Comments on: Why Obama Won The Potomac Primary
Illinois Senator Swept To Easy Victory On The Strength Of His Core Support Groups
Add a Comment See all 112 Comments
- What have I got to do to make you love me
What have I got to do to make you care
What do I do when lightning strikes me
And I wake to find that you''re not there
What do I do to make you want me
What have I got to do to be heard
What do I say when it''s all over
And sorry seems to be the hardest word
It''s sad, so sad
It''s a sad, sad situation
And it''s getting more and more absurd
It''s sad, so sad
Why can''t we talk it over
Oh it seems to me
That sorry seems to be the hardest word - Reply to this comment
- Posted by user168 at 02:34 PM : Feb 13, 2008
I can prove you wrong.
Bill Clinton Beat the elder Bush.
Shoots your theory down in flames.
As all good Liberal theories deserve. - Reply to this comment
- Question: Why Obama Won The Potomac Primary?
Answer: Lesser of two Liberal evils. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by user168 at 02:34 PM : Feb 13, 2008
And yet the highly intelligent and educated hit the publish button too many times...go figure. ;) - Reply to this comment
- You cannot stop the Black Wave, whitey! At least until Election Day. What''s behind his wins now? It''s all race, always and forever race, "...chiefly on the strength of his support among African-American voters." Hey, right now, before the Hispanics manage to reproduce at even more than 3X the national average, we have more whites than anything else! So it''s going to be a WHITE GUY for president, if it''s all about race!
- Reply to this comment
- Kevzgrl, maybe Obama didn''t vote for the war because he didn''t want to antaganize his brother muslims.
After all he did have the same wring enformation about Saddam. - Reply to this comment
- Or maybe educated eople are just stupid.
If the election comes down to Obama and McCain, I''ll just stay home and let the stuoid fight it out. - Reply to this comment
- "There are three classes of men; lovers of wisdom, lovers of honor, and lovers of gain."
Obama: lover of wisdom
McCain: lover of honor
Clinton: lover of gain
Obama appears to have greater appeal to highly educated Americans. WHY?
Highly educated people are those who have acquired imparting of knowledge, positive judgment and well-developed WISDOM - consisting of ideals and principles that govern all actions and decisions to maximize the LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD, and so are the highly educated Americans.
It is for LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD we EDUCATE our YOUTH, and so be it that the highly educated seek PURPOSE in LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD. This is called COMMON SENSE.
So be it that the highly educated seek WISDOM and its TRUTH in their choice of a president!
If you seek not WISDOM in a leader, what then, do you seek? If you hold not TRUTH, FAITHFULNESS, and SINCERITY as your first principles, what then, do you hold?
If you are a parent, an educator, or a community leader, and if you seek not such LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD WISDOM, you care not about the children, family, community, society, country, or THE COMMON WORLD. How can we let our children follow such self-gratifying Clintons??
"LIVE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD."
This is what the highly educated are going for. - Reply to this comment
- "There are three classes of men; lovers of wisdom, lovers of honor, and lovers of gain."
Obama: lover of wisdom
McCain: lover of honor
Clinton: lover of gain
Obama appears to have greater appeal to highly educated Americans. WHY?
Highly educated people are those who have acquired imparting of knowledge, positive judgment and well-developed WISDOM - consisting of ideals and principles that govern all actions and decisions to maximize the LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD, and so are the highly educated Americans.
It is for LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD we EDUCATE our YOUTH, and so be it that the highly educated seek PURPOSE in LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD. This is called COMMON SENSE.
So be it that the highly educated seek WISDOM and its TRUTH in their choice of a president!
If you seek not WISDOM in a leader, what then, do you seek? If you hold not TRUTH, FAITHFULNESS, and SINCERITY as your first principles, what then, do you hold?
If you are a parent, an educator, or a community leader, and if you seek not such LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD WISDOM, you care not about the children, family, community, society, country, or THE COMMON WORLD. How can we let our children follow such self-gratifying Clintons??
"LIVE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD."
This is what the highly educated are going for. - Reply to this comment
- And another thing, Barak Obama would never have voted to SEND our soldiers to war to start with, as Hillary did. He has good, solid plans to improve our economy - all I have heard from Hillary is a lot of rhetoric so far. He will be debating her in Cleveland, and I hope you are watching and get a good earful.
