If you're an Obama fan

Message

ne1410s · #51 Post by **ne1410s** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:38 am

Obama is arrogant.

Now that's funny right there, etc... especially coming from a Hillary Kool-Aid drinker.

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #52 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:46 am

Bob78164 wrote:[
And by the way, my refusal to recite the Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with disdain for my country. When Congress restores the Pledge to its pre-McCarthy era respect for the Establishment Clause, I'll start reciting it. But the First Amendment ensures that we are not "one nation under God" and I love the Constitution far too much to pretend otherwise. Would that make me an unsuitable candidate for political office? --Bob

I would vote for you Bob.

I used to not say the Pledge, but now I just say it but don't recite the words the words "Under God" because that's the part that I disagree with.

silverscreenselect · #53 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:22 am

An article from the New York Times nearly a year ago. Obama has been well aware of Wright and his proclivities for a long time. It's only when there's a big public stink about it that he chooses to distance himself from the guy:

http://tinyurl.com/3xz4pt

As with Rezko, Obama does what he wants until he gets caught. Bad judgment (interesting that he accuses Hillary about that) or arrogance?

And for what it's worth, I don't place much stock on whether Obama does or does not wear a flag pin. Too many Republicans have tried to wrap themselves inside the flag or hide behind the troops to deflect criticism of Bush's actions. It's very funny that Jack Kingston, the Congressman who criticized Obama for not wearing a flag lapel pin wasn't wearing one himself the day he went on TV newscasts to denounce Obama.

There's too many legitimate reasons not to like Obama. Trying to determine his patriotism by whether he will or will not recite the Pledge of Allegience or wear a lapel pin isn't one of them. There's a lot of people who will blindly recite the pledge without giving the slightest thought to what it really means anyway.

BackInTex · #54 Post by **BackInTex** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:58 am

TheConfessor wrote:I find it amusing that someone who defaces his state's flag every time he posts on this board would be so hung up about whether someone else wears a flag pin.

I find it amusing that someone who won a million dollars on a game show can't look back a few posts to check his facts, or maybe can't remember details beyone a couple posts.

I never mentioned anything about a flag pin. I don't have one. I don't care if Obama has one. I'm not about what you wear. I'm more about what you think, say and do. And I've heard nothing or seen anything that indicates Obama loves this country, the people who have and are willing to give their lives to defend it, or even those that through their blood and sweat have built it. I know he has hope, hope that one day a bunch of people that don't work can get medical care. I know that.

I've never defaced a Texas flag. I modified a few 1s and 0s in a data file that when presented on a computer screen has some resemblance to a flag, but that is it.

wbtravis007 · #55 Post by **wbtravis007** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:03 am

I really am getting a kick out of seeing the people who have accused sss of spinning like a wingnut embrace his spinning on the other wing.

NTTAWWT.

BackInTex · #56 Post by **BackInTex** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:08 am

ToLiveIsToFly wrote:But because he's a member of a church, it doesn't mean he agrees with everything that church stands for, especially in matters peripheral to the reasons people tend to choose churches.

"God damn the United States", said 2-3 times.

He was not cussing, he was commanding or at least suggesting.

I would think these things are to 'peripheral' to a church. Especially if you want to be POTUS.

Eating meat on Fridays, yeah peripheral.

Pre vs post millennial return of Christ, peripheral.

Asking God to damn you country? Not so much.

Appa23 · #57 Post by **Appa23** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:58 pm

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:[
And by the way, my refusal to recite the Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with disdain for my country. When Congress restores the Pledge to its pre-McCarthy era respect for the Establishment Clause, I'll start reciting it. But the First Amendment ensures that we are not "one nation under God" and I love the Constitution far too much to pretend otherwise. Would that make me an unsuitable candidate for political office? --Bob
I would vote for you Bob.

I used to not say the Pledge, but now I just say it but don't recite the words the words "Under God" because that's the part that I disagree with.

That is your perogative, but keep in mind that Bob is mistaken in his belief that "Under God" is unconstitutional. Neither the framers nor the language itself intended the First Amendment to require the complete absence of anything religious in any way.

