Support NeoGAF

[Triumph]

You know, I don't really know if words can express the level of my disgust with the Dems over caving for Telecom amnesty. This is such horseshit. And there was no reason to do it- they were going to whip the shit out of the GOP in the fall regardless. Doing it just makes them look weak and wishy washy- they couldn't even stand up to the least popular president IN HISTORY during his lame duck period. Fucking pathetic.

 

[Mercury Fred]

You know, I don't really know if words can express the level of my disgust with the Dems over caving for Telecom amnesty. This is such horseshit. And there was no reason to do it- they were going to whip the shit out of the GOP in the fall regardless. Doing it just makes them look weak and wishy washy- they couldn't even stand up to the least popular president IN HISTORY during his lame duck period. Fucking pathetic.

Agreed. I've been completely baffled by the Dems' lack of action since the 2006 elections.

 

[sangreal]

Definitely. he claims he "disagrees" with McClurkin, but as far as I know he's still an official campaigner for Obama, I just think he's trying to have it both ways, appealing to the homophobia in the black community while condemning homophobia publicly. He can say what he wants, but he's still keeping a bigot on his campaign.

No he isn't. He was a performer during a 3-day concert series many months ago, and that is it.

 

[worldrunover]

Can someone explain this public funding in plain terms. Why is Obama rejecting public funding? Doesn't he far outraise McCain? Also, what private funds does he have? I'm confused.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Can someone explain this public funding in plain terms. Why is Obama rejecting public funding? Doesn't he far outraise McCain? Also, what private funds does he have? I'm confused.

"public funding" is funding from the federal government, actually, received from taxes.

Each candidate would get funding for I believe about 87 million dollars to use in campaigning.

Obama can raise a lot more through donations, which is a big reason why he rejected it.

 

[Patrickula]

You know, I don't really know if words can express the level of my disgust with the Dems over caving for Telecom amnesty. This is such horseshit. And there was no reason to do it- they were going to whip the shit out of the GOP in the fall regardless. Doing it just makes them look weak and wishy washy- they couldn't even stand up to the least popular president IN HISTORY during his lame duck period. Fucking pathetic.

Money talks, and it tends to talk more to those with power.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/24/telecoms/

 

[scorcho]

You know, I don't really know if words can express the level of my disgust with the Dems over caving for Telecom amnesty. This is such horseshit. And there was no reason to do it- they were going to whip the shit out of the GOP in the fall regardless. Doing it just makes them look weak and wishy washy- they couldn't even stand up to the least popular president IN HISTORY during his lame duck period. Fucking pathetic.

it's not a monolithic party that has absolute control over its membership. blame those who caved, but it's wrong to say the party caved as a whole.

 

[maynerd]

You know, I don't really know if words can express the level of my disgust with the Dems over caving for Telecom amnesty. This is such horseshit. And there was no reason to do it- they were going to whip the shit out of the GOP in the fall regardless. Doing it just makes them look weak and wishy washy- they couldn't even stand up to the least popular president IN HISTORY during his lame duck period. Fucking pathetic.

I'm with you brother!

 

[worldrunover]

"public funding" is funding from the federal government, actually, received from taxes.

Each candidate would get funding for I believe about 87 million dollars to use in campaigning.

Obama can raise a lot more through donations, which is a big reason why he rejected it.

Well that looks bad. Does that mean if he accepted it he could ONLY use that 87 million?

 

[Triumph]

Agreed. I've been completely baffled by the Dems' lack of action since the 2006 elections.

There are some things that I recognize they simply CAN'T accomplish, because they have a very slim majority in the Senate that hinges on (ugh) Lieberman. So overriding vetoes isn't gonna happen often. But WILLFULLY PASSING shitty legislation that THE PRESIDENT WANTS should be a complete non-starter. It shouldn't even be on the table. The Dems need to just put Rahm Emmanuel in charge, as much as I dislike him over certain issues at least the man has FUCKING TESTICLES.

it's not a monolithic party that has absolute control over its membership. blame those who caved, but it's wrong to say the party caved as a whole.

You know, in the Senate I can understand this getting passed but in the House it really should have died in committee and just underscores that Pelosi isn't the most effective Speaker ever.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Well that looks bad. Does that mean if he accepted it he could ONLY use that 87 million?

Basically yes.

 

[soul creator]

I always thought Obama's "marriage is between a man and a woman" comments was him speaking from a religious standpoint, not a government/legal standpoint. And he says "civil unions should be equal to marriage as far as government rights go!" because it's less inflammatory to those Christian votes he wants to win over, while still trying to say "gays should have the same rights!"

Obama trying to play both sides of the fence (his faith and politics), and causing him to come off a bit contradictory? Yep. Such is the plight of political pandering and liberal Christianity, I suppose.

