It's Barack

It ain't over until the pantsuit lady sings, though.

I'm quite interested to see how Obama handles Clinton. He's on top, but he's on top because he's riding the tiger. If it were a blowout, that'd be one thing, but he didn't beat Clinton by very much. Nearly half of the Democratic base (or 51%, depending on whom you ask) voted for Clinton, and without their votes, they'll call it for McCain by lunchtime on Election Day.

And Clinton has every reason to see Obama lose; if she throws a monkey wrench into his candidacy now, she can claim the party made a grievous error in nominating him, and then run as the heroic avenger against McCain or McCain's successor in 2012. If Obama doesn't find a way to get her on his side, or to at least mollify her, he could be finished before he begins. I suppose he could give her the VP slot, but that would be a marriage made in Hell, wouldn't it?

At the very least, the next few months are going to be absolutely fascinating political theater.

-JM

I will give up gaming and go to church if only Obama will win...

Dear Jeebus, please don't let McCain win.

If McCain continues delivering speeches like the one he did tonight, we could wrap up this campaign season by July. Wow, was that a bad speech.

In contrast, of course, to Obama's.

I really think all three candidates--McCain, Clinton, and Obama--are rather poor candidates. How in the world have Americans allowed themselves to be saddled with candidates like this? I agree that Obama is more charismatic than Clinton and McCain, but certainly don't see him as being a panacea to our nation's ills. In fact, I do have several reservations about him: First, I don't think you can attend a Black Nationalist church led by the likes of Jeremiah Wright, and not be a bit sullied by that association. There's also a rumor going around that there's some video footage of Michelle Obama going on a rant about America and "whitey" (a la Jeremiah Wright) that is going to be released soon, which, if true, will likely have a very negative impact on Obama's campaign. Second, just as an example of his legacy as a senator, he sponsored the Global Poverty UNITED NATIONS tax,a tax which would be levied against the united states by a super-governmental body (the United Nations) in order to fund the development of third world nations.
While the idea of ending third world poverty may be a noble one, if you are at opposed to globalism, and support our own national sovereignty, then you should be skeptical of this bill. What right does the United Nations have to tax Americans? This is going way beyond the bounds of our own constitution, and a violation of our sovereignty, to empower an extra-national body to levy taxes against Americans.
As I see it, all three of of the above mentioned presidential candidates, while they may differ in some areas, are really all globalists, and are eager to bypass the US constitution in order to consolidate a global power structure. Not so different from George 'W' Bush, who's famous for exclaiming that the constitution is just a "G-D damn piece of paper!"
Sorry, I just really believe in freedom and autonomy, not global empire.
I really think someone like Ron Paul would have been the best candidate, because at least he is willing to respect and enforce our constitution and sovereignty. But he didn't get the same favorable media coverage, and didn't have as many good sound bites as the other, mainstream, 'republicrat' candidates.

First, I don't think you can attend a Black Nationalist church led by the likes of Jeremiah Wright, and not be a bit sullied by that association.

I'll set aside the definitional problem with "Black Nationalist" for the moment and ask this: Sullied in what way? I've got friends I play DnD with every two weeks with respect to whom some oppo researcher would have field day. If folks assumed that my beliefs were the same as theirs, simply because we hang out often and call one another friends, they'd be wrong. More importantly, if they assumed that these friends were bad people on the basis of some mistaken (in my mind) beliefs that they hold, they'd also be wrong. On balance, my buddies are great guys. Some of them just have some oddball beliefs.

Look at your own life. I suspect you've got some friends and family members who are just so. Think about that before you start talking about being sullied and asserting guilt by association. Jeremiah Wright and his church have done some indisputably wonderful work for their community. It doesn't surprise me that Obama associated with the church, notwithstanding Wright's obvious anger and mistaken (in my mind) views over race relations in this country. I don't see any particular basis to attribute Wright's views on race or the country to Obama.

Second, just as an example of his legacy as a senator, he sponsored the Global Poverty UNITED NATIONS tax,a tax which would be levied against the united states by a super-governmental body (the United Nations) in order to fund the development of third world nations.

