Obama '08?

The epistle of Cyclo to the Obamians....

Vietnamnurse wrote:

Yah sure you betcha, BPB, and as one proud native Minnesotan, I loved it!

Well, after all we Minnesotans are known to be very progressive and inclusive! My dear uncle who was president of a large Methodist theologial seminary in Chicago (Garrett) marched with MLK and he sure was Minnesotan.

I love the cadences. He has GOT them and let him USE them. Maybe you think poetry doesn't count. It does. Barack is more than poetry and Hillary knows it. That is why she fears him. Poetry has moved the world.

He doesn't have them.... he has developed them.... he didn't sound like that in the early going....what's next a blue polyester suit and white patent leather shoes? Will the White House be renamed the Cathedral Of tomorrow? Will we change taxes to tithes?

I have stated my objections to him. You ignore them and reduce them and me to ignorant status.

If I make analogies to wide eyed religious cultists it's because that's how you're behaving more and more.

i'm tired of repeating myself.

Thomas et others:



I'd like to see a little outrage at Hillary using classic right-wing mailers to attack Obama.

http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6847

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Thomas et others:



I'd like to see a little outrage at Hillary using classic right-wing mailers to attack Obama.

http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6847

Cycloptichorn

On what basis do you call this a "classic right wing Mailer" ??? Do you REALLY believe this kind of propaganda is uniquely Republican or "right wing"?? Do you believe the Clintons are "right wing"???? (They are certainly not Republicans.)

You make some rather sweeping statements (and accusations) that simply defy common sense, not to mention the relevant facts of the matter.

You accuse bi polar of prejudgements and closed mindedness, and in the next breath you demonstrate far more of exactly the same things than he has done.

Well the mailer did not specify over what period the cost increase was measured. It is of course obvious political propaganda.

I am amused that in responding with such indignation to the campaign tactics of a Democrat candidate (and the wife of the sainted Bill Clinton) you should choose to characterize it as representing the "right wing" or "my side". Kind of an awkward moment to make such an accusation.

I am aware that you believe your intensely held opinions are based only on imutable fact, however such statements make you look close-minded and foolish. I think you should read up on the history of American politics as practiced by the Democrat party. (I'm not claiming that they are always worse than the Republicans - only about half the time).

PULLING THE LEVER....

So who am I going to vote for tomorrow? Answer: Barack Obama.

I've got some good reasons and some bad reasons for changing my mind. The good reasons include (a) the ugliness coming out of the Clinton camp over the past couple of weeks, which has turned me off, (b) a growing sense that Obama's steadiness running his campaign under fire is a good sign of what he'd be like as president, and (c) some of the red state endorsements Obama has gotten recently, which speak well for his potential to produce strong coattails in November.

There are also some not-so-good reasons. I'm half embarrassed to admit that this stuff even affects me, but the fact is that the actions of both the candidates' supporters and detractors has had an impact. Watching Andrew Sullivan rant and rave on a daily basis about Hillary, for example, has had the perverse effect of keeping me on her side. I just hated the thought of fever swamp hatred like that influencing my party's nomination. Conversely, today's Paul Krugman column, which was yet another installment in his months-long anti-Obama jihad, had the opposite effect. I don't like Obama's mini-demagoguery of Hillary's healthcare plan either, but for chrissake, it's an election. A bit of hardball is to be expected and I can't for the life of me figure out what Obama has done to drive a sensible guy like Krugman over a cliff.

Anyway, I realize that this stuff shouldn't matter, but it's all part of the mix. And while I still like both candidates a lot (which is what's kept me on the fence for so long), I guess I finally decided that Bill Clinton was right: voting for Obama is a roll of the dice. I still don't know whether Obama is likely to be the Democratic Ronald Reagan (my hope) or the next Democratic Jimmy Carter (my fear), but I like his temperament, I like his judgment, I like his foreign policy, I like his obvious ability to inspire, and I think he's more likely to be RR than JC. I guess I'm willing to roll the dice.