#58 Post by **Bob78164** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:51 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:Obama repudiated these statements when the press made a stink about it. This is not the same situation as with Geraldine Ferraro or Samantha Power in which they made statements that were fairly promptly disavowed by the candidates. Wright has been saying these things for years. His church sells videos of these sermons. The content of them was widely known among church members.

Obama's post yesterday said that he repudiated the statements when he first learned about them, shortly before announcing his candidacy. That, of course, was long before the press "made a stink about it." What is your basis for implying that Obama was previously aware of the three incendiary statements at issue, or that he did not, as he claims, repudiate them then? --Bob

#59 Post by **Bob78164** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:00 pm

Appa23 wrote:That is your perogative, but keep in mind that Bob is mistaken in his belief that "Under God" is unconstitutional. Neither the framers nor the language itself intended the First Amendment to require the complete absence of anything religious in any way.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but please note that that at least one Court of Appeals disagrees with your conclusion that the Pledge is constitutional. The Supreme Court carefully avoided ruling on the merits of the Newdow case from the Ninth Circuit. They reversed on the grounds of standing. There is no Supreme Court decision ruling on this issue. --Bob

#60 Post by **Bob78164** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:08 pm

BackInTex wrote:
ToLiveIsToFly wrote:But because he's a member of a church, it doesn't mean he agrees with everything that church stands for, especially in matters peripheral to the reasons people tend to choose churches.
"God damn the United States", said 2-3 times.

He was not cussing, he was commanding or at least suggesting.

I would think these things are to 'peripheral' to a church. Especially if you want to be POTUS.

Eating meat on Fridays, yeah peripheral.

Pre vs post millennial return of Christ, peripheral.

Asking God to damn you country? Not so much.

And by the way, I'd rather vote for a candidate whose supporters made outrageous statements than one who votes against outlawing torture, as McCain (a former POW who was tortured) did. --Bob

#61 Post by **Bob78164** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:14 pm

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:I would vote for you Bob.

Thanks! My campaign treasurer will be in touch. Just as soon as I decide what to run for.

--Bob

Beebs52 · #62 Post by **Beebs52** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:16 pm

I'm finding entertaining the intraparty squabbling that we missed the last couple of elections. Maybe not entertaining, but ironically amusing or something.

I have an actual question for those who are Obama supporters-I haven't had a chance to look into it too much yet and will, only because it is a rather informative association (once again) for Mr.Obama. William Ayres. From what I understand they're on the same board of something or other. And Ayres was/is a Weather Underground person and, never mind. I need to look this stuff up.

My question is, are you, personally, not aware with whom you serve on boards or at work or at church, or wherever? Not that you know what everybody's been involved in, but once you find out about some truly egregious behavior/activity, especially if it involves repudiating your own nation, and YOU'RE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, don't you remove yourself from the situation?

I have actually quit a job when I found out my boss was a crook. I also contributed to the "resignation" of a boss when asked to tell the truth. Because he/they were jerkoffs and took advantage of his position.

I have done things for which I'm ashamed, but I'm not running for office, nor am I an activist blatantly stumping to take others down or buddying up with someone who wanted/wants to destroy, in whatever fashion, parts of the U.S.

A lot of this post is way too general and I know that. I'm having a tough time with the Wright stuff (ooh, I'm a poet) and the Ayres stuff and then, of course, all the fun other stuff we probably haven't found out.

At least with Hillary, it's pretty much all out there. I guess. I dunno.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers

Gosh, what a guy. Hmmm. Must find better/more websites.

Appa23 · #63 Post by **Appa23** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:54 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Appa23 wrote:That is your perogative, but keep in mind that Bob is mistaken in his belief that "Under God" is unconstitutional. Neither the framers nor the language itself intended the First Amendment to require the complete absence of anything religious in any way.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but please note that that at least one Court of Appeals disagrees with your conclusion that the Pledge is constitutional. The Supreme Court carefully avoided ruling on the merits of the Newdow case from the Ninth Circuit. They reversed on the grounds of standing. There is no Supreme Court decision ruling on this issue. --Bob

A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion is worth almost as much as a cite to an opinion by Judge Judy or Judge Wapner.

