Barack Obama Wins Democratic Nomination

An anonymous reader was one of many who noted that Barack Obama has claimed the Democratic nomination having secured enough delegates and super-delegates to claim victory. Of course, technically this assumes that the supers all vote as they say they will and they are free to change their minds. So no doubt we'll continue to hear debate on this subject until either the convention or Hillary steps down.

People don't learn from history

[suso]

People don't seem to learn from history, which may be obvious. But I'm talking about you. All the intelligent people who think they know what they are doing and think that change is on the way .

I think it would be great if Obama was elected president. It would send a great message to the rest of the world that Americans are a diverse, caring and accepting people. And it would probably greatly inspire a lot of people who have felt oppressed over the past 8 years. But honestly, I don't think he stands a chance. Democratic voters are voting with their hearts and not their heads. From having watched many presidential elections from more of a neutral stance, I can say that to really win, you need to win the votes from both parties, not just your own. Sure, you can win by a narrow margin, but that is hardly marks the beginning of change. Change begins with the populace changing their attitudes. Leaving race out of the issue, how many republicans do you think would vote for someone named Barack Hussein Obama. A name that rings with the sounds of two recent so called enemies.

So Obama supporters have voted with their hearts and aren't realizing how idealistic they are being. Is it really worth the risk of having republican bullshit for the next 4 years? I don't think so. Obama supporters, you have risked too much. So don't come crying to everyone when he loses. I hope he doesn't
though.

Spelling?

[zygotic mitosis]

Hasn't this guy been in the news enough for the last two years? Can't we get his name right yet?

Re:People don't learn from history

[OzRoy]

The problem is I don't think Clinton would do anything in power except maintain the status quo. Her history, and the way she has behaved through this campaign has shown that.

You may be right that Obama can't win, but in times like this I think sometimes you have to just roll the dice and go for it otherwise nothing changes.

What kind of message?

[the computer guy nex]

I think it would be great if Obama was elected president. It would send a great message to the rest of the world that Americans are a diverse, caring and accepting people.

Really? Based on what?

Calling his own grandmother a "typical white woman"? Is that caring and accepting? Or what about his spiritual advisor, who baptized his children and married him and his wife, saying that the white US Government created AIDS to kill black people?

What about his relationship with someone who has bombed United States buildings?

If you meant this would send a message on a purely superficial level because of his skin color, maybe. But anyone who has done research on this man doesn't want him as president.

Why should she go away?

[bstarrfield]

Clinton has no practical reason to "go away" - Obama's victory was surprisingly narrow. Over the last few months the Obama campaign lost momentum - Clinton's victories were quite substantial in several key states that would be essential to a Democratic victory (Ohio and Pennsylvania especially).

Given Obama's weakness in three key Democratic demographics - women, white blue collar workers, and Hispanics - Clinton still has a substantial role to play in the election.

Her supporters are bitter about how they perceive Clinton's treatment versus how Obama has been treated by the press. I realize it's anecdotal, but talking to a number of my friends who were ardent Clinton supporters I've become worried that they simply won't vote Democrat due to what they perceive was the unfairness and sexism of the campaign.

Clinton's in a strong position to request the VP slot. If she concedes to Obama then she simply becomes an also-ran, and has no negotiating power.

Re:...but Hillary still won't leave.

[wass]

Well, the interesting thing is that in no primary in the US history has the outcome ever been so close. Obama has certainly won the primary, but just barely.

The party is truly split between the two candidates, and for the Obama team to take a small winning margin and run all the way to the general election while ignoring Hillary and keeping her out of the team, it will majorly turn off roughly half of the Democratic Party. The Obama team just wants Hillary to go away, but when she has the support of half the party, how can she just give up and disappear? That would be irresponsible to her supporters.

Another argument that the Obama team has been making for the past few months is that Clinton is ruining Obama's chances in the general election by keeping the election going, and that she's been mean to him with her campaign. The sad thing is that what Hillary has thrown at Obama is nothing compared to what the Republicans will throw at him starting now. If they cannot stand Hillary's attacks, they're going to crumple under McCain and the whole Republican propaganda machine.

It certainly is an interesting time in politics, seeing such a split in the Democratic party. Hopefully it can come together, but it won't happen if Obama just runs fully with it, leaving HIllary in the dust. Or, as you put it, to "make this woman go away".

Re:People don't learn from history

[SCHecklerX]

So Obama supporters have voted with their hearts and aren't realizing how idealistic they are being. Is it really worth the risk of having republican bullshit for the next 4 years?

What makes you think that democrat bullshit is any better? Neither party serves the interests of the people in this country.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Zuato]

I threw everything out the damn window that made me a Republican 8 years ago and until I see a positive change in that party I'm not going back. The Republicans dug the hole they are in. They have to dig themselves out now, and McCain is not the answer. He's already digging that hole deeper.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/mccain-id-spy-o.html [wired.com]

Re:...but Hillary still won't leave.

[bsDaemon]

The Clintons and the Bushes are like political Herpes. In my life time, we have had Reagan/Bush, Reagan/Bush, Bush/Quale, Clinton/Gore, Clinton/Gore, Bush/Cheney, Bush/ Cheney -- complete with all the usual suspects from the 80s and 90s... and the fucking Ford administration, too!!

I am SO FUCKIGN GLAD its not going to be another 8 years of Clinton -- followed by what, Jeb Bush then Chelsey Clinton?

Bush Sr. and Clinton palling around...

but yeah, study hard, stay away from drugs and out of cyber-porn on the internet and YOU could be President of the United States some day.... pfft

sure.

He's a Democrat, so who he is doesn't matter now

[misanthrope101]

you need to win the votes from both parties, not just your own

Could you sum up the traits a Democrat nominee would have to have for the Republicans to refrain from demonizing him? The Republicans will only vote for an R, unless their own candidate is so bad that they have to stay home. McCain may or may not be be that bad, but it remains to be seen.

Anyway, Obama would be demonized with any name, and regardless of his hue. No matter who he is, if he's a D and he's running, then he'll be the "single most liberal member of Congress" since Che Guavera or whoever, an "elite" know-it-all who is out of touch with the heartland of America, will have gotten a "free pass" from our "overwhelmingly liberal media," would put us in danger of "appeasing" the terrorists, "emboldening our enemies," etc. It's the same script, every time, all the time. The Republicans always use the same words to galvanize their base, because, well, it works. Who or what Obama is or isn't has little to do with how the Republicans will vote.

Re:People don't learn from history

[suso]

You make a valid point.

However, the counterpoint is that attitudes such as yours result in stagnation. There can be no change if those who would support change abandon their causes.

Back in 1999, I fought against the local university over students being unfairly charged for their meals. And I won. At first it was a little win, then slowly over the next few years the university changed their policies. It takes time to change.

In fact, the dean who I went up against told me something that I haven't forgotten "Its a big ship and if you want to turn it you have to slow it down first." So with a ship the size of a country, unless you want to pick up guns and force change, change takes time.

Re:...but Hillary still won't leave.

[elrous0]

Hillary (like Bill) is hyper-ambitious and a sore loser. Right now she's still steaming and trying to plot a new course for the only person she ever cared about in this election (herself). She'll be back in a new form soon enough (no doubt trying to strong-arm her way into the VP spot).

Re:Why should she go away?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Given Obama's weakness in three key Democratic demographics - women, white blue collar workers, and Hispanics

I keep hearing this canard. The rest of the sentence is against Hillary Clinton. Do you honestly suppose that after the last eight years that those groups are going to flock to McCain in the general election?

Re:What kind of message?

[drsmack1]

You are really missing the point. We need Obama so we have the bully pulpit to leverage pseudo-science to get the socialist reform we need to make this country better.

Now that Obama has no democrat rivals, the media will simply no longer report on any of Obama's past "issues". When republicans bring them up; we just knee-jerk out the racism charge.

Re:I can't wait!

[arthurpaliden]

You do know that if you don't vote then you don't have any 'moral' right to complain about the result.

Re:People don't learn from history

[timster]

Your cynical post seems smart to the casual observer. It is not.

First of all, unless you cherry-pick polls, there is no statistical evidence that Hillary (or some other candidate) would be more successful against McCain. This is a talking point of the Clinton campaign only. You can go on about how names "ring", but without statistical evidence you are frankly spouting nonsense. Your gut feeling that Americans care about someone's name is simply not supported by real facts.

Your "learn from history" canard reminds us of 2004, when Democratic primary voters chose John Kerry on this cynical view that he was the most likely to "win". Well, he lost. So much for that. The refrain you might have heard from moderate voters four years ago was that they didn't know what Kerry was about, and that his campaign seemed more anti-Bush than pro-anything.

Obama is not going to win the votes of right-wingers; he will win as all Democrats win, by appealing to the middle and the left. The moderates in this country are smarter than you seem to think.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Notquitecajun]

I HOPE not. Louisiana needs Jindal more than US needs him as VP. Also, Jindal only has slightly more experience in government than Obama (which isn't saying much), and has never held down a non-government "real job." If Jindal can help get Louisiana off the bottom of some lists, he'll be considered a success and almost be a walk-in to the Republican nomination in 2016.

Re:Why should she go away?

