Get real everyone. Barak Obama himself had NOTHING to do with the vetting process except the initial "check this guy". Do you think the President has the time to go do the literal mountain of fact-finding needed for the hundreds of people in his administration? Here is what really happens... AIDE1: "Mr President we checked and Tom Daschle looks OK." OBAMA: "OK, let's go" (fist bump).

And as far as the "Oh wow - that's how a President should act"... You people must rent yourselves out as Hoovers you are such suck-ups. Bush accepted blame & apologized for a lot of things, but you never cut him one inch of slack. Now you're all falling over yourselves to say how wonderful Obama is for doing it. What a bunch of brainless Obama-zombie tools. Your two-facedness and partisan hack nature make you completely pathetic sell-outs.

I never at any time during Bush2 would sell-out my principles. Bush did TONS of things I thought were incredibly stupid and I said so. Farm subsidies, immigration 'reform', education bill, reckless spending and a bazillion other things. And I want him held responsible and blamed for all that crap, so when he did them I criticized him like he deserved for being an over-spending jackass. But you Obama-zombies... Obama could re-open Gitmo2 under the name "Obamaland" (which he probably will) and you'd say he was a genius. Obama could declare war based on faulty intelligence and you'd fall over yourselves to be the first person in line to french-kiss his duodenum.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Barak Obama, Bill Richardson, Beard, Rugged, Western, Governor, New Mexico' to 'Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Beard, Rugged, Western, Governor, New Mexico' - edited by blahpook

Think, ask, believe whatever you may like. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I was personally offended. I speak for myself as a lifetime advocate for multiracials. I am NOT a mutt. I've never been a mutt and don't intend on becoming one now. It's not a word of pride. it's a derogatory reference. If don imus had said it everyone would be screaming. if john McCain said "I'm going to get my kids a dog. probably a mutt like Barak Obama." It would be world war 3. No other group of people would allow such a slight and we should not consider it OK either. Like I said. Believe what you like. just don't call me or mine mutts. We WILL be offended.

My letter to CNN about the "M" word



My name is Max Parthas. My wife and I are two of America's most recognized Spoken Word artist and the founders of Prysmatic Dreams. PrysmaticDreams. com
An artists social network based on the dream of multicultural brotherhood.

We were as proud as anyone else to know that a multiracial American became our president. I have personally discussed the issue with Barak Obama during our travels. Below are photos of him reading my thoughts on this new melting pot America at our first meeting. I thought we had grown as a people to fully embrace who we are as people of multiple cultural heritages. Until June 12, 1967, white and blacks couldn't even get married legally. Now the children of those unions and others like them number in the tens of millions. We have pride in who we are and who he is. We are here to stay and part of the national character.

To hear him refer to himself as a "mutt" brings me near to tears. For a biracial person that's the equivalent of calling us the N word. We are not mutts. Nor are we halfbreeds, mulattoes (half mules) or mistakes. If you must call us anything let it be with respect.

We have as much right to embrace our diverse racial pride as anyone else. For our president to casually denigrate the near 30 million multiracial Americans in this country who supported his causes, his family included, is a public shame. It shows how little his rich heritage means to him and how little it matters. With one single word he made an entire burgeoning culture of people seem worthless.


I for one demand an apology.


Max Parthas
A Proud Multiracial American -not a mutt-

see the photos @ the www.myspace.com/maxparthas blog

Leaves me a little conflicted. Palin is plainly not cut out for the job, and the old guy is crazed to write off all gays as supporting Obama. But then our interviewer goes on to declare that 'This is who supports this woman, The same people that say that nigger over there when they talk about Barak Obama'

WHAT!!

Labeling all Republicans not only as opposed to homosexuality, but as overtly racist against blacks. This is exactly the kind of stupidity that I like Obama for condemning and I'm sickened every time someone 'supporting' him jumps out to call all Republican supporters racist.


The most persuasive argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the typical voter.

The primary reason it would matter if Barak Obama was a Muslim is that he denies being a Muslim. That is to say - if it turned out he was Muslim, then he'd have been lying about it. (Full disclosure: my political leanings are fairly conservative, and I agree with the Republican platform on a majority of issues. I believe Barak Obama when he says he's a Christian and I get irritated with coworkers who can't seem to rise above the conspiracy theories that suggest otherwise.) I'm aware that this isn't really the nature of the argument though, so on to my next point:

The other reason is that there are fundamental differences in the belief systems of the major religions. If a voter disagrees with the moral or ethical tenets of a given religion, then they're likely to disagree fundamentally on certain issues with a candidate who subscribes to that religion. (I also acknowledge that there are fundamental similarities, too, but a sedan isn't a truck just because they both have four wheels, cupholders and run on internal combustion.)