The Newdow decision was utter BS. The Supreme Court did not "carefully" avoid ruling. They saved themselves time by reversing on the easiest grounds, thereby avoiding the need to address the plethora of nonsensical, Left Coast legal misarguments.

silverscreenselect · #64 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:07 pm

Bob78164 wrote:Obama's post yesterday said that he repudiated the statements when he first learned about them, shortly before announcing his candidacy. That, of course, was long before the press "made a stink about it." What is your basis for implying that Obama was previously aware of the three incendiary statements at issue, or that he did not, as he claims, repudiate them then? --Bob

If you will look at the Times article from last year, it shows Obama was aware of what Wright had been saying, and the entire tenor of that article is playing with semantics and equivocating, with an emphasis on stating that he stands behind his pastor and his church.

I would think that a man with so many memorable speeches as Barack Obama would be able to point to one occasion before yesterday in which he clearly and unequivocably condemned Wright's statements, instead of continuing to refer to Wright as his spiritual advisor and on his board of advisors.

Does anyone think that Hillary would have been allowed to skate on this one if her "spiritual advisor" had made similar statements.

All I can say is that I would not continue to associate myself with any church whose pastor made statements like Wright. If, for family or other reasons, I had to remain associated in some capacity, I certainly would not continue to refer to him as my spiritual advisor and say that I stood behind him. And I'm just a guy who doesn't know how many rows of stars are on the flag. For a United States senator who is running for President of the United States to make such statements are completely inexcusable.

Sadly, there is a good chance that Obama may skate on this in the Democratic primary as he has with so many other things because the press is more than willing to let it drop and so many of his supporters are in complete states of denial. However, there's a lot of Clinton Democrats, including myself, who will become McCain Democrats in the fall, and I can guarantee you that the so-called independent and Republican base that Obama claims he is reaching out to absolutely will not go for this. And the mainstream press won't be able to let things like this slide, because Fox News will keep blasting the public with it every single day.

wintergreen48 · #65 Post by **wintergreen48** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:56 pm

Beebs52 wrote:I'm finding entertaining the intraparty squabbling that we missed the last couple of elections. Maybe not entertaining, but ironically amusing or something.

I have an actual question for those who are Obama supporters-I haven't had a chance to look into it too much yet and will, only because it is a rather informative association (once again) for Mr.Obama. William Ayres. From what I understand they're on the same board of something or other. And Ayres was/is a Weather Underground person and, never mind. I need to look this stuff up.

My question is, are you, personally, not aware with whom you serve on boards or at work or at church, or wherever? Not that you know what everybody's been involved in, but once you find out about some truly egregious behavior/activity, especially if it involves repudiating your own nation, and YOU'RE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, don't you remove yourself from the situation?

I have actually quit a job when I found out my boss was a crook. I also contributed to the "resignation" of a boss when asked to tell the truth. Because he/they were jerkoffs and took advantage of his position.

I have done things for which I'm ashamed, but I'm not running for office, nor am I an activist blatantly stumping to take others down or buddying up with someone who wanted/wants to destroy, in whatever fashion, parts of the U.S.

A lot of this post is way too general and I know that. I'm having a tough time with the Wright stuff (ooh, I'm a poet) and the Ayres stuff and then, of course, all the fun other stuff we probably haven't found out.

At least with Hillary, it's pretty much all out there. I guess. I dunno.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers

Gosh, what a guy. Hmmm. Must find better/more websites.

The Wikipedia article says that he is a 'Distinguished Professor of Education' at the University of Chicago. Assuming that this is correct (this is, after all, Wikipedia, which is something like the New York Times of online publishing), I wonder what it takes for someone to be an Undistinguished Professor of Education at the University of Chicago...

Beebs52 · #66 Post by **Beebs52** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:00 pm

wintergreen48 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:I'm finding entertaining the intraparty squabbling that we missed the last couple of elections. Maybe not entertaining, but ironically amusing or something.

