democratic Candidate Says Of Sharing Ticket With Hillary Clinton

[processor2]

I would love to shut down FOX
Posted by MOCALEO at 11:41 AM : Apr 10, 2007


Why do liberals hate alternative ideas ??
Why do liberals like MOCALEO hate free speech??
Why do liberals want to SUPPRESS opposing viewpoints???

...

[tuckerndfw]

Ever notice that SORE LOSERS and LIBERAL CRATS are always trying to stack the deck?

Posted by didntinhale at 11:17 AM : Apr 10, 2007

Not unless you consider Faux News viewers and the GOP to be "SORE LOSERS and LIBERAL CRATS."

Ronald Reagan was president in 1985 the GOP was the party most responsible for eliminating the requirement for "fair and balanced" coverage of the issues.

Odd how the tv network that represents itself to be "fair and balanced" opposes being required by law to be "fair and balanced."

Of course, when the fairness doctrine is reimplemented, all right wing hate radio and tv will go out of business. Their listeners do not want facts, they want to listen to or watch hate presented as if it was news.

[rafterman1]

"LMFAO You hit it processor I love to watch Liberals "eat their young" It will be sweet to watch these liberal Media outlets have to choose between a minority and a woman."

Keep pretending their is a liberal media bias. It helps explain away all the Republican screwups. But if it wasn't for the so-called liberal press protecting Bush and never asking any tough questions or willing to dig deep into any story, Bush would have been impeached long ago.

Oh, by the way, how many Repubs are rallying around the 30% wonder Bush? Not many you say? Hilarious!

[forthepeopl1]

A declassified Pentagon report released Thursday concludes that there was no
direct cooperation between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qeada. But *** Cheney,
apparently, remains convinced there was. ONLY IN HIS AND BUSHES HEAD!!!! ALSO
RUMSFELDS HEAD..THEY SHOULD BE HANGED FOR TREASON AGAIST OUR COUNTRY...FOR THE
MURDERS OF OUR KIDS.

The Washington Post on Friday said the report, which had been issued in summary
form in February, drew on "captured Iraqi documents" and "interrogations of
Saddam Hussein and two former aides" which "all confirmed" that Saddam and al
Qaeda were not working together prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. THERE
HAVE BEEN ALOT OF US SAYING THIS EXECT THING FOR A LONG TIME NOW, SO WERE ARE
THE ONES THAT LOVE THERE BUSH CRIME FAMILY.THIS SHOULD KILL THEM..SEEING CHENEY
WINEING LIKE A BABY.

WHY NOT LET ALL AMERICA KNOW ALL THIS, THIS SHOULD BE IN ALL PAPERS AND NEWS FOR
DAY ON DAYS UNTIL OUR ELECTED DO THE RIGHT THING. IMPEACH AND CHARGE THEM ALL
WITH WAR CRIMES...

WAKE UP AMERICANS AND FIGHT FOR YOUR COUNTRY. DONT LET OUR CONGRESS GET AWAY WITH MURDER
Posted by forthepeopl1 at 07:42 AM : Apr 10, 2007

[tuckerndfw]

Watching Faux News to learn factual information is similar to watching Jerry Springer to learn family relations.

Might be entertaining to some, but it is a waste of time for the intended purpose.

When the FCC restores the "fairness doctrine," Faux News will go out of business. As will all other right wing hate radio and tv networkds/programs.

[changeit4]

Obama is smart: both to even mention that VP would be okay with him as well as to avoid Fox News, which has already tried what amounted to libel against him.

Free speech may just survive...

You don't see Obama deigning to deal with Don Imus... He's a damned disc jockey! He's suppposed to pi$$ you off. Leave the uproar to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson; a marginal argument for marginal characters. Does anyone see the irony in free speech which is always accompanied by fear that someone might be offended?

[rf35]

I'm concerned that the Democrat candidates will not participate in a Fox-sponsored debate. What are they afraid of? The MSM is likely to coddle these folks and make sure they look as good as possible...that won't help swing my vote. If they are worried about having to answer the tough questions, maybe America should take a more critical look at them. I guess I'll be taking a closer look at the Republicans running this year. Can't do worse that what we have already.

[tuckerndfw]

Hillary Clinton cannot win a national election. Her poll numbers are as high as they will get. People already know her and her message and don't much care for her or her message.

Few people liked her as first lady and even fewer want her as president.

Obama is wise not to saddle himself with a loser. Hillary should drop out of the campaign and stop wasting her time and money.

[djermano1]

Obama is not thinking of the party, but only himeself. He should consider his place from a historical point of view. Since the beginnning of America the Executive Office has always been a man. When will that enigma be broken? It is asking the question which comes first the blackman or the woman? Looking at this from
another perspective is the fact that this blackman first would give the impression that America has a Black President with with a White woman, rather like a mixed race marriage. Now I know they are not married, but that is the perception. But if Hillary was President and Obama VP, the people would see the dynamic shift and sensitive awareness of Obama's intellect. Hillary as a VP would conjure up senarios that she finally left her man for Obama, even though they are not really married, that will be a reminding presence. Who has more power the first lady or the V.P.? She has already been that close to the Presidency in her life...making her a VP is only going to be pushing a replay, only Bill Clinton has become Al Jolsen.

This is something Imus should consider when he made his comment; which leads me to this. You know it is OK for black entertainers to make fun of blacks using such talk, but a white guy doing it is really rung through the ringer. Perhaps we in all our political correctness we have loss our sense of humor, our sense to laugh and to have fun, without it meaning discrimination or vengefulness. America has lost its personality, when we can not be people.

[djermano1]

Obama is not thinking of the party, but only himeself. He should consider his place from a historical point of view. Since the beginnning of America the Executive Office has always been a man. When will that enigma be broken? It is asking the question which comes first the blackman or the woman? Looking at this from
another perspective is the fact that This manly first would give the impression that America has a Black President with with a White woman, rather like a mixed race marriage. Now I know they are not married, but that is the perception. But if Hillary was President and Obama VP, the people would the dynamic shift and sensitive awareness of Obama's intellect. Hillary as a VP would conjure up senarios that she finally left her man for Obama, even though they are not really married, that will be a reminding presence. Who has more power the first lady or the V.P.? She has already been that close to the Presidency in her life...making her a VP is only going to be pushing a replay, only Bill Clinton has become Al Jolsen. Something Imus should consider when he made his comment. which leads me to this. You know it is OK for black entertainers to make fun of blacks using such talk, but a white guy doing it is really rung through the ringer. Perhaps we in all our political correctness we have loss our sense of humor, our sense to laugh and to have fun, without it meaning discrimination or vengeful. America has lost its personality, when we can not be people.