[Free the Cowards]

She only has no practical reason to "go away" if she is absolutely selfish, something which I concede may very well be the case. If she cares at all about her party or her country then she'll admit defeat and get her ass in gear promoting Obama to the masses in every way possible.

I say this as a dedicated third-party supporter who thinks that every serious Presidential candidate fielded over the past decade or so has been completely useless, from either major party.

Re:People don't learn from history

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Whats in a name.. Democrat.. Republican.. those are just names, the issues they stood for fell by the wayside long ago.

The current crop of politicians have their own agendas, and in many cases, those agendas cross the borders between the party lines, and in some cases, quite far across those borders.

Re:People don't learn from history

[theTrueMikeBrown]

Perhaps I am just too liberal, but I don't really think that race will keep Obama from winning. The problem that I see is that the party is so divided. If Hillary keeps fighting to the end she could really split the party.

The best thing for her to do if she really cares about the Democrats is to drop out now.

I am the True Mike Brown and I approve of this message.

Re:Spelling?

[zygotic mitosis]

The summary is still misspelled. Great effort, though, editors.

Re:I can't wait!

[bigstrat2003]

For the love of God, man! If you don't like the Republican/Democratic candidates, don't sit at home: vote for a third-party candidate. Surely there has to be one out there who you agree with, and anything whatsoever is better than not voting.

Re:What kind of message?

[Free the Cowards]

My grandmother is a typical white woman. It's just the facts, not derogatory in any way.

Historically the Republicans have plenty of ties to terrorists, and nobody seems to care.

It's entirely possible to love and admire your spiritual advisor while thinking that his more worldly theories are insane. There is at least one person in my life like that, although his theories are somewhat more tame.

But anyone who has done research on this man doesn't want him as president.

I'm utterly sick of this kind of bullshit talk. If you don't like him, fine. Say so. But saying that it is impossible to like him if you know him is ridiculous. Plenty of people do. Accept that other people can have opinions which do not match yours.

Ha!

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"if you don't vote then you don't have any 'moral' right to complain about the result."

That's a quaint assumption backed up by no rationale whatsoever. I am a taxpayer and a US citizen, so I have every right to persuade other members of society to effect changes I desire. Voting is a right, not a gateway to other rights. On its own, it also happens to be the least effective method of bringing about change. I would rather use my freedom of speech to persuade the public to bring about a candidate that will uphold everyone's rights rather than trample them. Until such a candidate exists, there will be no acceptable choice for president.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Notquitecajun]

Dang, poor choice of words on my part, and I apologize. I should have said "conservative" and then made it a general statement on those who claim to be Republican and then switch their vote - who I almost automatically see should be conservatives at the base - change their vote for someone who doesn't represent anything that they stand for.

Re:People don't learn from history

[canUbeleiveIT]

The best thing for her to do if she really cares about the Democrats is to drop out now.

True, but if she only cares about being elected in 2012, the best thing for her to do is to stay in as long as possible so as to reduce Obama's chances in the general election, thereby saving herself from the nearly impossible task of wresting the Democrat nomination from a sitting president.

Unfortunately, the Clintons very often seem to default to the most politically expedient course of action, so this wouldn't surprise me.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Notquitecajun]

I'm a libertarian-conservative and typically vote practically, and shouldn't have projected that. However, most Republicans hold to some sort of conservative ideals in one fashion or another, and Obama holds none of those. Leftism is bad because it takes from those who earned and gives to those who don't deserve.

And you're right about there not being much difference in parties right now - it was particularly the reason why so many conservative dems wound up elected in 2006, because the Republicans dropped the ball in moving the country like they said they would and wound up with more do-nothing idiocy.

Re:I can't wait!

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Surely there has to be one out there who you agree with, and anything whatsoever is better than not voting."

Both of those assumptions are false. I will only support a candidate willing to uphold the rights of the citizenry. Show me such a candidate. My vote is of little consequence, especially when it is a vote for a candidate who cannot get a majority. Freedom of speech is the more effective route: persuading lots of members of the public to eventually bring about a viable candidate.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Noexit]

Same here, but not if Ms. Clinton is on the ticket.

Re:...but Hillary still won't leave.

[Hijacked Public]

First of all, I'm not sure why this is "news for nerds"

As I noted somewhere above, it is news for nerds because it helps pay the bills at Slashdot. Political stories generate more page hits than your average Microsoft bash, or vaporware story, or the other usual stuff.

It is also important, for the marketing folks, to have an idea of what the site's readers policitcal leanings are. This helps the article selection process be more accurate by selecting articles that will generate either a lot of 'me too' comments or a lot of enraged counter commentary.

This reminds me I need to re-up my subscription.

I read the political articles more for entertainment than anything else. Slashdot has a lot of high school and college age users and I find their optimism fun to read. Most of them have been paying attention to the political world only through the W years, maybe the last of Clinton's. They just aren't ready to admit to themselves that these new guys will be just like the old guys.

I actually hope Obama wins so when he signs some new **AA sponsored bill I'll get to read all the heartbroken comments. It'll be like the Google articles, only with more page hits.

Re:People don't learn from history

[VJ42]

He's only 37, is Indian but converted from Hindu to catholic a while back,

As a Brit, why does his religion even matter?! Here in the UK a person's religion only starts to matter once they start relying on it for political opinion: then it's generally regarded as a "bad thing". In the US it appears you have to be Christian to run for high office, oh and some token Jews are occasionally allowed too. Is my outsiders interpretation correct? If so I'm thankful that UK politics isn't so religiously divisive.

Re:People don't learn from history

[larry bagina]

I'm a conservative/libertarian and I'll be voting for Obama as well (I'd rather be voring for Ron Paul or Fred Thompson).

Why? John McCain. Campaign Finance Reform. Open Broders. Keating 5. That old person smell. On issues that matter to me, John McCain gets it wrong. Barack Obama might also get it wrong but 1) he's not (yet) part of the washington culture and 2) republicans in congress will start acting conservative.

Re:People don't learn from history

[MagdJTK]

Indian? Don't you have to be born a US citizen to get that far in politics?

Re:...but Hillary still won't leave.

[elrous0]

I think George W. has pretty much ended the Bush legacy. It will be a long time before voters can even stomach the thought of another of his ilk.

Re:People don't learn from history

[berashith]

I thought their agendas became just getting re-elected. This requires huge input of capital from the party heads, and if you don't toe the party line then you significantly reduce your chances of having funding for the next election.

All other motives take a back seat, and in my cynical view, the party lines are so dedicated to the money that the true platform for both sides is written by the same money wielding groups.

The lack of experience of Obama is a bright spot IMHO as far as these matters are concerned.

Re:People don't learn from history

[metlin]

You forgot -

Paul: An idiot candidate who thought he understood economics, but did not even grasp the very basics of it.

If Paul's fiscal policies were implemented (e.g. going back to the gold standard), the US (and possibly, the world) economy would be shot to hell.

Re:People don't learn from history

[bsDaemon]

In a Representative Republic, you are electing a proxy for yourself. This means that people are naturally going to choose people who agree with them. When someone shares your religion they are more likely to agree with you on things that religion influences.

I'd say its a comfort level.

Then again, you guys dumped all the fucking puritans on us. The US is just what Britain would be if not for the Restoration of the Monarchy. We have a bunch of damned Cromwells over here.

Re:Why should she go away?

[Anonymous Coward]

It tells you something about the quality of her supporters that they'd rather wreck the country out of spite than admit that they lost.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Shakrai]

Ummm...so you're essentially throwing EVERYTHING that makes you a republican out the window to vote for the most leftist presidential candidate from a major party EVER?

Isn't it amazing how the Republicans manage to label every single candidate that we run as the "most leftist" or "most liberal"? They did it to Al Gore and John Kerry and now they are trying to do it to Senator Obama. Hell, I suspect they'd be doing it if we had nominated Joe Libermann or Zell Miller.

It's almost enough to give you the idea that they know they can't win on the issues so they have to run a campaign of FUD.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Skrynesaver]

OK, first off I'm not a USian and so I may be under informed and unaware of recent history (though from what I can gather so is a large proportion of your electorate ;)

Most people outside the US would love to see Obama elected as there is a possibility that we might see a country that is aware of a world outside your own borders again.

And call me naive but Obama seems to be in politics to fight for his vision, is too recent an arrival to politics to be owned by the lobbyists and may actually create interest in the political process in the majority of your population who don't vote.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Nursie]

And modern conservatism is good because it takes from those who don't have much and gives to those who are already rich...

You don't have "leftist" politicians in the US, by the way. And your so-called right politicians are also interested in huge government and social restrictions.

There don't appear to be any fiscal conservatives left, on either side of the atlantic.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, your view of American politics is pretty spot on. Even the liberals here going out of their way to appear christian because unfortunately it is a political suicide not to.

Re:Race relations in the US.

[ChromeAeonium]

Yes. We should remind people that it doesn't matter if you're black or white. The only color that matters is green.

Re:People don't learn from history

[xappax]

Leftism is bad because it takes from those who earned and gives to those who don't deserve.

Uh, that's what the American government is all about. Right or Left, everybody's stealing from one group and giving it to some others, many of whom haven't earned it in any way. On the left you have the welfare system, which gives free money to poor people, and on the right you have super-rich tax breaks and "back room corporate deals", which gives free money to the fabulously wealthy.

