"Against All Enemies,",

Just finished reading the Book by Richard Clarke… Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorism czar, and then held over again by the current President Bush who dismantled the organization that had taken 25 years to build. Why…

Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."


To this day I don't know why Bush refused to hear about, must less believe, that Al Qaeda was a threat…can anyone tell me?

Clarke's Take On Terror, What Bush's Ex-Adviser Says About Efforts to Stop War On Terror - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml)

You believe this guy, Richard Clarke??
"After Clarke appeared before the 911 Commission, his detractors attacked his credibility, suggesting that he was too partisan a figure, and charging that he exaggerated perceived failures in the Bush Administration' counter terrorism policies while exculpating the former Clinton administration from its perceived shortcomings.[10] According to news agency Knight-Ridder, the White House tried to discredit Clarke in a move described as "shooting the messenger."[11] New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was more blunt, calling the attacks on Clarke "a campaign of character assassination."[12] However, the FBI denied they had a role in approving the flight for bin Laden's family as alleged by Clarke when FBI spokesman John Iannarelli said: "I can say unequivocally that the FBI had no role in facilitating these flights." http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=971322003

Clarke has also exchanged criticism with Michael Scheuer, former chief of the bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center at the CIA. When asked to respond to Clarke's claim that Scheuer was "a hothead, a middle manager who really didn't go to any of the cabinet meetings," Scheuer returned the criticism as follows: "I certainly agree with the fact that I didn't go to the cabinet meetings. But I'm certainly also aware that I'm much better informed than Mr. Clarke ever was about the nature of the intelligence that was available against Osama bin Laden and which was consistently denigrated by himself and Mr. Tenet."[13] Matthew Continetti writes: "Scheuer believes that Clarke's risk aversion and politicking negatively impacted the hunt for Bin Laden prior to September 11, 2001. Scheuer stated that his unit, codename 'Alec,' had provided information that could have led to the capture and or killing of Osama bin Laden on ten different occasions, only to have his recommendations for action turned down by senior intelligence officials, including Clarke."[14]
Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke)
Looks to me like he totes a lot of excess baggage.

More from Richard Clarke, in an interview with various reporters present:
QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.
FOXNews.com - Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02 - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html)
It is reasonable to conclude that the Clinton Administration was doing absolutely nothing to effect change in its policy with Al Quaeda, and that change was beginning in the Spring of Bush's first year in office. Maybe this is why the order to attach the Twin Towers was given, before it was discovered by the new administration, Bush/Cheney.

Don't expect this to have any effect on you DC. Might on someone though.

YouTube - The Terror Conspiracy by Jim Marrs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJDSQbnhK-g)

YouTube - JFK telling us the 911 truth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxnpujfanUM&feature=related)

Hello DC:

Well, there you go. It was OK for George Bush to do NOTHING because Clinton didn't do anything either. Bwa, ha ha ha ha

excon

I see Clarke's account as a big CYA. He had a big bug in his butt because President Bush [at the recommendation of Connecticut Congressman Christopher Shays;Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform.] stripped Clarke of a cabinet level position because of his incompetence.Bush's mistake was that he did not immediately fire Clarke .


In the summer of 2000, the last year of the Clinton presidency, Shays' committee had requested a classified briefing from Clarke “on government wide efforts to detect, deter, prevent, and respond to terrorist acts.”
Clarke responded with an oddly incoherent briefing and slide show. Shays was not at all pleased. In a brusquely worded letter to Clarke, he described the presentation as “less than useful.”
When Shays' committee asked Clarke if his office had prepared an “integrated threat assessment,” he responded that this would have been “difficult to accomplish because of all the different threats faced by the United States.”
When committee members asked if Clarke had prepared a “comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism,” the notoriously patronizing Clarke blew them off.
It was “silly” to believe such a strategy could be developed, said Clarke, “belittling” the committee for daring to pose the question.
“If there are no clear requirements or plan,” Shays asked in obvious disgust, “how does the administration prioritize the $12.9 billion it intends to spend” on counter-terrorism and related activities?
Shays never received a satisfactory answer. So troubled was he by Clarke's non-performance that on January 22, 2001, the first work day after the inauguration, he sent an impassioned three-page letter to the new National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice.
In the letter, Shays alerted Rice to Clarke's “lack of leadership” in the war on terror and his refusal to recognize even the “need for a national strategy.”
To be sure, the Richard Clarke that Shays and his committee had experienced was not at all the one America would meet on 60 Minutes.
The self-rehabilitated Clarke would tell Stahl that on January 24, 2001--two days after Shays had sent his letter to Rice--he had sent an urgent memo to Rice, requesting “a cabinet level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack.”
If Rice ignored him, there is now reason to understand why. Given the feedback from Shays and his colleagues, she had reason not to trust Clarke's judgment.