From a practical standpoint, what a candidate does is more important than who he is, so the argument can be made that policy and platform are more important than character or background, but it can't be disputed that what a person does is influenced by what they believe.

OK, I've watched The Young Turks talk about this clip and the Obama smear piece that precipitated it:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Hannity-caught-by-the-Obama-campaign

Hannity didn't have Andy Martin on the show to talk about his hatred of Jews. He had Andy Martin on to shamelessly smear Barak Obama. It's all very despicable. One thing this episode reinforces is that Hannity is the kind of scumbag you read about in books. His brand of changeable character would not hesitate to sell his mother if it saved his own neck.

NetRunner is correct: this guilt by association tactic, employed tongue-in-cheek by Mr. Gibbs, is the same sort used by Hannity ad infinitum. It's that guilt by association tactic I was railing against above so I was actually siding with Colmes.

Very interesting when you compare Clinton, Obama and Paul together, it seems that they're doing the very same thing to Obama. However, Hillary seems to be getting many more google searches, yet she is behind Obama in the polls. So, does an increased amount of web traffic necessarily equate to an increase in votes?

Maybe people are looking to see what's wrong with a candidate, or the people who are voting aren't always the people web-searching...

It can't be argued that the news media isn't still a massive influence on public opinion though.

Ron Paul is the only candidate I see that is actually creating genunie voter enthusiam, the only other candidate that somehow comes close is Barak Obama.

Check out these straw poll results, this is the candidate the media consistently calls the long shot.

Some MCs made a hip hop song for him... Ron Paul for Freedom

PS: And Yes for the Videosift Strawpoll, even though we would get a more internationally flavoured result it would still be interesting.

Okay I like Barak Obama.

But let's not forget besides his vision and his charisma, Obama has not really done anything concrete. Does America see Obama or even Clinton as a possible strong person to run a war on terror? I don't know. How far can they convince the American people that they could be tough on terror? (even if I believe personally the threat of worldwide terrorism is about as empty as the threat of the Soviet Union in the late 80s)

There are also two republicans who could also be running such as John McCain and Chuck Hagel (I hope to God). Both are Army vets. Now I don't like McCain much at all, while he is a war vet his military strategy is entirely flawed as he is pushing for the surge just as much as the Whitehouse is. Hagel has been persona non grata with the Republicans after Kerry dropped his name yet he is the only one who has expressed skepticism about the War in Iraq all this time since 2004, and says that the surge is entirely foolish endeavor. Both men initially voted for the war, however only Hagel has really developed an understanding that it can't work, he's not in the cut and run crowd yet he understands that sending an additional 20,000 troops wont fix the problem.

There is no plan for the surge forces, most of them are being sent to Baghdad to keep the security situation? But how? Will they be used to force a settlement between Sunnis and Shias? Are you going to lockdown Baghdad? All it will do is increase Iraqi animosity and strengthen resistance. Vietnam should have reminded the administration that you CANNOT fight a war of independence for someone else.

What are the Democrats doing? Well they don't want to be labeled as weak on terror so are sidestepping cutting the funds to the new surge, though whether or not they will allow troops to be sent is another matter. Obama himself said that the surge would be a mistake compounding a mistake, however argued that he could not in good conscience cut off funding for troops that are there.

Honestly I think this is starting the race entirely too soon. It really depends on how the so called surge plays out. This is all building up a public persona of a person, however that without real action is merely a paper face still. Furthermore, the Democrats would just as easily divide amongst ties (imagine Obama vs Hillary) and fight it out between themselves instead of joining forces. But I don't think either wants to join forces even when both candidates strengths and weaknesses balance each other out nicely.

Barak Obama has many things going for him; Harvard Law degree, obvious historic pension for charity, a thoughtful and calming orator, very little corporate connections, genuine and friendly manner, and a great smile. He seems entirely genuine in his convictions, and his interest in engaging Americans in putting down their chips and dip for a second and realizing that, over time, we can effect the Washington D.C. situation to make this nation a respectable country again.

I saw a comment from QM about Barak Obama - to be honest I think he's on borrowed time if he keeps that up.