You have two choices - either accept this premise, and decide which system of redistribution you think is "least unfair", or reject it entirely, and work to radically change our government and socio-economic system so that all kinds of involuntary redistribution are unnecessary and impossible to execute.

Re:He's a Democrat, so who he is doesn't matter no

[Anonymous Coward]

an "elite" know-it-all who is out of touch with the heartland of America

Elite: 1. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status. 2. The best or most skilled members of a group.

Why is it that people think "elite" is bad? Would you rather have a president who is smarter than the average citizen or just average? For the past 8 years we've had a president who is as dumb or dumber than most people (or at least he likes to pretend he is).... and that didn't do anything good for the country.

Re:People don't learn from history

[m.ducharme]

Leftism is bad because it takes from those who earned and gives to those who don't deserve.

I would say that conservatism does exactly the same thing. The only difference is whether the non-working poor or the filthy rich are getting what they don't "deserve". In the mean time, the working folk keep getting paid less than their labour is worth, to fund welfare, whether that welfare is corporate or personal. Though in my view, the filthy rich are getting far more than they deserve than the folk who have no jobs.

(note that although this view sounds *horrors* communist, I don't believe that government intervention is the best way for working people to get fair value for their labour -- I'm more left-libertarian.)

Disclaimer: I've very much oversimplified my actual views here for the sake of brevity.

Re:People don't learn from history

[smooth wombat]

As a Brit, why does his religion even matter?!

Because, for some unknown reason, a large portion of the people in the U.S. equate a person's religion with who they are. It's as if one of the reasons we broke from you folks has been completely forgotten.

Apparently, people believe that if you believe in some man-made myth of a supreme being who sits high in the sky watching everything you do, who tells you you must follow a set of rules they have set down or else you will be condemned to an eternity of pain and torture yet, who still cares and loves you*, you are somehow more worthy of an elected office than the atheistic heathens who do not believe in a supreme being.

And we can all see what a great job those religious-minded folks who have been elected to office have done.

*My apologies to George Carlin fans for not quoting his diatribe accurately. I just wanted to get the gist of his comments.

The Republican Party is not "conservative".

[Futurepower(R)]

Exactly. The Republican Party is not "conservative". That word is only used to get votes. In fact, the Republican Party has put the U.S. government into far more debt [futurepower.org].

There are, in effect, two Republican Parties. One is a real political party. The other is extremely corrupt and merely says anything necessary to get control. The real purpose is control, not managing the U.S. government for its citizens. For example, search digg.com and reddit.com for the term "martial law".

There has been conflict of interest because of the fact that the president and vice-president and their families and friends and associates have a history of investment in oil and weapons. The purpose of invading Iraq was to get control of the oil supply, so that the price of oil would rise. Saddam Hussein was not cooperating; he was selling as much oil as he wanted.

The reason for the U.S. government's plan to invade Iran is to further restrict the supply of oil. If the U.S. government invades, the price of oil could easily become $8 per gallon; it is necessary to have oil to make our societies function; people would have to pay any price.

Also, his name is "Barack" Obama, as others have noted. I wish Slashdot editors could be real editors, and check their work.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Gordonjcp]

Leftism is bad because it takes from those who earned and gives to those who don't deserve.

So does Rightism. I'd rather my money went to the homeless alcoholic living under a railway bridge than the CEO of some megacorporation who has just wangled himself a massive tax break.

The Ideal Nominee

[kellyb9]

I just wish for once a person would run on something other than a slew of social issues that they have no power to change. And worse yet, I wish people would stop voting for canidates based on their stance on abortion or gay marriage or anything else. The ideal person, for me, is the person who can evaluate situations as they come along and apply a little bit of common sense in government. Maybe this describes Ron Paul, maybe it doesn't. In the end, I know that this is just a dream because the large parties will never nominate someone who goes against their social agenda and people will never vote for someone who goes against their beliefs.

Re:People don't learn from history

[xappax]

I don't support him personally, but in your case, why not vote for Ron Paul? Vote for who you want to win, not some asshole who's convinced you he has the best chance to win. Better to stand for your principles and lose than abandon them to win. It's the latter choice (on the part of politicians and the public) that's given us the pathetic political situation we're in today.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Mishra100]

The people who aren't going to vote for Obama because his middle name is Hussein are the same people who would look for any excuse to not vote for him without crossing the line.

If it isn't the name, it will be the way he speaks. If it's not that it will be because of the arguments he had with Clinton. And so on.

Re:People don't learn from history

[gmack]

If she is seen as reducing Obama's chances in the general election the harm to her reputation and the resulting backlash will keep her from ever having the support needed to try again.

Re:People don't learn from history

[vigmeister]

In the US it appears you have to be Christian to run for high office, oh and some token Jews are occasionally allowed too. Is my outsiders interpretation correct?

Yes. "Being Christian" is something that voters in the US want in a candidate more often than not. Sure you have the occasional county that votes for one of those goddamn atheists, but being Christian or 'atleast Jewish' is considered to be a sign of high moral and family values. The populace treats you well enough if you believe in a religion and there is mild distrust if you are an atheist, but the political system has always been a bit behind the society. A black man is finally a serious contender for President and a woman almost was. In about 50 years, you'll have an atheist in office.

P.S. I think the opening lines of The Communist Manifesto may have an effect along these lines: "Communists think that religion is a drug and they condemn in. We need to be high on it all the time if we are NOT Communists"

Cheers!

I'd say the opposite is true

[Sycraft-fu]

I'm generally a conservative. I hesitate to call myself a republican, though that is the party I'm registered with, but of the two majors, they are closer to what I believe in. A libertarian might be the right term, though they tend to be rather... Extremist. The point is, I'm not a Democrat and didn't get to vote in that primary.

Regardless I am what you might call a moderate conservative. I have and will certainly cross party lines. I vote based on who I think will do the best job, not a D or an R. So I'm the kind of voter that the democrats need to be after. In my case, I'll almost certainly vote for Obama if he's nominated. If not, I'll probably vote for McCain. I don't like Clinton at all. She seems very totalitarian, in that she thinks she knows what's best for the economy, for you personally (her video game stance for example) and so on. That is opposite to what I think. I think in general government should try and stay out of things, when practical. They should be a force that guides the economy, not controls it, and that ensures people have freedoms but that they don't infringe on others, not that hands out a list of what is right and wrong.

So for me, Obama is good. I don't agree with him 100%, but then I don't agree with anyone but myself 100%. However over all I like his policies, and I think he'll be good for the nation. Clinton, no, sorry, I won't go that route. While I don't think McCain is as good a candidate as Obama, I think he's better than Clinton.

I'm not the only person I know who's the same way either. I have a number of friends with similar political views and the thing I hear is "I hope Obama wins because I'll vote for him, but if not I'll vote for McCain."

Hardcore republicans are a lost cause. They'll vote R no matter what. So while they might hate Obama more, it doesn't matter since they won't vote for Hillary either. They are all R all the time. The people who matter are those who come down on the conservative side, but aren't caught up in party dogma.

Now I have no empirical evidence as to who will vote what way, but this assumption that Clinton has the ability win win republicans where as Obama doesn't is just silly. Neither will win the party voters, and I and my friends are proof that there are at least some out there who feel Obama yes, Clinton no. We probably aren't the only ones either.

No candidate is going to have a walk in the park this time around, all of them have something that a non-trivial portion of America has a problem with. However that doesn't mean Obama has no chance, in fact I'd say it is quite the opposite.

Re:Why should she go away?

[SpinyNorman]

Not that narrow. The nomination is about delegates, and as of this morning the delegate count is Obama: 2156 (vs 2118 needed for victory), Hilary 1932. That's about a 10% lead for Obama, which in terms of general elections is considered to be a "landslide". By the delegate math Hilary hasn't had a serious chance for a long time - it's only the media that have been portraying it as a close race because they want to keep reporting on it.

I have to disagree that Hilary is in a strong postion for the VP slot. She ran too negative a campaign, and comes with too much baggage (Bill and their combined shady history) - she'd be a boat anhor on his presidency, and since she failed once to put together a national health plan when her own husband was president, I can't see she's more likely to succeed if she was #2 to Obama. Obama needs to pick a VP that not only complements himself in terms of experience and demographic appeal, but who also doesn't detract from his appeal of youth, vision and desire for change. I think John Edwards would make a great ticket (young energetic positive pair vs the crusty aging McCain), then fill the secretary of state and top defense positions with heavy hitters.

What is he gonna change?

[Hurricanepkt]

I still want to know what he is going to change? I haven't really been able to figure out much of what he plan's to change?

Re:I can't wait!

[JasterBobaMereel]

I can't vote (I am not an American Citizen, have never been to America ... ) but the result *will* effect me ... to whom do I complain!

Re:People don't learn from history

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, the dean who I went up against told me something that I haven't forgotten "Its a big ship and if you want to turn it you have to slow it down first." So with a ship the size of a country, unless you want to pick up guns and force change, change takes time.

Unfortunately people are not that insightful when it comes to China...

Re:People don't learn from history

[xappax]

Actually, McCain thinks torture is not OK, which is why the US don't torture anyone.

What's that? Oh...well that's not torture.