 

[Gaborn]

No he isn't. He was a performer during a 3-day concert series many months ago, and that is it.

Ok, you're right and I'm wrong. That's what I get for trusting Wikipedia that he was still "listed" as a campaign supporter. However:

It's a bad PR day when a gaffe makes more news than the message.

That's what happened June 11 when Steve Hildebrand, presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama's openly gay Deputy Campaign Manager, used the term "gay lifestyle" during a conference call with the LGBT press.

The call was to announce the hiring of David Noble as Director of the LGBT Vote. During a brief question-and-answer period, Matt Comer of QNotes in Charlotte, North Carolina asked what safeguards the campaign had put in place to prevent another Donnie McClurkin incident, referring to the gospel singer's anti-gay rant during an Obama-sponsored gospel tour before the South Carolina Primary.

Hildebrand took responsibility as the person "central to overseeing our operations" in South Carolina, as well as being Obama's key advisor.

"We messed on the vetting of Donnie McClurkin," Hildebrand said. "Had we known some of his background, we probably never would have invited him to participate in that gospel tour."

Hildebrand then talked about how Obama is "a different kind of politician" who often talks with the African-American community about how "there needs to be less bigotry, there needs to be more of a working relationship, you know, more acceptance of a lot of African-Americans who do not agree with the gay lifestyle. There was a time where [Obama] repeated that we've got to do better - that my own black community needs to do better. And he does not hesitate to do that."

One could almost hear an audible gasp coming across the muted press phone lines. "Gay lifestyle?" That a term long associated with anti-gay right-wingers who promote sexual orientation as a "lifestyle choice" flowed so easily from the lips of Obama's top gay advisor was startling.

Ben LaBolt, the openly gay Obama spokesperson for the LGBT media, later sent PageOneQ this statement from Hildebrand to clarify the remark: "I certainly know that being gay is not a choice - but I am proud to be gay. I did not intend to imply anything except that it is important that we try to find common ground with those who are not supportive of LGBT rights."

But finding common ground is not isolated to those outside the LGBT community. Lesbians are increasingly becoming upset with the Obama campaign's blind eye to the need for lesbian visibility.

"I have spoken to women in our community who are already stepping up," David Noble said, mentioning Joan Garry, the former executive director of GLAAD who co-chairs the LGBT Finance Committee, and Elizabeth Birch, the former Human Rights Campaign executive director who supported Hillary Clinton. Later someone mentioned Donna Redwing who is known primarily for her political work in 1992.

"We need to put together a really strong support operation," Noble said, "and make sure our entire community sees itself." He failed to mention that singer Melissa Etheridge was previously named co-chair of Obama's 50-state voter registration campaign.

Only Birch has been public or reached out to the LGBT press.

Transgender issues were not discussed on the call.

Story Here

This is more troubling.

 

[worldrunover]

Basically yes.

Next question, if he took the public funding wouldn't that save him time having to privately fund raise? Seems like a time-saver to me.

 

[WickedAngel]

Can someone explain this public funding in plain terms. Why is Obama rejecting public funding? Doesn't he far outraise McCain? Also, what private funds does he have? I'm confused.

You either go public or private. If you go public, you receive a certain allotment and that is it but you are guaranteed to receive at least that much.

With private funding, the limitation is how good of a fund raiser you are (And we all know that that is no limitation for Obama).

Next question, if he took the public funding wouldn't that save him time having to privately fund raise? Seems like a time-saver to me.

He has already established the best fund raising system in history. He It won't take him any time because the infrastructure has already been created.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Next question, if he took the public funding wouldn't that save him time having to privately fund raise? Seems like a time-saver to me.

the thing is, he already has all the infrastructure in place. He mobilized campaign and fund raising efforts in all 50 states through the primary season, and he still has a huge amount of money leftover from the primary season. Hell, his FIRST ad of the general election campaign is airing in 18 states, which is a record for ANY gen election campaign ad, apparently.

 

[Stantron]

Exclusive: MoveOn To Close Its 527 In Response To Obama's Candidacy
...
"The hope is that Republicans will match this, so that the voices of ordinary Americans can drive this election," Hogue said.

How likely is this?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Obama has a massive warchest and money-raising infrastructure in place that will provide him with a lot more money to work with than the fixed allocated amount that would be given to him with "public funding"

 

[worldrunover]

You either go public or private. If you go public, you receive a certain allotment and that is it but you are guaranteed to receive at least that much.

With private funding, the limitation is how good of a fund raiser you are (And we all know that that is no limitation for Obama).

And he is the first candidate since this law was put in place to reject the public funding? I still don't see why it's a bad thing to reject public funding... provided he's not geting private funding from lobbyists (which they can check)...

 

[GaimeGuy]

And he is the first candidate since this law was put in place to reject the public funding? I still don't see why it's a bad thing to reject public funding... provided he's not geting private funding from lobbyists (which they can check)...

