Barack Obama or John McCain

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Thanks for proving my point. Sullivan is no "republican". The New Republic is as left wing as they come.

Sullivan is by no means typical of the Godless Leftists who write in the New Republic, since he is a Conservative Christian. Of course he is also by no means typical of the right-wing nuts who dominate the Conservative movement.

Sullivan is known for his unusual personal-political identity (HIV-positive, gay, self-described conservative often at odds with other conservatives, practicing Roman Catholic, and a non-U.S. citizen who focuses on American political life). He has said that he would like to become a US citizen but is barred because of his HIV-positive status.[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan

[Craig Lamson]

Thanks for proving my point. Sullivan is no "republican". The New Republic is as left wing as they come.

Sullivan is by no means typical of the Godless Leftists who write in the New Republic, since he is a Conservative Christian. Of course he is also by no means typical of the right-wing nuts who dominate the Conservative movement.

Sullivan is known for his unusual personal-political identity (HIV-positive, gay, self-described conservative often at odds with other conservatives, practicing Roman Catholic, and a non-U.S. citizen who focuses on American political life). He has said that he would like to become a US citizen but is barred because of his HIV-positive status.[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan

So now you want to change the badge? Sheesh! Sullivan is now not republican but rather a "conservative"? How many "conservatives" do you know that supported both Clinton and Kerry?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

How many "conservatives" do you know that supported both Clinton and Kerry?

I probably know more Democrats who supported Reagan.

[John Simkin]

So now you want to change the badge? Sheesh! Sullivan is now not republican but rather a "conservative"? How many "conservatives" do you know that supported both Clinton and Kerry?

Andrew Sullivan writes a weekly column for the Sunday Times in the UK. He was a strong supporter of George Bush between 2000-2004. He also argued for the invasion of Iraq. Sullivan, like a great many on the right, now realizes that Bush is not a true conservative and is in reality, a figure-head for those who supplied him with the money to run for president. The same is true of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. That is the way the political system works. These are politicians for hire. Hopefully, Obama will be different but I am not confident that this will be the case.

[Craig Lamson]

So now you want to change the badge? Sheesh! Sullivan is now not republican but rather a "conservative"? How many "conservatives" do you know that supported both Clinton and Kerry?

Andrew Sullivan writes a weekly column for the Sunday Times in the UK. He was a strong supporter of George Bush between 2000-2004. He also argued for the invasion of Iraq. Sullivan, like a great many on the right, now realizes that Bush is not a true conservative and is in reality, a figure-head for those who supplied him with the money to run for president. The same is true of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. That is the way the political system works. These are politicians for hire. Hopefully, Obama will be different but I am not confident that this will be the case.

You make the same mistake John. Sullivan was and never has been "on the right". His support for Bush was because he felt he was more moderate than Gore. Other than his support for the war (like a number of other folks on the left) there is nothing about Sullivan's beliefs that would qualify him as an AMERICAN conservative nor republican.

And you also miss the boat on Bush. Conservative's see Bush for what he is, and thats a big government, big spending RINO. About the only thing he got right was and is national defence ( except for illegal immigration).

All pols are for hire John.

[Craig Lamson]

How many "conservatives" do you know that supported both Clinton and Kerry?

I probably know more Democrats who supported Reagan.

So does that make them republican or conservatives?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

So does that make them republican or conservatives?

Ok Craig, you win. I give up trying to understand republicans AND conservatives alike. I will take your word that there is a difference, but it saeems to me that they both vote for the Republican party.

Meanwhile, BARACK IS BACK, and he is kicking ass & taking names today:

FAYETTEVILLE, North Carolina (Reuters) - U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday said his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton had shown a lack of judgment when she voted in 2002 to authorize the Iraq war.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...=22&sp=true

FAYETTEVILLE, North Carolina (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama belittled Republican John McCain on Wednesday for misidentifying Iraqi extremists, saying he fails to understand the war has emboldened U.S. enemies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...=22&sp=true

[Dawn Meredith]

Ray: Why do you even try to reason with this person? I need a "cup?"

I won't even type what he needs.

Dawn

[Craig Lamson]

Ray: Why do you even try to reason with this person? I need a "cup?"

I won't even type what he needs.

Dawn

You are right Dawn, you don't need a cup. Based on your posts it appears you drink directly from the trough.

[Craig Lamson]

So does that make them republican or conservatives?