Oh and that? Hm...well see, that wasn't technically "the US".

Convenient how that works, huh?

Re:People don't learn from history

[Arathrael]

On funding the Iraq war, at least, I wouldn't say it's inconsistent to oppose starting a war and to later agree to fund troops already fighting that war. You're in a different situation once the war has been started, and underfunding the troops there would arguably make a bad situation worse.

was it really that condescending?

[misanthrope101]

him going on about how people only like guns/religion because they're poor, a month or two ago

Well, here's the quote:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I guess you and I just read things differently, because I got a bit more nuance out of his statements, and "people only like guns/religion because they're poor" doesn't quite capture it. Seeing the economic viability of your community crumble, seeing the way of life of your parents crumble, can be a polarizing experience, and yes, people cling to things, things they consider symbolic of their way of life. I don't see anything especially patronizing about saying that people are pissed off and that when they're pissed off the symbolic things matter more than they might in times of prosperity.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Cro Magnon]

Ummm...so you're essentially throwing EVERYTHING that makes you a republican out the window to vote for the most leftist presidential candidate from a major party EVER?

I didn't turn my back on the Republicans. They turned their backs on me. I wanted fiscal conservatives. I got spending that made the liberals turn green with envy. I wanted strong foriegn policy. I got a war over non-existant WMDs, which has weakened both our military and our political capital with other nations. I wanted to escape the Democrats fear-mongering. I got Republican fear-mongering.

Re:People don't learn from history

[socialhack]

McCain actually doesn't support torture - He was at the front of the line to attack the Bush administration for their views. He knows how well torture works (or doesn't) as he was on the receiving end in Vietnam.

Re:People don't learn from history

[cowscows]

The republican party does the exact same thing, it's just less honest about it. The democrats will tax you and then do whatever with the money, but at least you see the money coming out of your wallet. The republicans don't tax you, but still do whatever with the money, pretending like it magically grows on trees. Eventually it catches up with you as prices rise and your income doesn't, not to mention the mountains of new debt we're piling up daily. Either party is going to spend your money, but at least the democrats respect your intelligence enough not to lie to you about it.

The only type of conservatism that currently exists in the republican party is social conservatism, and I'd think that you as a libertarian would have some serious issues with that.

Re:People don't learn from history

[bkr1_2k]

So who decides that those "don't deserve"? Not everyone on welfare is on it by choice. Poor families don't want to live in shitty neighborhoods that aren't safe and where their children don't get the same quality education.

We have no "left" party in the United States. We have a moderate party with vaguely left leanings and a "conservative" party which really isn't much different except with respect to religious beliefs (currently) and a few other social issues. There is no longer (and hasn't been for a long time) a party of small government and "personal responsibility" that advocates not having social programs. If there was such a party they would have fought much harder to abolish Social Security, amongst many other programs. They wouldn't have instituted a "no child left behind" policy that brings the standard down for the whole so that a few can be pushed through the system whether they deserve to be or not.

Back to your point, "leftism" isn't bad, it's just not based entirely on greed. In fact, leftism, in theory, is getting back to the family unit, and extending that to helping people not directly related. The whole "we're only as strong as our weakest link" thing. It works on a small scale, but is unwieldy on a large scale, which is the real problem.

Re:People don't learn from history

[bockelboy]

Amen. I'm amazed that some Paul observers don't understand basic economics.

We didn't get off the gold standard/Bretton Woods because someone wanted to scratch an itch or was bored. It COLLAPSED, and would have taken the world economy with it.

Maybe Paul has a way around it that his supporters haven't been able to explain to me. However, whenever they talk about his policies and I respond "we tried that once, it collapsed", they kind of walk away dumbfounded...

Re:People don't learn from history

[zeromentat]

Isn't it amazing how the Republicans manage to label every single candidate that we run as the "most leftist" or "most liberal"? They did it to Al Gore and John Kerry and now they are trying to do it to Senator Obama.

Al (the world is ending due to global warming) Gore, and John Kerry were two of the "most leftist" senators at the time. Barack, who had not even run for a federal position at the time, did not have a track record. Barack is now one of the most leftist senators in Washington. It's not that the republican keep name-calling, it's that the democrats consistently assume they will win, and name the most left reaching person they can find to take the job. Clinton wasn't called one of the most leftist, but she couldn't win the nomination because she wasn't leftist enough I guess.

Re:People don't learn from history

[qbzzt]

Yes. I wanna help my neighbors

Do you want to help your neighbors, or do you want to force me help your neighbors?

That's the difference between private charity, funded by people who want to donate to it, and government welfare, funded by taxes.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Anonymous Coward]

He is not Indian. He rejected his Indian roots, and said that ALL the Indians and ALL the foreigners should get beaten and deported on cargo boats.
So, don't come with this diversity talk to me. I am a WASP, but I feel sad how you people are manipulated for a bunch of pathetic losers with their own very personal agendas, like Obama, HRC, McCain, Romney, Jindal, and all this gang.
The American democracy is dead because ALL the politics are corrupt and they don't care about this country or this people, they just care about the lobbies they represent.
And not only our democracy, but our economy. We created this globalized world, and now every other country is enjoying becoming a rich country, and we are still the only ones sending our boys to die when there is trouble? This is just not right.
Anyone that is really smart and a geek should be an Anarchist. Governments are enemies of humankind development, with all their borders, laws, and stupidity.
So lose your hopes, boys, no politician can save America from destruction. The only way? Out, through the airport, that is all...

elitism

[misanthrope101]

Why is it that people think "elite" is bad?

"Elite" is bad only because of the virulent populism and latent anti-intellectualism running through a wide swath of American culture. What's even more bizarre is that millionaires like Bush and McCain can use it against other millionaires to get poor people to vote R. You'd think that people would eventually realize they were being manipulated and get pissed off about it, but they never do.

Even Bush's country accent is fake--he's not really a country boy, not really a rancher, etc. But the populism button keeps on spitting out the votes. As cynical as I am, I still find it depressing.

Re:People don't learn from history

[ArcherB]

Leftism is bad because it takes from those who earned and gives to those who don't deserve.

Uh, that's what the American government is all about. Right or Left, everybody's stealing from one group and giving it to some others, many of whom haven't earned it in any way. On the left you have the welfare system, which gives free money to poor people, and on the right you have super-rich tax breaks and "back room corporate deals", which gives free money to the fabulously wealthy.

"Not taking" is not the same as "giving'. I'm not wealthy by any stretch and I got a tax cut. Fortunately, the owners of the company I work for, some of which are wealthy, got a tax cut, which enabled them to hire me! Our customers got a tax cut, which made them be able to afford to hire my company. Our customer's customers got a tax cut which made them be able to give more money to our customers, who in turn, hired us...

See how economies work?

Re:He'd be Pelosi's pawn anyway...

[TapeCutter]

"More taxes means less freedom"

So it follows that places like Afganistan and Sudan are on the top of the freedom list and the scandanavian countries are near the bottom?

Re:People don't learn from history

[Cairnarvon]

Leftism is bad because it takes from those who earned and gives to those who don't deserve.

Thank you for demonstrating once more that libertarianism is about childish selfishness at its base. What magical fairy land do you live in where everyone is born with the exact same opportunities?
Protip: we are a society, and without that society those who "earned" would have nothing. A society doesn't survive by kicking the less fortunate in the nuts. For every greedy welfare moocher (which I'm guessing you imagine make up the majority of the people on welfare) out there there are a hundred families who have fallen on hard times because the parents' employers care more about profit than about people.

Government exists to serve and protect the people. All of them. I suggest you get over yourself and get used to it.

Re:Since when he is black?

[Woundweavr]

First, how is he black, when he has the same % being white? How would it make him a first black president? First mulatto president. Saying he is first black is as disgenious as calling you a woman because you have half of the genome to be one. Is USA so racist that we label people by the color of their skin?

Yes.

What part of "black" did you not understand?

Re:People don't learn from history

[Anonymous Coward]

By taking the first step you have moved the middle ground half a step closer to me. Thank you.

Re:People don't learn from history

[b4upoo]

I would not be shocked to see Obama win the presidency with an overwhelming landslide. There is a lot of resentment towards the republican party at this time.
            Yet if Hillary hangs on it just might be that Obama may suffer from a couple of foot in mouth disasters that could cause the delegates to give Hillary the nomination.
            As for the race issue I think many whites do not think of Obama as being a black man. Culturally he seems to be white and his skin is not dark. The prejudice against women may well be greater than racial prejudice towards Obama.

Re:The Republican Party is not "conservative".

[msuarezalvarez]

One is a real political party. The other is extremely corrupt and merely says anything necessary to get control.

What makes you think real political parties are not extremely corrupt and say anything necessary to get control?

Re:People don't learn from history

[Dog-Cow]

You don't pay for gas?

Taxes are not the only way Government causes money to move from one entity to another.

Re:Why should she go away?

[elrous0]

Actually, I don't particularly like either party (I'm a Jesse Ventura man, myself). But I definitely don't want to waste another minute in that abomination of a war in Iraq. And McCain has stated unequivocally that he WILL NOT LEAVE until we achieve victory. Since victory is unachievable in Iraq, this means 4-8 more years in Iraq if McCain wins.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Vancorps]

If you're a "have not" then you understand the concept of debt and how big a hole the republican party dug fiscally, how do you think we will pay that debt in the future? You can bet on higher taxes or taxes on more goods and services. They took from everyone and spent the money frivolously and continue to do so without remorse. I'll add that a lot of that money left the United States.