When you consider the fact that he has already raised well over 200 million dollars from individuals choosing to donate to his campaign, it really is amazing.

 

[worldrunover]

How likely is this?

Not very, considering they already put out an anti-McCain ad?

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

And he is the first candidate since this law was put in place to reject the public funding? I still don't see why it's a bad thing to reject public funding... provided he's not geting private funding from lobbyists (which they can check)...

I believe both major candidates did it in 2004. The big deal now, or at least the reason it's being played as such a big deal, is that earlier this year and late last year Obama expressed interest in going with public funding if he could come to an agreement with his opposition to do the same. That didn't happen, he announced he wasn't going with the public money, McCain announced later that day that he is going with the public money (after his own wavering on the issue), and it's being portrayed as a flip-flop/betrayal by Obama.

 

[Stantron]

And he is the first candidate since this law was put in place to reject the public funding? I still don't see why it's a bad thing to reject public funding... provided he's not geting private funding from lobbyists (which they can check)...

What would be the downside to accepting the public funding?
Had he accepted public funding, it would have just been in addition to his fund raising money, no?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Ultimately, I don't think there are any rational, logical arguments against gay marriage. Generally, the stance comes first, in emotional irrational form (gay people are gross!), and the justification comes later, in pseudo-logical argument.

Any truly logical argument against gay marriage must presuppose that gayness is bad or wrong. If you accept that that is the case, then your argument holds together... but don't be surprised if people think you're a bigot.

This is the main reason I changed my stance on the whole issue a while back.

I've often thought the level of public discourse would be so much higher if the idea of basic critical thinking was more strongly enforced. It's disheartening that I was never formally introduced to basic logic principles until I was a Freshman in college. To go along with this, I think we really need to enforce a discussion on the validity of an opinion. What I mean by this is that people should really learn that, on some issues, you really need to have a well-reasoned argument to present. Shooting straight from the hip and rationalizing it with "well, that's just my opinion, and it's my right as an American to express it" doesn't fly.

Speaking on gay marriage, I'm for it, but only because of what I quoted. I don't know really know any gay people that well, and I'm not gay myself, so I stand to benefit nothing from gay marriage passing. When I was sixteen, I might have even gone so far as to say "I think gay marriage is wrong" just because I didn't like the idea of two men getting it on. However, I grew up. More importantly, I realized that what "I think" on the issue is of no importance to anyone in this case. In order to argue against gay marriage, I feel I have to make two points. First, how does it negatively impact myself and/or the world at large? Second, why is it actually wrong from an objective standpoint (note: it grosses me out won't fly)? I couldn't even get past the first question to even begin rationalizing an answer to the second. Thus, I'm now and have been for some time for gay marriage if only because I find the opposing viewpoint untenable.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I believe both major candidates did it in 2004. The big deal now, or at least the reason it's being played as such a big deal, is that earlier this year and late last year Obama expressed interest in going with public funding if he could come to an agreement with his opposition to do the same. That didn't happen, he announced he wasn't going with the public money, McCain announced later that day that he is going with the public money (after his own wavering on the issue), and it's being portrayed as a flip-flop/betrayal by Obama.

Yeah, basically, he said he was interested in doing it if he could come to an agreement with McCain. Obama opted out of public financing, and after he did that, McCain announced he IS going with public financing. Now, the Media is portraying it as Obama being a hypocrite and going back on his word.

My guess is that there was stuff Obama wanted in the deal about the use of 527s, which the McCain campaign refused to work with, so Obama opted out.

 

[Fragamemnon]

There's a three page article up on the current state of 527s over on Politico-basically, the problem (with both parties) is that they are broke and few donors want to throw money into them to support Presidential candidates who are openly hostile to the group's actions. For the GOP donors, they are sort of deathly afraid that the usual 527 going too far behavior might get them labeled racists against Obama.

This isn't Bush/Kerry where both candidates were very nudge-nudge, wink-wink to the groups. McCain thinks the groups are basically working in a loophole outside of the spirit of the law, and Obama can compete without them and likely sees them as huge potential distractions that would work against his message coherency.

 

[Cheebs]

 

[GhaleonEB]

There are some things that I recognize they simply CAN'T accomplish, because they have a very slim majority in the Senate that hinges on (ugh) Lieberman. So overriding vetoes isn't gonna happen often. But WILLFULLY PASSING shitty legislation that THE PRESIDENT WANTS should be a complete non-starter. It shouldn't even be on the table. The Dems need to just put Rahm Emmanuel in charge, as much as I dislike him over certain issues at least the man has FUCKING TESTICLES.

You know, in the Senate I can understand this getting passed but in the House it really should have died in committee and just underscores that Pelosi isn't the most effective Speaker ever.