This is incorrect. First, the bill didn't authorize the United Nations to levy a tax on the US; it authorized the US government to levy a tax the proceeds of which would be used, through the UN, to fight global poverty. That's an enormous difference and does not in any way, shape, or form compromise national sovereignty. Please distinguish this from ordinary foreign aid, which goes out by the billions every year to foreign countries, the money for which comes from American taxpayers. Second, the very fact that the matter was being debated and would have been passed by an Act of Congress, which Act could have been revoked, amended, or suspended by a subsequent act of Congress (with nary a say from the UN) makes hash of the anti-sovereignty argument.

There's also a rumor going around that there's some video footage of Michelle Obama going on a rant about America and "whitey" (a la Jeremiah Wright) that is going to be released soon

Odd that it hasn't been released yet, isn't it? Yet it has enough currency in some circles (including yours, it appears) such that the mere rumor of it is enough to make it one of the grounds upon which you'd dismiss a candidate. Wow.

Consider this: Ron Paul enjoys bestiality with goats while wearing thigh-high stockings, a butt plug, and reciting Keats in an alto-Soprano. I heard that. Seriously. It's just a rumor but hey, I hear the video will be released soon. Meanwhile, Gravel '08!

"Sullied in what way? I've got friends I play DnD with every two weeks with respect to whom some oppo researcher would have field day. If folks assumed that my beliefs were the same as theirs, simply because we hang out often and call one another friends, they'd be wrong. More importantly, if they assumed that these friends were bad people on the basis of some mistaken (in my mind) beliefs that they hold, they'd also be wrong. On balance, my buddies are great guys. Some of them just have some oddball beliefs."

Well, come now, that's a bit of a straw man argument. It's one thing to play DnD or pinochle or whatever with one of your eccentric friends on the weekend, in a setting where those beliefs don't take center stage, and quite another to regularly attend organizational meetings run by that eccentric friend where his eccentric beliefs are what the meetings are all about.

"This is incorrect. First, the bill didn't authorize the United Nations to levy a tax on the US; it authorized the US government to levy a tax the proceeds of which would be used, through the UN, to fight global poverty. That's an enormous difference and does not in any way, shape, or form compromise national sovereignty. Please distinguish this from ordinary foreign aid, which goes out by the billions every year to foreign countries, the money for which comes from American taxpayers. Second, the very fact that the matter was being debated and would have been passed by an Act of Congress, which Act could have been revoked, amended, or suspended by a subsequent act of Congress (with nary a say from the UN) makes hash of the anti-sovereignty argument."

It seems a matter of semantics to argue that if our not-always-thinking-of-our-best-interest elected officials try to pass legislation that in effect allows a tax to be levied for the benefit of the UN, then it is not undermining American sovereignty, because the betrayal came from within our gates, not from without.
The Global Poverty tax was the subject of a strong editorial in Investor's Business Daily of February 28, 2008, "Obama's 0.7% Solution For Poverty Gets Pass from Senate Republicans." According to IBD, the bipartisan bill would require the president "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."
The "Millennium Development Goal" refers to a United Nations declaration adopted by the U.N. Millennium Assembly and Summit in 2000 that calls for "the eradication of poverty" by "redistribution (of) wealth and land," cancellation of "the debts of developing countries" and "a fair distribution of the earth's resources."
Wow, sounds like something Vladimir Lenin could really get behind...he wanted to redistribute wealth and land equitably, too. 'Course we know how his great social experiment ended up, don't we?
The point is, aren't Americans already saddled with enough taxes, and if we must be taxed, why should our taxes go towards the establishment and empowerment of a world-government body like the UN rather than back into building our own nation's infrastructure, schools, and communities?

"Consider this: Ron Paul enjoys bestiality with goats while wearing thigh-high stockings, a butt plug, and reciting Keats in an alto-Soprano. I heard that. Seriously. It's just a rumor but hey, I hear the video will be released soon. Meanwhile, Gravel '08!"