Congressman Christopher Shays (http://www.house.gov/shays/news/2004/march/marclarke.htm)

Also Clarke's tune changed after the attack on 9-11 . Prior to that he had praised Bush for his instructions “to stop swatting at flies and just solve the problem.” Clearly his saying that Bush did nothing before 9-11 was a lie.

It is scary to think that if Obama gets in that Clarke is one of his top national security advisers .

Clearly his saying that Bush did nothing before 9-11 was a lie.Hello again, tom:

I love your spin.

Whatever he did, it wasn't enough. We were attacked. People died. He was asleep at the switch. That he tried and was unsuccessful is little consolation.

It's like you spin the surge... That it may be working now, is little consolation. It does not wipe out the years of incompetence during which over 3,000 brave Americans died.

THAT'S what's germane.

excon

80% reduction in violence . That is not spin it is truth .even the dinosaur media is figuring that out

Attacks in Baghdad fall 80 percent-Iraq military | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL16246810)


Why the Surge Worked (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200812122042.asp)

Hello again, tom:

I love your spin.

Whatever he did, it wasn't enough. We were attacked. People died. He was asleep at the switch. That he tried and was unsuccessful is little consolation.

It's like you spin the surge.... That it may be working now, is little consolation. It does not wipe out the years of incompetence during which over 3,000 brave Americans died.

THAT'S what's germane.

excon
Just going to 'borrow' a line from tom's source: "Iraq is also a democratic nation. The local citizens turned out in 2005 to elect their government with 80 percent voter turnout."
These folks are more enthusiastic than Obama fans. Speaking of Obama, I wonder how the mainstream Iraqi views the election in the U.S. Would they favor Obama or Hillary?
The larger point in the article is that over 3,000 have not died in vain, at least not yet. It is difficult to believe that a major political party so readily accepts thuggery and dictatorship. That used to be one of the Democrats biggest gripes with the GOP, so Bush decides to spread the democracy around and Democrats go crazy.

I can't help but wonder how many of those responding have actually read the book.

Two things impressed me about the book, one, when I read the individual quotes by him they take on a different quality, or flavor, than when read in the context of the on-going story covering 25 years. The other, how credible the history from his perspective is.

It is certainly a puzzle to me how a man like Clarke who served three presidents so successfully became to another president useless and incompetent with-out even a personal evaluation by the President.

That leads me to wonder just who is really incompetent, Bush Jr. or Clarke. I also wonder why they would literally let Clarke run the country (co-ordinate all agencies response across the country on the day of 9/11).

I believe Bush and his Administration came in with pre-conceived beliefs and a pre-conceived plan and anyone that would not accept their theory was left out of the loop.

Tom I don't think it scary at all, in fact in my mind it would be a big plus for Obama if he brought in Clarke.

excon, Clinton did more for the war on terrorism than Bush even thought about. Bush thought he was combating terrorism when he invaded Iraq…he did not believe Al Qaeda was a threat. Even after 9/11 he did not believe they were the real threat. He completely missed what had been happening during the 8 years of Clinton.

It sounds like it could be sub-titled, "My Story As A Bumbling Bureaucrat". I appreciate his attempt to provide historical data, but it is subject to review and correction.

It sounds like it could be sub-titled, "My Story As A Bumbling Bureaucrat". I appreciate his attempt to provide historical data, but it is subject to review and correction.
George... I'm afraid your argument :p Do you really believe what you say is convincing? I suppose the question is: Have you reviewed it, or are you simply parroting someone else.

That is a new one to me . A life time Bureaucrat is infallible . Seems to me that after serving 25 years that perhaps he would be the one with preconceived ideas. Perhaps the critique that there is inertia in the bureaucracy is off base but I doubt it. My guess is that it would benefit government greatly if there was a house cleaning every now and then. Or perhaps the performace of the intel agencies was stellar pre- 9-11 ?

George....I'm afraid your argument :p Do you really believe what you say is convincing? I suppose the question is: Have you reviewed it, or are you simply parroting someone else.
I also wonder why Democrats so often side with enemies of the US? Hmm?

I also wonder why Democrats so often side with enemies of the US? Hmm?Hello again, George:

It's a good thing, then, that we had a Republican in there when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. And, then a Republican in there when the crippled one died. Otherwise, we'd be speaking Japanese, right?

