Um. You just admitted that he talks about issues.

Rev. Wright? What?

McCain, as a lesser of evils.  There are principally three reasons I cannot and will not vote for Obama:

1.  The behavior of the media and "activists" this cycle.  It has bordered on the ridiculous in terms of how inscrutable they've made Obama.  They're unabashedly for Obama, HRC be damned. In there quest to anoint Obama they've been abusive to non-Obama supporters, there's simply no debate but just name-calling and blind obsession.

2.   Obama hasn't been as forthright as his campaign theme of "Change" and "Out with Politics of Division." What I see is just another politician using words to cast a shield around himself and campaign which has used the very tactics that he calls out against.

3.  Although I wasn't sure up until Wednesday's debate, his answers on the issue of taxes confirmed for me the fact that he is running a campaign of pitting classes of people against each other.  When asked why about capital gains and the SSI cap, his only answer was based on punishing moderate to high income earners (covered in language of "fairness") Messages of wealth redistribution thinly veiled as "fairness" don't sit well with me, and I refuse to be labeled as unfair because I earn slightly more than 100K when the fact is I already get taxed close to 40%.  I just don't like being used as a pawn for figurative class warfare for politic expediency.

HRC at least, promised not tax hike for those below the 250K bracket.

I hope you're right.  But the NBC's and CNN's of the world have their horse, our votes be damned.

Dude, she doesn't stand a chance in N.C., And she would have to win EVERY remaining state by 30 points. Once again, please show us how she could possibly achieve that?????

Once Hill loses NC and Indiana, I expect she will finally be escorted off center stage.

What she needs to do is take responsibility for the fact that she ran a shoddy campaign and start concentrating on what's best the democratic party...not trying to live out some fantasy of a Clinton dynasty in the White House.

Her ego was her biggest downfall from the very beginning...and it means more to her than her party.

I know. It's very funny. Particularly the bit about Chicago because I'm from Chicago. This poster clearly knows nada about Chicago politics, or Trinity, or Obama, or well...anything.

My favorite switching sides comment:

KOSSACKS can kiss my A**.

by switching sides on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:43:45 AM EST

Clearly, he craves rational discourse with Obama supporters.

King said moderate whites were more of a problem than the KKK.

Yes, the nerve. Of course if that stuff is the kitchen sink does that make the Clinton ads the garbage disposal?

Not only do I listen to his speeches, but I have read every document on his website, I have been to one of his events, and I voted for him in the Virginia primary.

So kindly take your arrogant little head out of your ass.

Well let's look at those.

Your first link, "The Great Need of the Hour", is a brilliant sermon.  I had listened to it before, and enjoyed reading it again.  But it is just that: a sermon.  There isn't a policy outlined here.  He tells us we need unity.  OK.  Well how do you enact "unity" as a policy?  He apparently hasn't set a good example, and this whole sermon sounds a bit hypocritical in light of his own "mentor's" sermons.

Your second link, "The World Beyond Iraq", tells us why we need to leave Iraq.  Then it tells us that we're going to leave Iraq.  OK.  He wants to draw down in a way that is orderly and does not destabilize the region - yes, but how do we do that?  These are the kinds of questions that Hillary answers, that he does not.

Your third link, "Renewing the Economy", is a mixture of good, bad, and just plain wrong.  For example, he talks about a desire for shared prosperity, but then claims that the Clinton and Bush administrations were no different in this regard.  Both failures, he claims.  This is not only a disservice to Democrats and his own G/E chances of victory, but it's deeply false.  Under the Clinton administration, the average family's income went up $7,000.  We created over 20 million new jobs.  Wall Street did REALLY well, but we lifted more people up out of poverty than during any time in recent history.

So the Clinton administration was a role model for shared prosperity, which is what Hillary's campaign is also based on.  Yet, Obama desides to trash it, as he has trashed so much of our party, for short term political points.

So what, then, is Barack's solution for getting our economy working?  He says there are two things we need to do.  We need to address the housing crisis, and we need to regulate a lot more.

Huh?

We might need to regulate more, but that by itself will not jump start our economy.  We need to create jobs, and getting our fiscal affairs in order so that we don't continue to have such a weak hand at the trading table (it's hard to be tough on your trading partner when you depend on them to debt-finance your government).

So he misses the mark.

Lastly, you link A More Perfect Union, a speech in which Barack describes the way in which we can all atone for our original sin: nominating him.

I've commenting on this speech at length, before, and in fairness to it, I can't summarize my critique of it in only a few sentences, so I will pass.

In closing, I'd like to thank you for linking the speeches.  I think that was a constructive approach, but I don't think these speeches address the lack of substance that we're complaining about.  We need to see concrete plans and solutions: not just yes we can, but how we can.

Right. Because there will be 100 years of peace while we occupy Iraq. That line of thinking is of course incredibly flawed and a 100 occupation would be 100 years of war.

did not say "100 year war"....McCain said a "military presence like Korea".  

And the rub I see is that the Obama campaign uses " war for 100 years" as the theme to rail against...and that would be ok if that is what McCain actually said.  So when the campaign takes on 100 year war to rail against, and then says, "under me, we won't do that", the detail is missed: when are our troops coming home, how, our policy stand, our diplomatic efforts?  

It becomes a false point of conflict: war or no war?  This is devoid of all the complexities associated with disengaging from Iraq; the original lies that got us there; the kinds of changes that he sees are necessary beyond the "new face" in DC. That is why I heard Obama's remarks as "flat", I suppose.