I wish I could say the democrats behaved differently but they don't, they just spent it on different things. I'll grant that democrats tend to spend it on things that actually help domestically though.

Modern democrats have a much better track record for getting us back into a sane budget and thats really what we need right now.

Re:People don't learn from history

[ArcherB]

You don't pay for gas?

Taxes are not the only way Government causes money to move from one entity to another.

Sure, I pay for gas. The tax money that goes with that is used to build and maintain the roads that I drive on. I've seen the people that are working on those roads. They don't look wealthy to me.

BTW, I would pay less for gas if we were allowed to produce it locally. Tell me, which party is outsourcing our gas and oil production?

Re:People don't learn from history

[timster]

Ah, electoral-vote.com, the same site that predicted 298 electoral votes for Kerry on Nov. 1, 2004.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/nov/nov01.html [electoral-vote.com]

Re:People don't learn from history

[glgraca]

Maybe leftists simply recognize that you pay one way or the other. You can have less inequality or you have to pay for more policing. You can have a public health service or you can have people who are sick and less productive.

Re:Invitation to torture our troops

[cduffy]

Do our enemies need such an invitation? Last time I checked Arab countries had a history of torturing captured enemies, one that predates the first Gulf war.

It's one thing to have an enemy that takes some immoral action. It's another thing for every enemy to have a moral justification which they can offer in public to support that action.

When he's not Bush Light, McCain understands this.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Vancorps]

Did someone just say Reaganomics actually works? Are you high? The tax cut did not enable them to hire you, first of all, corporate tax cuts are different than personal income tax cuts.

In my company they started growing so there was increased demand on IT personnel so necessity forced him to hire me, since then my automation has saved him millions and he's since doubled staff in other parts of the company. See how economies work?

Taxes are a reality of doing business, if the current tax structure is keeping especially a large corporation from growing then that corporation is already in rough shape given that most cities grant them tax breaks to build in their town.

Look at the economic stimulus check which didn't do jack because everyone is so in debt that they just spent the $600 or so on gas or food. With inflation the way it is that money doesn't go as far as it would have 8 years ago when gas and food was cheaper.

Re:People don't learn from history

[molarmass192]

I agree with you. I think it's a f-ing shame that McCain is being fed to the wolves as the nominee for this election. He's the only non-born-again GOP nominee who (currently) has the potential to get elected. However, the GOP needs a solid cleaning up and a resounding defeat this fall is the only way that's going to happen. They need to purge all the religious zealots, war mongers, and lobbyist puppets and get back to a base of solid fiscal conservancy and international trade. Right now, it's ironic that the Dems offer the best options for the above. I'm voting for Obama, because I expect him to run a tight ship and weaken the grip of lobbyists over DC. Time will tell how right I am, but right now, there's simply no better candidate in my mind's eye.

Change we can believe in?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Change we can believe in" is the tag line, but I've heard nothing that won't raise my taxes at least 50% and further bankrupt our country.

The changes I believe in are:
- Personal responsibility
- Personal Freedom
- The right to privacy
- Minimal Government
- Equal Protection under the law

George Washington wouldn't live in the country that we've become. He would leave after seeing what we've done to it, crying.

Re:People don't learn from history

[YodaYid]

Meanwhile, all that lost revenue in taxes affected many other people outside your immediate perception. I'm glad the tax cuts helped you personally, but plenty of people have been hurting under the tax breaks.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Jaysyn]

Yeah, I really can't see him (Obama) fucking things up worse than they already are.

Re:People don't learn from history

[reebmmm]

And you must live in an alternate reality where Democrats understand that the laws of supply and demand regulate gas prices and allow for increased production in addition to increased efficiency to bring the cost of oil down.

You must live in a reality where everything is black and white. Higher gas prices means fewer gas consumers whilst lower prices brings more consumption. We're witnessing that right now. For envirodems, lower consumption is a GOOD thing not a bad thing.

Moreover, higher gas prices means that other source of energy that are arguably "better" from a sustainability/environmental perspective but previously unworkable given the price of gasoline become much more appealing.

Besides, an increase in domestic production would have such a SMALL impact on the overall cost of gasoline and any impact would be fleetingly short lived. The US simply does not have enough oil reserves to make much of a lasting impact.

Finally, there's a really good argument that we should drain the cheap oil from other places first and keep our oil reserves until a time it actually matters. Using our reserves now would probably not give us a real good return on its value.

Re:People don't learn from history

[tbannist]

A very cynical part of me thinks McCain is being set up for failure. It seems like the social conservatives and born again Christians should not rally around McCain unless he's clearly going to win. Instead they're should hang back and let him get crushed by the Democrats. Then they'll use his defeat as proof that the party should have selected a socially conservative born-again candidate. In the end they'll gather more power to themselves and wait for the Democrats to screw up something to feed the attack machine to get back in power.

In short, if the republicans lose either the religious zealots, warmongers and lobbyist puppets will get purged, or if they have already gathered enough power unto themselves, it will they who are doing the purging. Either way, the republican party is headed for serious trouble if they don't win the next presidential election, which there is every indication that they will not.

Re:What kind of message?

[Spudds]

Holy shit on a shingle I hate republicans and their incessant inability to leave obnoxious bullshit SPIN out of anything they say.
He did NOT say "people cling to religion and guns because they're poor" you spin-monkey shrill a-hole.

Here's a quote so you can stop spreading that bullshit

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

And that quote is from a freaking right-wing Roman Catholic website! (the first three pages of my google search were all from right-wingers trying to make Obama look bad, go figure).

Jesus christ all ready. All he basically said was that they're living in dried up commuinities that keep getting passed over by the government even though they're promised relief, which of course frustrates these people (eventually leading to becoming bitter against the government) and they turn to ("cling") their hobbies and beliefs to express their frustration.

Take your obnoxious right-wing out-of-context political spin and shove it up your ass.

Re:The Republican Party is not "conservative".

[tuxgeek]

OK, There are 2 of us that see what has really been going on.

The problem here is how can anyone tell which republican is which. Will the bad republican melt if you throw water on them?

McCain is still another puppet controlled by the corporate puppet masters. Ever notice that John McCain doesn't speak when Cheney the Dick is drinking water?

Re:People don't learn from history

[RingDev]

Do you want to be forced to pay pennies of your income to help my neighboors, or do you want them to turn to a life of crime to support themselves and wind up in a prison where you will be forced to pay dollars of your income to support them?

Public education, social responsibility, and the empowerment of all will help you more significantly than isolating yourself from society.

I'm not saying we should go all commie or socialist over here, but a balanced struggle between socialist and capitalist (and many other!) points of view in our government is what keeps it healthy. Falling in the trap of a single party (even a dual party like we have now) reduces our government's health.

-Rick

Re:People don't learn from history

[bkr1_2k]

That's an excellent point. I don't, however, want to leave social welfare up to the religious folks. I'm not saying all private charities are run by religious folks, just that I don't donate to charities run by churches or church groups. As a result my outlets are much more limited. I do donate both money and time to charities that I think are beneficial, but I don't have a lot of either to donate. If part of my taxes go to donating more than I can directly, I'm all for it.

I think we need to better implement the programs we put in place. I'd love to find a solution to that particular problem, but I've certainly never seen a way to do it on a large scale. I think that would also help alleviate the incentive issue you point out.

Re:People don't learn from history

[stuntpope]

Government exists to serve and protect the people. All of them. I suggest you get over yourself and get used to it.

With the consent of the governed.

And the prevailing view of the governed in the USA is more along the lines of the poster you replied to. So I guess the governed need to get over themselves and get used to whatever the government decrees and takes.

I actually am in line with your sympathetic nature, but conservatives could easily counter that the proper avenue of assisting society's less fortunate is through voluntary charity, not government-enforced redistribution.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Anonymous Coward]

"The supermarket down the street doesn't give a damn how hungry I am, they just want to make money. But the way they've chosen to make money(by selling food), happens to align nicely with one of my priorities in life, which is obtaining food."

It is not happenstance that their interests are aligned with yours. The very nature of capitalism demands that it is. By nature, capitalism thrives on the idea of a merchant providing goods or services to people who value that good or service higher than the money in their pocket. Everyone wins on the exchange, for each party receives compensation perceived to be of higher value.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Anonymous Coward]

Hrmmmm,

In some ways... Yes. Sometimes personal belief has to fall to populism, sometimes not. That's the job of the politician, when to wager that the populace hasn't gotten the bigger picture on an issue.

Concerning honesty and above the table deals... McCain is on the very short list of Senators that have not tried to earmarked funds to buy their constituency. Funds that were spent on things like a bridge to nowhere. That list does not include Clinton or Obama.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Anonymous Meoward]

Thank you! The whole argument for supplanting a welfare system with a series of charities (religious or otherwise) is bogus because of one of the points you made. Specifically, the latter model can't scale to meet demand.

I'm not saying our welfare system is great (is isn't), and it wasn't so wonderful when I was actually on it as a wee lad. But I fail to see who a properly administered and funded program can be outstripped by bakes sales at Our Lady of Perpetual Motion.

