And who is Taylor Marsh to you? If you actually read her you would know that she was anti-McCain not Pro-Obama. She was also anti-PUMA. She actually followed the lead of HRC and worked her tail off to get down-ticket Democrats elected and to defeat McCain. She did this out of loyalty to Hillary Clinton who remains Taylor Marsh’s guiding star.

She was smart enough to see the rising star of Obama long before others did. She was first out of the gate with hard-hitting analysis of real policy differences she had with Obama. She was one of the first to strike back at the misogyny directed at HRC and one of the first to look into BHO lapses in judgment. She stuck with Hillary right to the bitter end but she was always realistic. She knew HRC was in trouble after February and was one of the first to point out the failures of the Clinton Organization. And when Hillary finally folded her tent Taylor supported Hillary’s decision. She then worked tirelessly to protect Hilliary’s position in the party.

Unlike N.Q. she understood that undermining Obama’s run in the general would spell political oblivion for Hillary. Did you see the vote for Obama in Hillary’s home state of New York? Do you think that happened by accident? Hillary worked her tail off for the Democratic Party and its nominee. And by doing that HRC is still a force to reckoned with in the Democratic Party.

As for the other nonsense on this post. It failed in the General and it is even less relevant now. Ayers is staying Chicago as is Rev Wright, if they are lucky they might get Christmas Cards from the White House in 2009. The only way either of them get into the White House is as part of a guided tour. The only thing revealed by “Obama’s associations” is your irrational hatred of Obama. Your willingness to keep flogging this dead horse reveals a total disconnect with the facts on the ground.

God(s)/dess(es) you have let this anti-Obama poison work it way throughout your entire being. For your own sanity and spiritual well being latch on to something else. Find a way to build instead of tearing down. This degree of bile does not become a U-U, Southern Baptists maybe but not a U-U.

What happens during a Gay Pride parade is not representative of the daily lives of gays and lesbians. I think those parades do the group as a whole a dis-service by making gays appear to be almost cartoon characters instead of real people working at real jobs and paying their bills every month just like everyone else.

And yeah – you know, I have friends who live in states where the candidates did not campaign, so they knew NONE of this stuff. They are educated people, but as one of them said, it took so much time she didn’t have to try and find out the real story, that she just didn’t know a lot of the stuff like abt Ayers (and the only things she saw abt Wright were the milder things, not any of the KKK of A stuff). She also has close family connections to Chicago, but none of them were enthusiastic abt Obama – a lesser of two evils was the choice, especially when the MSM is your source for news (as she said, “ABC didn’t report a lot of this stuff!” Uh, yeah, no.).

Why can’t Obama live within his means? Odd, that.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA, too perfect.

The Fairness Doctrine prevents punditry, therefore anchors must report FACTS, that are BALANCED. It means no more KEITH OLBERMANN, no more CHRIS MATTHEWS, even STEPHANOPOLOUS will have to clean up his act.

IMO, if people object to policies that protect all American voters across the board just because your party is out of power or favor, those are people who care nothing for democracy.

Another point that seems to be in confusion: There are not only two possible economic systems, i. e., UNFETTERED CAPITALISM or SOCIALISM. The logical economic system for a democracy is: REGULATED CAPITALISM. This is what Europe and Canada have, not SOCIALISM. Corporations are created for the pursuit of huge, obscene profit at the expense of workers and consumers. REGULATIONS allow them to realize a great profit without injuring consumers or workers.

The problem with Obama is that he has no firm political convictions. His chameleon politician persona has the ability to listen to various groups and seem as though he agrees with them. If one tunes into any radio or television station in the aftermath of this election, one will hear interview after interview of individuals and leaders of various groups who all are convinced Obama has promised to promote their agendas.

Obama has no judgement. If he is swayed by a particularly convincing but one-sided presentation, he will be gung ho to promote that side. The next day, after Obama’s frantic advisors and handlers talk to him about he political folly of his previous statements and present another side of the argument, Obama is then gung ho to promote this polar opposite point of view. This didn’t seem to matter during the primaries and the election, when the press and pundit W.O.R.M.S were out in force minimizing Obama’s reversals and gaffes, but now Obama will have real power and won’t always get a ‘do over’ chance on his decisions.

Now Obama will be President, and he is ignorant about many important things, including foreign relations, economics and healthcare. Having no knowledge, he has no good judgement. His success as a president will depend on which advisor(s) he listens to on which issues. We can’t know in advance how he’ll behave, because he has no track record of promoting anything except himself.

There is an excuse for everything

That’s what I mean when I say that for every action verb there is an excuse to it. And that is what Obama is all about. Proposing change and excusing the outcome.