- Reply to this comment
- Allah bless America!
- Reply to this comment
- "and women - low class, low self-esteem, no confidence)" posted by snakebaby
I am a 47 year-old, white WOMAN, and I proudly cast my vote yesterday for Barak Obama - I am not low class, do not have low self-esteem and am a very confident woman. I am also CONFIDENT that YOU are an idiot to make that kind of sweeping statement about the voters who support Barak, simply because you are a Hillary Clinton supporter. Stop calling names and learn a little more about Barak and WHY people are supporting him, before you make any more pronouncements, please. - Reply to this comment
- When O''s wife mentioned in Larry King Live that many people voted for Clinton only because they want to have a woman president, she forgot that overwhelming number of black people voted for his husband because they just want to have a black president, she also forgot that many people (including men - shame on you; and women - low class, low self-esteem, no confidence) chose not to vote for Clinton simply because she is a woman! Twist your brain before casting your vote based on momentum only.
- Reply to this comment
- Hillary accepted an invitation to debate Sen. Obama in Wisconsin, but Sen. Obama refuses to debate
Hillary in Wisconsin. Yes, I understand financially Obama''s been out spending Hillary, getting free air time would be a great way to help her get the message out, but it doesn''t conflict to having a debate because that''s one good way for people to see both candidates together and compare. What''s the problem with having a debate before Wisconsin? So many questions are unanswered out there. It''s not fair for one side of momentum to largely overshadow Clinton''s specific messages. Do you expect Obama would fix our economy by giving his "inspirational" speeches in the oval office? Do you think his "inspirational" speeches would bring the troops home? Have you thought about while he''s against Iraq war he might have no problem sending the troops to Afghanistan? Come on, Mr. Obama, don''t be afraid or shy, show your ability of giving the inspirational speeches and let it shine in the debate! Or it would show people that you are only good at attracting voters by the same old "inspirational" speeches (with slogans of "change", "new directions") in rallies, you chicken out when it comes to debating specific issues we are facing. If you can do both, you''d win my vote fair and square! - Reply to this comment
- Excuse me, fullof it....bad edit.
- Reply to this comment
- Posted by afsc30574 at 01:09 PM : Feb 13, 2008
And you are just fall it.....
Who cares about race or gender...it''s about bufoonery or competence. - Reply to this comment
- I wonder about the "agent for change" thinking that is propelling Obama''s popularity. While I am for change, I also know that what exists up there on the hill is a massive & complex engine that one cannot simply drop into & change for change''s sake. Since Congress is a body separate from the Executive, what "change" do we expect the President to effect on the machinery of politics, committees, pork, bi-partisanship, etc.? Further, change has to be targeted in order to avoid producing chaos as the machine re-configures itself for operation. (I couldn''t say "effective operation" because [1] I don''t know that the current operation can be called ''effective'', and [2] I can''t say whether "change" will produce something better.)
It seems to me that we have to have expectations for what "change" means, how feasible it is, and whether change can be set in motion to be accomplished downstream without being something immediate & dramatic.
For instance, can we expect honesty? And what might honesty in the Presidency do to effect change on the machine?
Just wondering. - Reply to this comment
- "F*** you! I know more about this than anyone in the room." - John McCain to fellow GOP Senator John Cornyn on the Senate floor during a May 2007 debate about McCain''s amnesty bill for illegal immigrants.
=== == === === ===
"Did you see Thad Cochran''s comment when he endorsed Romney? He said, look, John McCain is a bellicose, red-faced, angry guy, who constantly explodes." ...........Pat Buchanan MSNBC Jan 28 2008
** ** ** ** ** **
Do You want John McCain As your Commander-In-Chief? - Reply to this comment
- deemsnyd,
You can''t project your fair-mindedness onto people who''ve been taught for a generation to hate: It''s not that all blacks will vote for Obama, it''s the one''s who listened to how they''re victims of the whites; it''s not all women who will vote for Hillary, but the ones who listened to how they''re victims of men. Being a Liberal democrat means being a victim, and as such, being empowered to be racist, anti-male, or anti-whatever makes you feel strong enough to get by without the democrat party. - Reply to this comment
- obama is just blacker than you
- Reply to this comment