Ok Craig, you win. I give up trying to understand republicans AND conservatives alike. I will take your word that there is a difference, but it saeems to me that they both vote for the Republican party.

Meanwhile, BARACK IS BACK, and he is kicking ass & taking names today:

FAYETTEVILLE, North Carolina (Reuters) - U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday said his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton had shown a lack of judgment when she voted in 2002 to authorize the Iraq war.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...=22&sp=true

FAYETTEVILLE, North Carolina (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama belittled Republican John McCain on Wednesday for misidentifying Iraqi extremists, saying he fails to understand the war has emboldened U.S. enemies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...=22&sp=true

I think you will find a vast majority of conservatives find the Republican party quite lacking these days.

And leave it to someone like BHO to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. What a tool.

[Craig Lamson]

The Anti-Wright....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU

[J. Raymond Carroll]

And leave it to someone like BHO to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq.

Victory over whom, exactly?

[Dawn Meredith]

Ray: Why do you even try to reason with this person? I need a "cup?"

I won't even type what he needs.

Dawn

You are right Dawn, you don't need a cup. Based on your posts it appears you drink directly from the trough.

Bye Waccos. The lunitics can have this place.

Dawn Meredith

[Gary Younge]

Some will wonder in years to come how, with markets wavering, the Fed ready to pronounce and the American economy flirting with stagflation - or, worse still, recession - the top political story in the US became a story about race, even for a few hours. Not even a story. A speech. A good speech - a speech that could have been delivered any time over the past 30 years, but also, somehow, had to be delivered now.

Essentially, Senator Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia yesterday said nothing new, even if it contradicted what he has said before. Back when he was addressing the Democratic convention in 2004, he claimed: "There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America." Such realities are not created by fiat, and the past few weeks have proved how audacious such hopeful statements were.

The "racial stalemate" that he referred to acknowledges that race is a festering sore in America - not because some people are sensitive and others are mean, but because for as long as there has been an America, black and white people have had completely different experiences of what being an American means. It is difficult to believe that Obama had only just written yesterday's speech. If it had not been his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, someone or something else would have opened that wound on which Obama has so eloquently been applying balm these past few months. To most African Americans, the Rev Wright's fiery critiques of the US were as banal as Bill Cosby's screeds against bad parenting; as common a thing to find around a black dinner table as hot pepper sauce.

But he had to say it now because he is not standing to be head of a black supper club, but president of a country where most white people have probably never had dinner with a black family, let alone gone to their church. He said it for those who seriously believed that everyone had bought into and benefited from the American dream. To those who did not hear, could not understand or would not listen, it was news that some were disaffected not just with what America has become but what it long has been. With Wright's sermons zipping around YouTube, Obama had to speak both to those who found his statements banal and to those who believed them to be ballistic. He had to intervene before Wright became Willie Horton with a dog collar.

To that extent the speech probably worked. He acknowledged white disadvantage and black alienation; he refused to disown Wright for the same reason he refused to disown his own white grandmother - because good people in bad societies will sometimes say and do bad things. He acknowledged there were problems and then said "Kum ba ya". He hoped for better times and said everyone had to do their bit. That may be enough for now.

It may even, for the time being, put to rest the notion, peddled by the former vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, that he would not have got as far as he has were he not African American. We know nothing about the pastors of Hillary Clinton and John McCain - or how offensive their views might be to African Americans. I think we can safely say that had Obama been white he would not have had to make this speech.

We can, with equal certainty, say that it won't be the last time that race comes up, particularly if he becomes the nominee. Last month US News & World Report put Obama on the cover with the question: "Does Race Still Matter?" Those who believed his candidacy was evidence of a post-racial America now have their answer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/1...uselections2008

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Some will wonder in years to come how, with markets wavering, the Fed ready to pronounce and the American economy flirting with stagflation - or, worse still, recession - the top political story in the US became a story about race, even for a few hours. Not even a story. A speech. A good speech - a speech that could have been delivered any time over the past 30 years, but also, somehow, had to be delivered now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/1...uselections2008

According to this NYT report, the reason why the speech had to be made at this particular moment:

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama’s association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election.

That argument could be Mrs. Clinton’s last hope for winning this contest.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers had hoped that the uproar over inflammatory remarks made by Mr. Obama’s longtime pastor that has rocked his campaign for a week might lead voters and superdelegates to question whether they really know enough about Mr. Obama to back him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/politics/20memo.html?hp