Oh, that's right. They were Democrats. They whipped the whole world in less time than George has been losing in Iraq. Hmmm.

Yup, you're right on again, George.

excon

He doesn’t claim to be infallible, Tom, and I certainly don’t believe he is. Watch those straw men now.:)

A toolmaker with 25 years experience has pre-conceived ideas too…and I would suggest that it would be wise to at least listen to them…something Bush refused to do.

A house cleaning was the first mistake Bush made in Iraq… :p

Hello again, George:

It's a good thing, then, that we had a Republican in there when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. And, then a Republican in there when the crippled one died. Otherwise, we'd be speaking Japanese, right?

Oh, that's right. They were Democrats. They whipped the whole world in less time than George has been losing in Iraq. Hmmm.

Yup, you're right on again, George.

excon
My hunch is, both would only be small "d" democrats in today's political environment.

It's just plain childish to try and make the war on terrorism into a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Islamic religious Terrorism against everyone opposed to their views began in 1970 and Reagan made inroads against them. Both Parties have done what they see fit to combat it as well as leaders in some Muslim countries.

The unseen and almost unknown enemy was not thoroughly known until the late 90's and that is when Clinton was able to target and capture many terrorist. This was made possible in part by Clark's organizational skills and the Budget afforded by Clinton and Congress. The problem is that Bush lost sight of the real enemy. (He was 8 years behind in the war on terrorism and thought it was the Iraqis that were the problem.) My best guess.

The unseen and almost unknown enemy was not thoroughly known until the late 90's and that is when Clinton was able to target and capture many terrorist. This was made possible in part by Clark's organizational skills and the Budget afforded by Clinton and Congress. The problem is that Bush lost sight of the real enemy. (He was 8 years behind in the war on terrorism and thought it was the Iraqis that were the problem.) My best guess.

"The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle.
CLARKE: " So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February (of the Bush Administration), uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
"JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

"CLARKE: All of that's correct."
FOXNews.com - Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02 - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html)

Clarke having said all this, I don't see how you substantiate that Bush lost sight of the real enemy, unless you are stating that as your opinion, which is based upon what?

“You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing {EDIT: this is specifically about the CIA budget for covert action not the whole budget for counterterrorism}, which was almost while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?”

And of course no one has suggested that Bush denied Al Qaeda existed, what is suggested is the importance of the role by them. Personal opinion…That Bush Invaded Iraq seems to me to bear out where he thought the greatest threat came from.

That is a new one to me . A life time Bureaucrat is infallible . Seems to me that after serving 25 years that perhaps he would be the one with preconceived ideas. Perhaps the critique that there is inertia in the bureaucracy is off base but I doubt it. My guess is that it would benefit government greatly if there was a house cleaning every now and then. Or perhaps the performace of the intel agencies was stellar pre- 9-11 ?

A house cleaing... I agree... What a great idea.

I think you should start at the top. No point cleaning out the basement if you leave the attic filthy is there? That gets rid of the Bush's, Clintons and old McCain and leaves the fresh faced bureacrat Obama with no pre conceived ideas.

You're an ideas man Tom :D

Fresh ideas are not always good ideas. Besides which new ideas does he have . He and Evita play from the same game plan. Bush should've cleaned out the Clintonoids from day 1 .

Tom, I see that your signature has changed from positive links and statement regarding Fred and Rudy to a negative quote referring to Obama. Is this any indication of how the GOP will run its presidential campaign?

You guys are scared aren't you? This bold new face goes against what you guys are used to and you feel threatened. Again as an outsider looking in I find it exciting and inspiring. I think the US has a chance to lead the globe into a new world of politics. It seems as though he believes that words and encouraging people to think differently can change the world. And I agree with him.

You guys need someone like him. The world does in many ways. Your reputation (rightly or wrongly) is severely tarnished in most parts of the world. I think he is the guy to repair it. You need to resume the role of leaders that you have vacated in recent years.

Sorry for getting off topic a little.

DC-

Not much to add to the Clarke suggestion that GW Bush was aware or that he didn't respond adequately having the knowledge. Dubya acted like a deer caught in the headlights on 9/11 and Bill "Zipper Gate" Clinton was to occupied with other matters than defense during his presidency as well. While we need leadership that actually pays attention to the real threats of terrorists abroad that may be coming our way it would be productive if we had a president that emphasizes the home front also. In Vegas, LA, NYC, Chi-town, Philly, etc... gangs and thuggery abound.


