http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/781826,CST-NWS-watchdog07.article#

Each were members of the conservative side of their party, too.

Obama is the Ted Kennedy candidate (no wonder why he endorses him), that lost.

They rather have Hillary win and oust the most liberal, so even if McCain is defeated, the government will at least be functional.

That’s the game plan. If you can’t win, at least don’t throw our country down the tubes.

Deep down in every conservative they want a WORKING government, and will even desert their own candidate to ensure it (God, Country, Family value system). They did it with Carter in 1980, they can also do it with McCain in 2008. The rift with McCain is t-h-a-t deep — we trust him as much as you guys trust Lieberman.

Traditional and Paleo conservatives take a dimmer view of social and interventionist policies, and wouldn’t be caught dead on the most liberal senator’s staff!!

Let me know when Pat Buchanan is on O-Bomba’s payroll…lololol

Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torment of man.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche needed to read himself some John Stuart Mill.

Positive action is the only method by which to destroy melancholy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/opinion/03krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

They all think that Hillary would be easier to beat in the GE. Furthermore, they know that even should she win- she would be a drag on downticket candidates. . .

Just because I think Obama would be a better President doesn’t mean that I’m deluded, drinking ‘koolaid’, etc! We can have a difference of opinion without demonizing each other, can’t we?

Obama didn’t stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state’s first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois “one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure”). Obama’s commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who “bundle” contributions for them.

Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a “unique” ability “to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people.” In other words, Obama’s campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric.

Just like the joke was on Reagan? Or on Bill Clinton? They also were considered light on experience, but ended up winning the nomination and the Presidency, as well.

I predict Obama will not only become a very good President, but that he will win MORE STATES than the Democrats have since 1960! And, like it or not, that sort of win would give him a mandate to actually get our agenda through!

Unlike Hillary’s 50%+1 strategy which hasn’t worked very well in the primary and would only perpetuate divisive partisan politics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama’s bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability.

Since most of Obama’s legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there — and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously. (Another factor is reporters’ fascination with the horse race at the expense of substance that they assume is boring, a fascination that despite being ridiculed for years continues to dominate political journalism.)

Some of the legislation he proposed include:

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced — by beating the daylights out of the accused.

Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.

This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama’s bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to “solve” crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.

He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that “Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics.”

So, how did it work out for him?

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

Maybe YOU should do some research before saying such ignorant things like “he didn’t propose one piece of legislation”!

Geez, from reading this site one would think that Obama was the embodiment of pure evil! One would also forget that Obama’s and Hillary’s agendas are nearly identical, but that he’s much less likely to pander and is better able to convince his critics to see his point of view.

I didn’t fall for it, did you?