I have an actual question for those who are Obama supporters-I haven't had a chance to look into it too much yet and will, only because it is a rather informative association (once again) for Mr.Obama. William Ayres. From what I understand they're on the same board of something or other. And Ayres was/is a Weather Underground person and, never mind. I need to look this stuff up.

My question is, are you, personally, not aware with whom you serve on boards or at work or at church, or wherever? Not that you know what everybody's been involved in, but once you find out about some truly egregious behavior/activity, especially if it involves repudiating your own nation, and YOU'RE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, don't you remove yourself from the situation?

I have actually quit a job when I found out my boss was a crook. I also contributed to the "resignation" of a boss when asked to tell the truth. Because he/they were jerkoffs and took advantage of his position.

I have done things for which I'm ashamed, but I'm not running for office, nor am I an activist blatantly stumping to take others down or buddying up with someone who wanted/wants to destroy, in whatever fashion, parts of the U.S.

A lot of this post is way too general and I know that. I'm having a tough time with the Wright stuff (ooh, I'm a poet) and the Ayres stuff and then, of course, all the fun other stuff we probably haven't found out.

At least with Hillary, it's pretty much all out there. I guess. I dunno.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers

Gosh, what a guy. Hmmm. Must find better/more websites.
The Wikipedia article says that he is a 'Distinguished Professor of Education' at the University of Chicago. Assuming that this is correct (this is, after all, Wikipedia, which is something like the New York Times of online publishing), I wonder what it takes for someone to be an Undistinguished Professor of Education at the University of Chicago...

Well, I do hesitate to use Wikipedia, only because of its, um, suspect provenance in many cases. However, I would say you'd have to disavow bratwurst, gyros and Uno's Pizzaria to get a good start on being undistinguished in Chicago. Apparently. (We were married and lived in Chicago.)

An Amazon link for the book Fugitive Days
http://www.amazon.com/Fugitive-Days-Wil ... 0807071242

AnnieCamaro · #67 Post by **AnnieCamaro** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:32 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
Does anyone think that Hillary would have been allowed to skate on this one if her "spiritual advisor" had made similar statements.

Mr. silverscreen, does Miss Hillary have a spiritual advisor?

Besides, Mr. Bill, I mean.

Sir_Galahad · #68 Post by **Sir_Galahad** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:59 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Sir_Galahad wrote:
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
I've been guilty of dozing off in church too.
Do you think you would be able to doze off while Rev. Wright was preaching that stuff?
According to the stories I've read, Wright said those things on three occasions in seven years. I don't find it at all hard to believe that Obama wasn't present on any of those occasions. Do you think he was present in church every single week?

No. But I would also find it difficult to believe that Obama would not be aware of Rev. Wright's positions as spewed inasmuch as he considered him a mentor and spiritual advisor. Not to mention the fact that he consulted with Wright before he decided to make his run for the presidency. Don't forget he was a member of this church for twenty years. Wouldn't you think that during this period he would have seen Rev. Wright in all his glory and wouldn't you think that, as an aforementioned mentor, some if not many of his views would have been burned into his mind? I wouldn't think that is improbable.

This should be a non-issue. When Obama learned about the statements, he unconditionally condemned and repudiated them. The only reason he didn't leave the church is that the man who made the statements was already scheduled to retire shortly (and has, in fact, retired). What should Obama have done differently? --Bob

Sorry but to me this is closing the barn door after the horse gets out. What should he have done differently? Distanced himself from the pastor as soon as he made the decision to run. You have to know that, in this 24-hour media day and age, any skeletons in your closet will be exposed at some point.

I see SSS already made the point about Obama having known about Wright's antics last year so I won't belabor that point.

As for his wearing pins and reciting the patriotics, I completely agree with BiT. He's not running for Sunday minister; he is running for POTUS. If he cannot demonstrate patriotism in this small way, then perhaps he is not the right man for the job. That's just my opinion.

ne1410s · #69 Post by **ne1410s** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:06 pm

If he cannot demonstrate patriotism in this small way, then perhaps he is not the right man for the job. That's just my opinion.

Those uber-patriots, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have done such a good job, huh? 4000 sets of parents MAY argue with the logic that wearing a lapel pin makes one a patriot. Of course, standing in one's garage makes one an auto...