Skell-

Most of Obama's main opposition is coming from McCain and Clinton supporters and early on they have focused on three arguments: 1) Obama gives great speeches, but no substance or 2) he doesn't disclose (share) specific views on the issues or 3) he lacks experience to be president.

All three are absurd tactics.

1.) Obama is an educated speaker, no doubt. Both McCain and Clinton are jealous to have Obama's talent. When the opposition brings this up, it's rather a foolish ploy that in actuality means that both McCain and Clinton lack Obama's communication skills.


2.) None of the candidates have given specifics to numerous issues while on short stints campaigning. However, I outlined Obama's take on Israel the other day on another post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/american-thinker-183587.html). We have learned that McCain would keep on the warpath for one hundred years, and that by his own admission, even though our country is in the midst of a recession the economy issue is not his strongest subject. All the candidates, including Obama, have several websites covering information on most of the top issues and I think we all know how to use the search engine. When the two major party's finally get their nomination represented in the general election they will debate, discuss, and dissect the issues on National TV. Tune in.

Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Issues (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/)

Barack Obama on the Issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm)

Barack Obama: On the Issues | Presidential Election 2008 - Candidate Profiles, Photos, Quizzes and More | Reader's Digest (http://www.rd.com/national-interest/election-2008/barack-obama-on-the-issues/article.html)

Barack Obama - Issues & Ideas - 2008 Presidential Candidate - National Platforms (http://www.nationalplatforms.com/candidates/barack_obama.html)

Election Center 2008: Candidates - Election & Politics News from CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html)



3.) Last time I checked none of these front-runners have had presidential experience: Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama are all senators.

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton)

John McCain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain)

Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama)


*Note: Personally I'd rather support Paul, Huckabee, or Obama. In fact I've decided that I will not even vote if it comes down to tickets headlined by Clinton vs. McCain.

Ron Paul 2008 › Issues (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/)

Mike Huckabee for President - Issues (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.Home)

Obama?

Great style, what substance?


For example

In January 2007


The Time Has Come for Universal Health Care | U.S. Senator Barack Obama (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070125-the_time_has_co/)


I love this line :

"So where's all that money going? We know that a quarter of it - one out of every four health care dollars - is spent on non-medical costs; mostly bills and paperwork"

Is he familiar with IRS forms? Especially if you are a small business owner? And he wants more government involvement. Hooray !



Then in November.


Obama Statement on Veterans' Affairs Committee Hearing on Marion VA Hospital | U.S. Senator Barack Obama (http://obama.senate.gov/press/071106-obama_statement_99/)


This is a form of universal healthcare, one in his home state. This is just great.


Obama on energy


Barack Obama chats with Grist about energy independence and ethanol | By David Roberts | Grist | Main Dish | 21 Mar 2006 (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/03/21/roberts/)

Does he not trust the free market and consumers to decide what kind of vehicle they buy or is available? If an automaker can't compete why should taxpayors suppport it?


What Would Barack Obama Drive? - Feature / Features/Classic Cars / High Performance / Hot Lists / Reviews / Car and Driver - Car And Driver (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/features_classic_cars/what_would_barack_obama_drive_feature)

He drives a hemi 300c [ I can respect him for that ] but:

"The question here is not how Obama can say Detroit needs to build more-fuel-efficient cars while driving a 21-mpg hog, but whether the American people prefer a hypocritical president or one who can't distinguish between hype and truth. "

This is not as bad as Edward's $400 haircuts while on the "poverty tour" though.

Obama?

Great style, what substance?


for example

in january 2007


The Time Has Come for Universal Health Care | U.S. Senator Barack Obama (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070125-the_time_has_co/)



I love this line :

"So where's all that money going? We know that a quarter of it - one out of every four health care dollars - is spent on non-medical costs; mostly bills and paperwork"

Is he familiar with IRS forms? especially if you are a small business owner? and he wants more government involvement. Hooray !.


Actually adding to the government has been a GW Bush criticism, by his own Republican peers. McCain has been chastised for not being conservative enough and one that would add to the government as well. Here you're actually demonstrating that Obama has spoke on the issues. I welcome any business man that would cut the red tape and appropriate more revenue to the attention of peoples health. I'm sure as Obama being a senator, and having a good memory for the English language as exemplified by his speeches, has memorized more IRS forms than you and I will file in a lifetime. Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee want to do away with the IRS and that sounds even better to me.




then in November.


Obama Statement on Veterans’ Affairs Committee Hearing on Marion VA Hospital | U.S. Senator Barack Obama (http://obama.senate.gov/press/071106-obama_statement_99/)


This is a form of universal healthcare, one in his home state. This is just great.