Re:Apparently war comes with Democrats or Republic

[elrous0]

Obama will get us out of Iraq. But he's not a mindless pacifist (no reasonable leader ever should be). There's a big difference.

Re:People don't learn from history

[XPACT]

And why do you think that Obama will be any different?

Re:People don't learn from history

[malilo]

You've got to be kidding me. This is the #1 reason that I can't really be a libertarian. Altruism and having people "take care of the poor" on their own time is a fantastic idea, except that it DOESN'T WORK. Human Beings are assholes, and most would as soon kick a guy in the gutter before giving him a dollar, much less pick him up and help him find a job. Just admit that you don't give jack sh*t about people who through luck or mental illness are in a bad situation.

If you quit the welfare program tomorrow I guarantee you crime would rise through the roof and local charities wouldn't be able to do anything more than they already do. How do I know? Because I volunteer all the time, and most charities (especially for the homeless and battered women shelters) are full to the TILT every day, and have to turn away people. It really is sad.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, we were just tired of hearing you scream. Unfortunately, our decision to ignore you has not stopped the screaming.

Re:People don't learn from history

[ArcherB]

And unless you can give me an example of the government taking your money and giving it directly to a CEO of a megacorp, you are lying.

Wow, that was easy. [cbsnews.com]

Easy, but not a good example. Halliburton, or more to the point, Kellogg, Brown & Root, is the only company in the US that can handle what needs to be done in Iraq. Ever wonder why no other company has sued the government over the Iraqi contracts? Because no one else can do the job. Sorry, try again.

Also, hiring a company to do a job is not the same as giving money "to the CEO of some megacorporation." If that homeless drunk could do the job that Halliburton is doing, then we'd have one homeless drunk in Iraq handling everything.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Mister Whirly]

"Yet if Hillary hangs on it just might be that Obama may suffer from a couple of foot in mouth disasters that could cause the delegates to give Hillary the nomination."

Umm, you do realize that this entire article is about Obama WINNING the nomination right? That means Hillary can't get the nomination, or in other words, SHE LOST. So unless she has some real Karl Rovian counting tricks up her sleeve, it is over for HRC.

And yes, many people don't think of Obama as black, because he isn't. He is half white and half black - and a whole to neither. So all you "Obama hates all white people" folks out there, do you honestly believe he hates his mother and half of himself?? And the "prejudice against women" crap was drummed up by Hillary's camp to guarantee her the female vote. Nothing to see here, move along. I was waiting to see when Hillary would launch her own "Swift Boat" campaign against Obama. Maybe she sold that spot to the Republicans for McCain to use against him later...

Re:People don't learn from history

[junglee_iitk]

I am eagerly waiting for McCain to win. Really. Jindal is a sellout, like most of republicans. Converting to Christianity should warn any sane person how ambitious he is to do such phony act. But well, for the rest of the world it is actually a good thing that USA goes down - too long the big brother has watched and intervened rest of the world.

Re:People don't learn from history

[cashman73]

As for the race issue I think many whites do not think of Obama as being a black man. Culturally he seems to be white and his skin is not dark. The prejudice against women may well be greater than racial prejudice towards Obama.

Well, there's also that little detail about his mother being white herself,... ;-)

Re:People don't learn from history

[cwingrav]

Keep preaching... time and patience... don't get depressed.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Mr_Perl]

Those tax cuts combined with deficit spending means you just enjoyed the theft of resources from future generations as well as the future you. That's how economies really work, there's no free lunch, just deferred debt.

Most Americans however can't see past the upcoming quarter evidently.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:People don't learn from history

[Foobar of Borg]

to vote for the most leftist presidential candidate from a major party EVER?

Wait a minute, I thought it was John Kerry who was the most leftist presidential candidate from a major party ever. Oh, wait a minute, that was Al Gore. No, wait a minute, it was Bill Clinton. Seriously, why do you Repugs always bring out such asinine and demonstrably false crap *every* *single* *election* and somehow think no one will notice?

Re:The Republican Party is not "conservative".

[skeeto]

You forgot to stick atheist (or I guess the communist part covered that) and homosexual in there somewhere.

Re:People don't learn from history

[TheBig1]

After living in NC for a couple of years (I am born and raised Canadian, and living back here in the Canadian west for the past 6 years or so), I am sad to report that the east / south is just as racist as the midwest, if not more so. Now, granted, I was living in a small-ish town, and I assume that the bigger cities are a bit better, but it is still very sad how stupid people can be.

Re:People don't learn from history

[kdemetter]

you must live in an alternate reality where the republican party stands for saner government and a balanced budget.

what's the price of gas over there?

And you must live in an alternate reality where Democrats understand that the laws of supply and demand regulate gas prices and allow for increased production in addition to increased efficiency to bring the cost of oil down.

In the real world that I live in, I've heard Republicans screaming for increased domestic production and Democrats screaming, "NO!"

Well , i'll tell you this . It doesn't matter whether it's democrat or republican . The result for the American people matters . So make a choice based on what changes you want , rather than on something as relative as a political position.

At least you have the ability to vote for it. I don't live in the US , so i can't vote for it.
Yet the consequences are for the entire world.

Re:People don't learn from history

[tbannist]

He had the moral ground, then he gave it away by backing down on waterboarding.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/ [thinkprogress.org]

He voted against the ban on waterboarding.

Re:I'd say the opposite is true

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm generally a conservative. I hesitate to call myself a republican, though that is the party I'm registered with, but of the two majors, they are closer to what I believe in. A libertarian might be the right term, though they tend to be rather... Extremist. The point is, I'm not a Democrat and didn't get to vote in that primary.

I'm not picking on you personally, but this illustrates that the labels are part of the whole problem.

On any given issue, there is no one size fits all answer. On schooling, some areas might need a federally mandated solution. Others might need a privatized system. Others need a government system but with really localized control to handle special needs. And so on.

But we can't do that. The Marching Morons pick a label and then play "Toe The Party Line" until everything in in ruins. The round, triangular and hexagonal pegs get pounded into the square holes by vast ideological hammers.

I was reading a blog the other day by some Leftist tool complaining about the corruption of the Bush government. I even agreed with him on that. But then he talks about all the government programs he thinks we need to bring about whatever demented vision of Utopia he was smoking that year.

People like him seem to think that if you just change a couple people at the top, it all gets magically better. they can't see that it's the vast power structure itself, the centralized control, that leads to corruption. This is why I call ideology the mind killer. People can't see the forest. They can't even see the fucking trees!

Re:The Republican Party is not "conservative".

[Muad'Dave]

Your lucid description of how things are explains perfectly why, as a life-long Republican, I will not be voting McCain. I won't be voting Democrat, either. I am much more closely aligned with Ron Paul's message, and will either write him in or vote Constitutional Party if they're on my state's ballot.

Re:What kind of message?

[ericrost]

You mean like the batshit crazy idea that the Jews are the chosen people of Jehova and anyone that brings harm to them will incur the wrath of the Lord? That's not racist or crazy, riight.

Religion at its most basic level is racist, crazy, nonsense propaganda that should be ignored in its totality in a political campaign. I just wish he'd had the guts to remain atheist as he was raised, but you can't get elected President as an atheist.

Re:People don't learn from history

[CrashPoint]

Ordinarily I'd completely agree with this sentiment. Unfortunately this sentiment divides us right now when we need to take a stand against pretty much everything that's happening right now. Once we come back from the brink of insanity we can act more directly on our principles and vote accordingly.

This is what gets said at every single election.

"We can do the right thing later, right now all that matters is that The Other Guy MUST LOSE AT ALL COSTS!"

This, far more than any "spoiler" candidates, is what gets bad presidents elected.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Anonymous Coward]

so you're essentially throwing EVERYTHING that makes you a republican out the window

Party before country - the new GOP.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Anonymous Coward]

And intelligent people could counter that relying on voluntary charity is inefficient and tends to fund things based on emotional appeal rather than actual need (Worry more about giving dying aids children with cancer a chance to ride a pony than actually funding research into a cure).

Re:Why should she go away?

[Hyppy]

I've spent 2 years in Iraq and 18 months in Afghanistan. Could you truly fault me for focusing on that issue when choosing a candidate?

Oooh he threatened Iran!

[Chris Burke]

Certainly not immediate withdrawal from Iraq

Ooh not "immediate" withdrawal. It'll be fast enough for most of us.

at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?

Oh yeah, that's a terrible threat there. "There may or may not exist a point where we would want to use military action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons". Wow, so hostile there, compared to Bush's peace offerings.

Considering that he has also been heavily criticized for saying he would speak directly with Iran's President, i.e. use diplomacy, this 'threat' seems pretty irrelevant.

is recent vote for allocating $165 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (including $51 billion dollars for veterans' education) tell me that he, like any other corporate-funded Democrat, have no principled objection to war or to these wars in particular.

Funding a war in progress -- and in particular caring for our people damaged by this war -- is completely different from not objecting to it. Guess what? It'll cost money to get our troops out of Iraq too, so when he proposes a spending bill that includes this money, don't lump that in with "supporting the war".

Democrats deserve no slack, and should be given none.

