New Hampshire Primary Running Thread

Huh? Howard Dean did the same thing, and he soared out to a giant lead. He fell, of course, because he was too specific about many of his ideas, and also a screamer.

Obama is vague, and cool.

It works better. For now.

 

Obama is a hollow windbag. I'm sorry - because his speeches raise my hopes, too - but he is. He's more or less running on the force of his personality.

 

First, Alma, check your timeline.

Second, tell me what specifics other candidates are offering that Obama isn't.

Third, remember that cynicism is not criticism. "Hollow windbag," is well beneath your usual posting here.

 

Nebulous rhetoric isn't a very convincing alternative to nebulous rhetoric.

 

October 26, 2002:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

 

Great, now "All Things Considered" has a "campaign" story about Chuck Norris. Man, they are shitting the bed worse than a baby on Ex-Lax-laced hummus. Horrible broadcast so far.

 

I agree. But when you say "it's none of your business. Live your own lives, busybodies." I simply offer my view that with every time there is money taken out of my pocket by the government in the form of taxes, and then used in any way by my government that I deem irresponsible, selfish and flat out disgusting (state-funded abortions) I have every right as a United States citizen to voice my opinion and demand a refund!

 

Of all the candidates running, from both parties, I'd say we don't have much difference as to how things would be handled for the next 4 years.
So, I figure Obama, McCain or Ron Paul are the best choices.
Dr. Paul seems to have little chance (sadly)
So we have as our two best (among a parity-ridden field) candidates.
Lets move toward the big primaries and the conventions.
This should, if nothing else, be fun to watch.

 

True that.

And all I can add is don't be so moved by empty words. Vote for action.

Action = John McCain

 

Sadly enough, we're in agreement here.

 

When W buys pleated pants, he doesn't fuck around, it seems.

 

I love this cuttin' and runnin'.

HRC, or "Che" was the icon of left-wing love for months around here and you rats are jumping off her ship so fast it might turn the ship over in the process. Freakin' hilarious. Within a month, I'll have to go looking for an Obama logo. God, it will hurt to give up the Che logo so early