Sir_Galahad · #70 Post by **Sir_Galahad** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:30 pm

ne1410s wrote:
If he cannot demonstrate patriotism in this small way, then perhaps he is not the right man for the job. That's just my opinion.
Those uber-patriots, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have done such a good job, huh? 4000 sets of parents MAY argue with the logic that wearing a lapel pin makes one a patriot. Of course, standing in one's garage makes one an auto...

Patriotism can be shown in many ways. I have yet to see a display of patriotism in Obama. Running for president in and of itself doesn't make one a patriot no matter how pretty the speeches are. I didn't vote for Bush (either time) and I didn't favor invading Iraq. But, we're stuck there with no easy answers as to how to get out.

ToLiveIsToFly · #71 Post by **ToLiveIsToFly** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:44 am

BackInTex wrote:Eating meat on Fridays, yeah peripheral.

Pre vs post millennial return of Christ, peripheral.

Asking God to damn you country? Not so much.

I disagree.

Code of conduct prescribed by the Church? Not peripheral
Church dogma on how the world will end? Not peripheral
Church's politics in matters beyond its own reach? Peripheral

silverscreenselect · #72 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:11 am

Obama's great theme is that he can unite the country. It's hard for independent and Republican voters (whom Obama needs in order to win this election) seeing how a person who looks up to Rev. Wright is a uniter.

Obama is a smooth talking, sounds good, blank slate to a lot of people. If he becomes the nominee, he will have to fill in these blank areas with substance, on either the issues, his abilities, or his integrity, and it's difficult to see how he does so.

He has crafted a winning coalition in various Democratic primaries consisting of black votes, youth votes, elitist Democratic votes and anti-Hillary votes. In so doing, he has alienated a lot of Democratic voters. A recent Pew survey showed that nearly 1/4 of Hillary's voters (including yours truly) will not vote for Obama in the general election. All those won't necessarily go to McCain, since a lot will either sit the election out, vote for a third party or even write in Hillary's name. The point is, he's not getting those votes. Less than 10% of Obama's supporters say they wouldn't vote for Hillary in the general election.

To me this indicates that a lot of the anti-Hillary rhetoric coming from the Obama camp is primary posturing, the sort of "indignation and outrage" that professional wrestlers trot out before their big grudge match while they are sharing a beer backstage with their "hated enemy." On the other hand, I can tell you a lot of what Clinton supporters feel is real anger and disgust at Obama for the tactics he has, with the connivance of a lot of the main stream media, pulled out at every opportunity.

A number of Republicans are waffling on McCain too and have been receptive to Obama so far. But they are doing so on the Obama campaign theme of hope and change. These people listen to Fox News and right wing radio and will not be thrilled by statements by Rev. Wright, no matter how much Obama tries to spin them away or the mainstream media is content to let them slide. Fox News won't let them slide once Obama is the nominee. In addition, McCain will get a lot of Hispanic support against Obama in a general election.

I really see a McCain-Obama election playing out about the same as Bush 1-Dukakis in terms of popular and electoral votes. It won't be a Mondale/McGovern drubbing, but it won't be close either.

silverscreenselect · #73 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:12 am

AnnieCamaro wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
Does anyone think that Hillary would have been allowed to skate on this one if her "spiritual advisor" had made similar statements.

Mr. silverscreen, does Miss Hillary have a spiritual advisor?

Besides, Mr. Bill, I mean.

After a campaign like this, I'm sure she is in need of some spirits and some advice.

wintergreen48 · #74 Post by **wintergreen48** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:25 am

silverscreenselect wrote: Obama is a smooth talking, sounds good, blank slate to a lot of people. If he becomes the nominee, he will have to fill in these blank areas with substance, on either the issues, his abilities, or his integrity, and it's difficult to see how he does so.

...

A number of Republicans are waffling on McCain too and have been receptive to Obama so far. But they are doing so on the Obama campaign theme of hope and change. These people listen to Fox News and right wing radio and will not be thrilled by statements by Rev. Wright, no matter how much Obama tries to spin them away or the mainstream media is content to let them slide. Fox News won't let them slide once Obama is the nominee.