I don't get the Gravel '08 reference, maybe you can explain.
The difference between the rumor you just fabricated and the rumor I was talking about, is that the Obama rumor seems to be substantiated by talking heads who are more likely to be "in the know" than you or I, and seems to have some more evidence (albeit circumstantial evidence) to back it up.
Here's a link:
Democrat Bob Beckel talks about it:
http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=4129e9d3-586a-45dd-aeb9-294b819b7afa

Of course you are correct to point out that it IS just a rumor at this point, but it'll be interesting to see if it turns out to have some truth to it.

"Well, come now, that's a bit of a straw man argument. It's one thing to play DnD or pinochle or whatever with one of your eccentric friends on the weekend, in a setting where those beliefs don't take center stage, and quite another to regularly attend organizational meetings run by that eccentric friend where his eccentric beliefs are what the meetings are all about."

Your position rests on the assumption that the "eccentric beliefs" are what it was all about. So, it wasn't about salvation, Christ, the Bible, community activism, and all the other good work of the Church? You're sure about that? Attend a lot of sermons there, then, I presume? Or are you basing your view on the repeated playing of two or three soundbites where the Reverend's views on race relations in America were highlighted? That you choose to measure the Reverend on the basis of those soundbytes, and attribute a congruity of belief with everyone who listens in the pews, is your business. I find it unpersuasive, particularly in light of Obama's express denial that he holds similar beliefs and the lack of any evidence (save sitting in the pews, which is no evidence in my view) to the contrary. Newsweek actually did a nice piece on the church and why lots of prominent African-American Chicagoans chose to attend. I found it a good read.

"The point is, aren't Americans already saddled with enough taxes, and if we must be taxed, why should our taxes go towards the establishment and empowerment of a world-government body like the UN rather than back into building our own nation's infrastructure, schools, and communities?"

This has little to do with your sovereignty argument from your first comment. You're simply making a policy claim -- more taxes are bad; or at least, you don't want more taxes if they're going to foreign aid. Fair enough position (not one I agree with), but hardly related to your original claim. Interesting that IBD doesn't have the same problem with foreign aid generally (we already give billions in foreign aid to Africa to alleviate poverty, fight AIDs, etc.), and foreign aid to Israel in particular. Why do you suppose IBD picked this particular piece of foreign aid to discuss?

As for the rumor: when pundits discuss this mythological tape for weeks, but no one quite seems able to produce it, it's worth crediting, eh? Hmm. That's doesn't do much for me. Sound more to me like a planted rumor designed to further the false narrative that Obama is an angry black man who secretly hates America. Or if he doesn't his wife sure does.

I'm rather put-off by this anonymous commenter. I felt compelled to say something because I am a strong Ron Paul supporter, and this person does not represent Ron Paul's position and values in any way. S/he doesn't even do a very good job of presenting Dr. Paul's stances on basic issues like taxation, the economy, foreign policy, foreign aid, or war. Sorry you had to put up with the nonsensical (cowardly, anonymous) ranting. What a boob.

Here's the genesis of that rumor, from former CIA spook Larry Johnson.

Here's a refutation from the Booman Tribune, who identifies the problem as a biased listener hearing "Why'd he" (in reference to Bush) as "Whitey". Thus, when Michelle Obama says, "Why'd he let New Orleans drown?", it comes across as "Whitey let New Orleans drown?"

Seems like a stretch, but people animated by hatred don't generally have very good filters.

You define Barack as an angry black/agent of evil? You have a very unconventional view of evil then. I am assuming over the cup of tea you had with him he discussed how he enjoys hearing the screams of small children when he decapitates them with butter knives. I think this would be a more fitting characteristic of someone you say is a creation of evil. LOL. He has done nothing to warrant such a label, sir.

I can't tell if you don't understand my sarcasm or I don't understand yours. So, in the interest of clarity, understand that I'm a huge Obama supporter. The reference above was gentle mockery of the right-wing smears that make the round in anonymous emails. Clear now, I hope? :-)

Ahh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. BTW- Vhostym IMO is one the greatest characters any author has ever came up with. I would vote for him regardless of his tendency towards the darkside! :)