I don't hold the actions of Nixon or Reagan against Bush Jr; I see no reason to hold the actions of JFK against Obama. Because that makes no sense.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm...so you're essentially throwing EVERYTHING that makes you a republican out the window to vote for the most leftist presidential candidate from a major party EVER?

I'm far to the right of Obama in most respects, too, but I'm thinking it's time to stop voting based on politics, and start voting based on IQ.

You can't trust politicians to behave consistently with their stated beliefs. Why bother "voting the issues?"

Re:People don't learn from history

[winwar]

"Umm, you do realize that this entire article is about Obama WINNING the nomination right? That means Hillary can't get the nomination, or in other words, SHE LOST."

Obama is the presumptive nominee. Until the delegates at the Democrat convention ratify that Obama is their nominee, he hasn't won anything. Not that anyone seriously believes he won't get it of course.

Re:People don't learn from history

[BigRob7]

It doesn't matter if everyone is born with the same opportunities. I was born poor to a couple of crackhead parents. I went off on my own at 16 years old and did what I had to do. I'm sick of people saying 'ooh I was born into this ghetto and I can't get out there are no opportunities.' Cry me a river. Get yourself a pair and get out of that environment. I've worked at pizza places, temp jobs, telemarketing, and other jobs that most poor people won't even take because 'it doesn't pay me enough'. How can you justify handouts that are taken by force from the rich when most of the poor people I know won't even take a crap job? I've slept in cars, under bridges, on the el train, buses, you name it. I finally managed to land a full time job and buy a car after years of hard work. Childish selfishness? No, I call it the inability to comprehend why people can't pull themselves up by their bootstraps and thake care of themselves. Everybody wants something for nothing. In Libertarianism, there is no such thing as a free lunch. What, exactly, is wrong with that?

Re:People don't learn from history

[CohibaVancouver]

that makes a huge difference in the national deficit.

As an outsider looking in (I live in Canada), I'm amazed at how little the American media seems to discuss the issue of the federal and state deficits, and the national debt.

I would argue that perhaps the media considers it a 'complicated issue' but it shouldn't be - All you need to do is draw analogies to credit cards or mortgages and most people would 'get it'. In my opinon, the fact that the American nation-state is willing to simply offload their spending upon the nation's children is criminal. You guys need to either a) accept that the kind of spending you demand from your government(s) needs to be funded from somewhere and accept higher taxes or b) accept that spending needs to be deeply cut. You can't have it both ways.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Mr_Perl]

Without tax revenue, the bills from the excessive spending of the Bush administration cannot be paid . This is deferred debt. This is why tax cuts were irresponsible and not appropriate.

Everybody agrees that we should cut spending (on things that don't benefit them directly usually), but it's my view that we should spend only money that we have. That's how I manage myself and it keeps me happy and those who deal fairly with me happy.

Ever since the rabid warmongering of the paranoid years of Truman we've been digging this deficit hole and it's got to a point where we'll never get out, we'll just collapse one day because everybody's just too short sighted.

Re:The Republican Party is not "conservative".

[PhearoX]

The purpose of invading Iraq was to get control of the oil supply, so that the price of oil would rise. Saddam Hussein was not cooperating; he was selling as much oil as he wanted.

[Citation needed]

...what's funny is that the market is *extremely* well-supplied with oil. Oil prices should be in the $60-$70 range right now, but these fools on wall st. are willing to pay $130+ a barrel for something in excellent supply out of simple fear. With Iraq producing record Oil output and the U.S. not seeing a dime of that money, I'm not sure what's up with all the sheep buying in to the "WE DID IT FOR THE OIL!" conspiracy theory. If we did it for the oil, we wouldn't be paying $4 a gallon. We'd be paying $2.50 and the oil companies' profits would double because they are essentially getting the oil for free from Iraq. This isn't happening, the US is not benefiting from Iraq's oil, and here we sit.

Re:People don't learn from history

[DECS]

Invading Iraq wasn't an effort to obtain free oil for America, it was an effort to stop Saddam Hussein from dumping his oil on the market and lowering prices (and profits) for OPEC aligned oil producers.

It also intended to destroy Iraq's infrastructure and then rebuild it using Bush/Cheney linked contractors paid for by Iraq's oil (oil that would not hit the market and lower prices).

Gas is now approaching $5 per gallon: mission accomplished!

Did you really think an oil man, albeit a failed one, was trying to obtain a new oil source to provide US consumers with lower prices? He profits from selling oil, and profits more from selling oil at higher prices.

Invading Iraq wasn't about creating an oil colony, it was about empowering Bush's oil partners, including the Saudi bin Ladens who benefitted so much from pulling rival oil from Iraq (a rival secular state that didn't practice the same form of Islam) off the market.

It also wasn't about containing radical Islam. Bush converted Iraq from a secular state that was an enemy of Saudi terrorists into a radically fire breathing terrorist training camp with groups that are now supportive of Al Qaeda and/or ready to plot their own attacks on the US and any foreigners in the area.

Again, Mission Accomplished! The world is now safer for Bush/Saudi oil profits, Cheney's military contractors, fundamentalist terrorists, US police state fascism, and higher energy costs are helping to subsidize everything.

A small piece of wisdom

[StevenMaurer]

I ... don't stand by the race-baiting ... He does uncover the ugly underbelly of the politics of "Hope" with specific examples.

Here's a little word of advice: When reading the diatribes of racists, bigots, and other emotionally stunted people, consider the possibility that such people may even stoop to mischaracterization. Or even lying.

Hard to believe, but never the less, true.

A second piece of wisdom. You do yourself a disservice praising and quoting a piece liberally sprinkled with the following kinds of phrases: "Magic Negro", "Negro clown", "young gentleman of color is claiming to have had a sexual encounter with Saint Barack", "because Obama is a socialist, a Democrat, and - especially - a Negro". It strongly suggests that you yourself are quite comfortable with overt racism and pathological hate. And it leads me to the conclusion, Mr. Cornelius, that you are engaged in a crude form of psychological rationalization [wikipedia.org] for your own unstated racist sentiments.

A little self-introspection may be in order.

Re:He'd be Pelosi's pawn anyway...

[ari_j]

I don't think that anyone claimed that taxes are the only factor contributing to the level of freedom. They do, however, make up a pretty significant factor.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Deadplant]

Mcain's words are anti-torture. his actions are pro-torture.
The worst part is that I honestly believe that he IS strongly opposed to torture. This means that he is willing to compromise his values for political gain.

Re:People don't learn from history

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Right, the world would be so much better if Saddam Hussein was still in power. /s

Well, we can be pretty sure that less American soldiers and by far less Iraqis would have died in the last 5 years.
There is also a good chance that Iran would not feel like they must have nukes in order be safe from invasion by the USA.

So yeah, the world would probably be much better if Saddam were still in power.

Re:The Republican Party is not "conservative".

[cjb658]

I hope to God we don't get a democrat in the white house *and* a democratic congress.

The reason republicans are so corrupt is because there haven't been as many checks and balances as there should be.

Re:I can't wait!

[masterzora]

And if no one runs that I feel I can vote for? I'm not allowed to complain that all of the candidates suck equally? Where was the vote that I missed to get a candidate who doesn't suck? Your logic makes no sense at all.

That said, I'm voting for Obama come November.

Re:What kind of message?

[Dachannien]

I'm not sure what part of "The US government is responsible for infecting zillions of blacks with AIDS," mis-citing the Tuskegee experiments (which didn't infect anyone with syphilis, but rather allowed their infections to go untreated) as evidence, is being taken out of context. The same can be said for many of Wright's other ridiculous claims.

And I don't think for a minute that Barack Obama believes any of that crap. But I do question his honesty and his judgment in how he handled the whole mess, and those are issues of character that are relevant in a Presidential campaign.

Re:A small piece of wisdom

[extrasolar]

It strongly suggests that you yourself are quite comfortable with overt racism and pathological hate. And it leads me to the conclusion, Mr. Cornelius, that you are engaged in a crude form of psychological rationalization [wikipedia.org] for your own unstated racist sentiments.

Invalid argument. It could be the case that he is comfortable with overt racism because he is regularly exposed to it, not necessarily that he engages in it.

The worst thing about anti-racism are the witch hunts that result from it. On an online forum, we aren't going to put the burden on people to prove they're not racists, okay?

Re:People don't learn from history

[AndersOSU]

To get to (most) republicans, all Obama has to do is ask, (a) how's the economy working out for you, and (b)did George W Bush make us safer from terrorists?

Re:People don't learn from history

[thelexx]

Check out 'individualism' and 'collectivism' on wikipedia. Which one is more in line with the founding principles of the US? Which one is better described by libertarian thought? "Childish selfishness" indeed. Your condescending tone and lack of tact or understanding clearly indicate it is you that needs to learn and grow a bit.

Re:People don't learn from history

[letherial]

however sad this is, i will agree with you in this. The intelligence and the narrow mind of this country scares me to raise my child here, unfortunatly, with the economy the way it is, i have no choice but to live here yes i would move to another country if i could. The reason is because i am starting to despise the culture that this country has become, I feel like its a bad example to my son. land of the blind, home of the stupid should be our new modo.

Re:People don't learn from history

[SoTerrified]

The differences in the primary processes really show how the parties work.