This is to a great extent just a factor of chickens coming home to roost: the left pretty much created this situation, and it may be redounding against them.

When the far out left invented Borking, it became clear that the best way for a candidate to survive was for that candidate to say or do as little as possible-- Borking, after all, involves digging out as much as you possibly can from a person's past and using anything you find against the person, so that the more blank a candidate's slate, the less that there will be any 'there' there that could be twisted or manipulated against the candidate. Borking worked well against the original Borkee (Robert Bork), when the left was able to pull out of context law review articles that he had written over twenty years earlier in which he had taken positions on the law as it existed at the time, and turn it all against him (he was unsuccessful in trying to convince people that his ideas on the law had changed as the law itself had changed over a generation-- Borking is premised on the idea that no one ever changes, and whatever you say, once, is it, and can be held against you until Doomsday), but they overreached when they tried to use it against the next Borkee (William Rehnquist: when he was up for Chief Justice, the Borkers found that Rehnquist had bought a vacation house whose chain of title included an earlier deed which itself included a provision that prohibited black people from owning or occupying the house except as servants, and when the Borkers tried to use this to demonstrate Rehnquist's racist tendencies-- notwithstanding that this clause did not appear in Rehnquist's deed, and he had no idea, nor any reason to know, that it had appeared in an earlier deed between people completely unrelated to him-- it failed miserably, when it was shown that every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee at that time owned a house whose chain of title included a deed that had the exact same clause).

Borking is what led to David Souter, a Supreme Court Justice who was truly a blank slate at the time of his nomination to the Court, a judge with a very thin public history who had never taken a major position on anything in his career, and who of course managed to sail through his confirmation hearings by arguing that it would be inappropriate for him to take positions on issues at that time because those matters might come before the Court in the future and it would not be appropriate for him to be seen to be 'prejudging' anything.

Obama follows in that tradition. To the extent that he would take any position on anything, he would invariably do so in areas that are generically popular (opposition to the war in Iraq while not criticizing any of the people fighting it), or that are framed in such vague terms that there is nothing significant to criticize (he will 'fix' NAFTA and 'fix' health care, etc., but he will not give any specifics about it that anyone pays attention to). SSS, you noted that Obama has been given a pass in the 'mainstream media' (which perhaps lends some support to the belief that there is a certain inherent bias in the 'mainstream media'), but I think that you are certainly correct that if/when Obama does get the nomination, he will not get such a free ride when the non-mainstream media (by which you presumably mean, any media outlets that are not skewed leftward).

All of which goes to show that, stupid though conservatives apparently are, they can learn from their wiser brethren on the left, and they will no doubt pounce on all the very things that you have identified as Obaman weaknesses.

And there is ample precedent for this outcome, after all. One of the key factors in Dukakis' collapse in 1988 (besides the Rocky the Flying Squirrel photo of him in the tank) was the Willie Horton ads: the Republicans used those ads to great effect against him after he got the Democratic nomination, but those attacks on Dukakis were originally launched (with much less effect) by Al Gore in the primaries. But there you have an example of the 'reactionary' right learning from the far more clever left. I can just see some Republican operatives taking SSS's musings in this thread and using them to great advantage if/when Obama becomes the nominee...

SportsFan68 · #75 Post by **SportsFan68** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 1:28 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:[Sadly, there is a good chance that Obama may skate on this in the Democratic primary as he has with so many other things because the press is more than willing to let it drop and so many of his supporters are in complete states of denial. However, there's a lot of Clinton Democrats, including myself, who will become McCain Democrats in the fall, and I can guarantee you that the so-called independent and Republican base that Obama claims he is reaching out to absolutely will not go for this. And the mainstream press won't be able to let things like this slide, because Fox News will keep blasting the public with it every single day.

And there are some Obama Dems who will become McCain Dems if Clinton gets the nomination. And one Obama Dem who says he will become a McCain Unafilliated if that happens, but I think he'll stop short of that but will make good on his pledge not to support Clinton even if Obama goes out and campaigns for her.