I'd actually deregulate much of the pharmacy industry. Investigations are great, when people have to account for their wrongs in an effort to make right. Clemens, whom I've lost a lot of respect for, not withstanding. The last umpteen years using my PPO and HMO has been a real killjoy at times, but at least my family is insured. Let's look the other direction and everything will be hunky-dory for everyone else. Not!


Obama on energy


Barack Obama chats with Grist about energy independence and ethanol | By David Roberts | Grist | Main Dish | 21 Mar 2006 (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/03/21/roberts/)

Does he not trust the free market and consumers to decide what kind of vehicle they buy or is available? If an automaker can't compete why should taxpayors suppport it?

I've heard this argument before. I think some people rather be taxed into oblivion over a never ending war in Iraq? I don't! Alternative fuels and hybrid vehichles are what GW Bush (to his credit) preached when he first took office and what every candidate agrees upon, including Obama. During Dubya's terms a lot of the cars are now being manufactured in Canada because the companies are not able to make the profits they once did; The All Canadian Automotive Directory: Manufacturers (http://www.canadiandriver.com/links/Manufacturers/). We need those lost jobs back in America. If you have noticed we are in a recession, with much of the "no" thanks due to Dubya. We have to find ways, ideas, to help employers provide health care benefits. While I'm not the biggest supporter of universal health-care, Obama's motivation far outweighs McCain's lack of interest.


What Would Barack Obama Drive? - Feature / Features/Classic Cars / High Performance / Hot Lists / Reviews / Car and Driver - Car And Driver (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/features_classic_cars/what_would_barack_obama_drive_feature)

He drives a hemi 300c [ I can respect him for that ] but:

"The question here is not how Obama can say Detroit needs to build more-fuel-efficient cars while driving a 21-mpg hog, but whether the American people prefer a hypocritical president or one who can't distinguish between hype and truth. "

This is not as bad as Edward's $400 haircuts while on the "poverty tour" though.

Listen at 21 mpg that is by far better than Cheney's ATV as he goes bird hunting (or friend shooting) and if you want to know hypocritical measure Obama by the Clinton's Whitewater adventure or the Republicans 25K a plate fund raisers.

Obama has spoken on the issues. He uses the Democrat playbook just like he uses Deval Patrick's words that matter .

If you like my signature you'll love this one :


Glimpsed through the haze of his sophistical rhetoric is something, and it is tiresomely false, namely, the dogmatic assertion that 'hope' and liberalism are synonymous. His reliance on sentiment and rhetoric rather than reasoning to advance that assertion will not inspire a new politics of bipartisan unity but revive old and bitter resentments. Liberalism, after all, has no monopoly on hope, and the chapters of history to which Obama makes implicit reference—the New Frontier and Great Society—concluded in despair. While the Democrats won't stop squealing over him for some time, the larger culture has already begun to mock Obama as a platitudinous lightweight.” —George Neumayr

Obama has spoken on the issues. He uses the Democrat playbook just like he uses Deval Patrick's words that matter .


I saw that in the news yesterday, but upon further research it was discovered that Obama received prearranged permission to use Patrick's words. Every candidate for the past century quotes in part or has used some others past ideas of expression, but it's the Clintons and other Obama opposition that find this unique. This is another example of how bad it's become for Obama opposition, Democrat or Republican. While I'm not the most staunch supporter of Obama I do think that with Hillary Clinton pouring her on money (5 million) into her campaign on a loan basis and Bill mudslinging lies against Obama on the campaign trail, Hillary probably will not concede nomination fairly to Obama come convention time. I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary disenfranchises the Obama supporters, making the second coming of Dubya's older do-alike, otherwise known as Republican candidate "McCain," the next president. If this happens we can thank Hillary for the shenanigans, mostly silly Republicans attacks, for killing the young generation of voter's enthusiasm that our country has tried so hard to get involved for decades now. We will also lose the interest from most of our African American population and many independent Caucasian thinkers as well. This is exactly what some of the Republicans base would love to see happen and ironically represents "politics as usual." A normalcy of politics in America that quite frankly I despise.

Bobby

I think once the press gets over their infatuation with the man and digs a little the depth of the candidate will be revealed.

Reveal that he is not John McCain or Hillary Clinton? That could be a good thing. I know that you're suggesting that Obama's the media darling for now and they will eventually turn on him. I don't think the press needs to make our decisions for any of us, but maybe when that time comes he overcomes the scrutiny? However regardless of the intricacy involving the media if Obama manages the Democratic nomination, McCain will get his chance to discuss the issues with him on a National televised debate platform.