So you're saying the Republicans select the person who can most likely get elected, while the Democrats pick the person who will actually do the best job. Speaking as someone who is not American, I've always wondered how the heck Bush got elected. Now it kinda makes sense...

Re:People don't learn from history

[AndersOSU]

Well if they answer the second question yes, they're not paying attention. If they answer that that the president doesn't influence the economy, it makes me wonder why they eat up, and regurgitate Reagan's (failed) economic policies. I also think they're a tad delusional if they don't think the president can use his bully pulpit to make major changes to the economy - see Hover and FDR.

If you vote Republican you're either in the top 2% income bracket or voting against your economic self interest. Even if you're ok voting against your economic self interest - and some are - you'd probably be pretty pissed that the republicans nationally haven't delivered on your social issue of choice.

Re:People don't learn from history

[ChrisMaple]

The idea that any finite amount of money could "Eliminate extreme poverty around the world" is a fraud and nothing else. Bad governments in the poorest countries will steal all the money and use it to strengthen the government and enrich the leaders. In relatively rich countries, most extreme poverty is due to personal waste and sloth, and no amount of money can fix that either.

Re:People don't learn from history

[niktemadur]

They need to purge all the religious zealots, war mongers, and lobbyist puppets.

Zealots and mongers are damaged people who live and die by irrational ideology, but lobbyists are looking for practical gain, and may possibly be the least difficult to emasculate under the current circumstances. Let me explain:

Corporate money has such a powerful influence in Washington because their contribution money is essential for the way general election campaigns are run - concentrate the money on a few key states, such as Ohio and Florida, possibly tinker with the Diebolds and Sequoias, and voilá, you have the corporate kingmaker, and the return of investment is always massive. They have the game, under the current techniques, by the balls. Rinse and repeat, over and over again, every few years.

If Obama pulls a few surprises with his current strategy, a well organized grass-roots movement in all fifty states, the risk/return of investment for corporations will become too lopsided. Sure, they'll finance Florida and Ohio with a nod and a wink, but twenty or thirty other states, with no clear outcome? Yes, lobbyists will still be in Washington like a swarm of flies, but no, they won't be the anointers of elected politicians. As a result, their influence diminishes. (The pessimistic retort - until they figure out a way to exploit and manipulate the new paradigm).

The pipe dream is for the Electoral College to be dissolved. Here's a novel idea - the person elected president should do it by the majority of the popular vote, period!

Re:The Republican Party is not "conservative".

[Shakrai]

and Obama wants to take what little money I have and give it to people who don't like to work

Could you stop repeating that damn myth unless you intend to back it up with some real evidence? What specific program that he has purposed do you think is going to "give money to people who don't like to work"?

And speaking of giving money to people who don't like to work: What about the $600 "stimulus" package promoted by GWB and jumped on by both parties? Wouldn't it have made more sense to have invested that money into the highway fund, green projects or any number of infrastructure upgrades that would employ people right here in the United States instead of giving people money to go spend on Chinese crap at Wally World?

Re:People don't learn from history

[MightyYar]

Then you'll really hate me. I consider myself a Republican, but since I live in NYC registered Democrat since there aren't any Republicans here. I do like to actually participate in primaries, thank you.

As for your assertion that Republicans somehow "stand for" something... well, that's where I'm becoming somewhat disenchanted.

Republicans are supposed to be the party of Lincoln, yet it seems like the racists have flocked to it for some reason. That is troubling.

Republicans are supposed to be the party of smaller government, yet with all three branches of government firmly under Republican control, they somehow managed to EXPAND government as the politicians ran around like unsupervised kids in a candy store. That is troubling.

Along the same lines, I also strongly object to the Republicans' tendency to expand government into nanny roles.

All that being said, the Democrats aren't one shred better - but they really haven't been any worse, either.

But I'm curious as to what you think makes Barak so leftist? He and McCain differ very little on any major issue. Even health care is not so different, with McCain subsidizing health care through tax credits (and eliminating the tax writeoff) vs. Obama keeping the current system but increasing taxes on employers that don't offer health benefits. Both systems are a marginal expansion of government, and Barak's proposal is slightly more limited than Hillary's.

I think the two major parties are far more similar than you have been led to believe, except on issues that really don't matter to the well-being of the country - like gay marriage or abortion. So-called "wedge issues" that get people lined up behind a candidate so they don't have to address anything important.

Re:People don't seem to learn from reading, either

[Anonymous Coward]

He has a delegate lead. He would not have an actual majority until the non-bound delegates vote. Of course, now they'll look like idiots if they do anything other than vote for Obama. It's on the news that he won, you know.

This is like one big exit poll, and everyone wants to be first to project the winner. Without Barack saying "I have won the nomination" or "I am the nominee" or Hillary saying "He won" or "I lost", the media has decided based on their informal count of delegates or on what their rival station/newspaper is saying. They decided.

Now it's true. That's how it works .

Re:People don't learn from history

[niktemadur]

Democrats should get rid of the Socialists, Enviro-Radicals, and Hollywood liberals if they want to clean up their party.

Sure, why not. The Radicals and the Sharon Stones are few and noisy. But which Socialists? Where are they? Last time I checked, Labor Unions were cut off at the knees. If anything, corporate capitalism is unhinged.

Take a look at many of Richard Nixon's domestic accomplishments during his presidency, he seems positively pinko even by today's Democrat standards. The shift to the right has been so massive in the United States that even right-leaning moderates (such as HRC) are regarded by the "general populace" (the proverbial "boiling frogs") as pseudo-socialists, and with each right-wing "victory", the "pinko bar" shifts along ever further in their eyes, until they're decrying reds in their beds for the most absurdly microscopic details, even as they ignore the fact that their children are blissfully sucking on Chinese toys with lead paint, which BTW entered the United States unimpeded and unchecked, all for the sake of (all together now:) Capitalism.

Re:People don't seem to learn from reading, either

[Hubbell]

The media decides who gets name recognition. Why do you think Ron Paul did so poorly in the 'scientific' polls? Because he didn't have name recognition due to the media having a near blackout on info about him in the early part of the Republican race, and then once he started wiping the floors with the other candidates at the debates, they did everything they could to make him seem like a lunatic/crazy old man. The media has a monopoly on who gets recognized by the public, and subsequently who gets elected.

Re:What kind of message?

[Arathrael]

Yep, I see the problem here.

Every time the guy opens his mouth he accuses white people of committing one horror or another. For instance: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color."

'The government'. Not 'white people'.

"They purposely infected African American men with syphilis."

'They' being 'the government. Not 'white people.' Incidentally, while the statement above is not entirely accurate, are you familiar with the Tuskegee Study [wikipedia.org]?

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans"

'We' being 'America'. Not 'white people'. Can you see a pattern emerging here?

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America."

Do I even have to say it again?

"Weâ(TM)ve got more black men in prison than there are in college."

I don't even know what you were thinking with this one.

"We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God"

And this one is a statement of belief that America is institutionally racist, which brings us to the crux of the matter.

Rev. Wright clearly believes the government, and America as a whole, has been (which it certainly has), and still is (which is debatable), institutionally racist. Do you really think that belief, a belief in institutional racism, is in itself racist? Really?

I'd also question the wisdom in equating 'the government' and 'America' with 'white people'. It's possible to accuse the government of racism without accusing all white people of racism.

So basically that's zero out of six. Well done!

the fact that he's attended these sermons for decades certainly doesn't speak well for his character.

And again, if you actually check out the sermons, you'll find they're not 'overtly racist'.

Re:The Republican Party is not "conservative".

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

The point of making an argument isn't to make the other person do your research for you, it's to do the research and make a point yourself. Now, saying that there is a history just doesn't make it automatically so, and pointing out a single plank in the Obama platform doesn't mean that there's broad support for socialist bureaucratic reforms. Let's try this again. What the fuck are you smoking and where can I get some?

Re:Why should she go away?

[lawpoop]

You forgot to mention that the .com burst happened during the Clinton administration and the economy recovered during the Bush administratation.

Are you kidding me? The economy hasn't recovered; all that's happened is 1. a housing bubble, where people got cash from home equity loans -- which has since crashed -- and 2. a credit card bubble, which will crash shortly after this housing crash cycles through. There's been no recovery; just two bubbles, one of which just burst.

The American economy is like this: You used to have a good paying union job with benefits. That job got shipped overseas, and you started to work two part-time jobs. To make ends meet, you got home-equity loans, traded up your house, and got 0% APR deals on new credit card lines. Things were looking good ( i.e. the economy 'recovered' ) until you found yourself upside down in your mortgage, with ballooning mortage payments. Now you have that plus your credit card debt. Also, your parents are elderly and your kids want to go college in a few years. And, you would like to retire at some point. And, you don't have health insurance. And, the value of the dollar has been cut in half. And, gas has doubled in price. And, food prices are going up.

Economy recovered!? What year are you living in? 2003?

Re:People don't learn from history

[slimjim8094]

Bullshit. Our government exists with the consent of the MAJORITY

If all those poor people who benefit and are able to get a leg-up once and a while to be slightly more on-par with an average self-sufficient person, went up against a rich bastard who's pissed because a fraction of his money went to help him, you would lose.

Executive version: Pissed multitudes > rich tightwads. Usually bloodily so.