Yeah. I'm pretty disgusted with the lack of Democratic leadership here. And Obama - as a professor of constitutional law - should have been leading this charge. It's infuriating that they caved to completely.

*gallups*

Also, Rasmussen's daily went from a three point Obama advantage to a four-point. They also have a poll from yesterday showing that people don't care about the public financing issue. :lol

 

[GaimeGuy]

What would be the downside to accepting the public funding?
Had he accepted public funding, it would have just been in addition to his fund raising money, no?

No. The money he gets from public financing is the money he has to work with for the campaign. No fund raising money.

 

[worldrunover]

I always thought Obama's "marriage is between a man and a woman" comments was him speaking from a religious standpoint, not a government/legal standpoint. And he says "civil unions should be equal to marriage as far as government rights go!" because it's less inflammatory to those Christian votes he wants to win over, while still trying to say "gays should have the same rights!"

Obama trying to play both sides of the fence (his faith and politics), and causing him to come off a bit contradictory? Yep. Such is the plight of political pandering and liberal Christianity, I suppose.

Well no church should be forced to recognize gay marriage. That's not for the government to decide, it's for the churches to. But gay marriage should be recognized by "marriage" in the same sense as any other marriage would be. "Civil Unions" just has too much of a separate-but-equal vibe to it.

 

[Revengeance]

With Obama opting out of public funding, I'm sooo glad I didn't check that box on my taxes. I like the idea of public funding in theory, but in practice, it hasn't worked so well.

Plus, why support both candidates when since Gore I've donated directly to the candidate of my own choosing?

Well no church should be forced to recognize gay marriage. That's not for the government to decide, it's for the churches to. But gay marriage should be recognized by "marriage" in the same sense as any other marriage would be. "Civil Unions" just has too much of a separate-but-equal vibe to it.

This is basically my own position on the issue

 

[GaimeGuy]

Also, Rasmussen's daily went from a three point Obama advantage to a four-point. They also have a poll from yesterday showing that people don't care about the public financing issue. :lol

<MSM> That's what they think, but we'll show them. Muahahaha!

 

[Fragamemnon]

Also, Rasmussen's daily went from a three point Obama advantage to a four-point. They also have a poll from yesterday showing that people don't care about the public financing issue. :lol

The only people who care are political junkies. some deluded people who want to remove money from politics completely, regardless of the source and east coast editorial boards.

The coverage of the matter in the press has been quick to mention that Obama's money is coming from large numbers of small donors, which people don't have a problem with. It's when candidates get large donations from small groups that people start to worry about influence peddling.

 

[Triumph]

The only people who care are political junkies. some deluded people who want to remove money from politics completely, regardless of the source and east coast editorial boards.

The coverage of the matter in the press has been quick to mention that Obama's money is coming from large numbers of small donors, which people don't have a problem with. It's when candidates get large donations from small groups that people start to worry about influence peddling.

You forgot to mention that the 24 hour news networks care, as they need to have something new to freak out about on a daily basis.

 

[Gaborn]

Well no church should be forced to recognize gay marriage. That's not for the government to decide, it's for the churches to. But gay marriage should be recognized by "marriage" in the same sense as any other marriage would be. "Civil Unions" just has too much of a separate-but-equal vibe to it.

Completely agree. Alternately of course it'd be equally acceptable if every heterosexual marriage and gay marriage was known as a civil union, but that's not going to happen.

 

[Fatalah]

Guys, Pat's in trouble!


Drudgereport is running this ad...

 

[mckmas8808]

Yes, he did here. Notably:

In other words, civil unions is NOT the same as a "married couple."

Mercury Fred - Honestly, after hiring Donnie McClurkin for his campaign we shouldn't be surprised.

A lot of you gays guys here aren't as smart as you think you are. Would you honestly not vote for Obama over this? Or is this basically you guys ranting about his views but with Obama support.

Because I hope you guys realize that a non-vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. And McCain don't play. He will put sepreme court justices on the court that will strike your near victory for civil unions to the stone age.

You problems won't get to the level of civil unions and McCain won't strip away the DOMA law like Obama will.

You gay guys have to get your priorities in order believe me.

Black people during the civil rights era would be taking every little extra right that they could get and then fight for more. You guys don't want these extra rights one by one. You want everything at once and that's not something that tends to happen. Learn and read up on some history. Black people didn't get full rights after we were freed from slavery. But you didn't hear them saying some dumb shit like "nope I want to stay a slave until I can get every right that my white master had."

No they took freedom first then they continued to fight for more rights. That's what you guys nned to do.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Obama's team highlighted the myriad flip-flops of McCain this week. Will anyone in the MSM (particularly TV) take notice? This is from First Read:

While trade has been the dominant topic today with McCain speaking in Canada on the topic (and both campaign criticizing each other), the Obama campaign also took time out to hit McCain on a meeting he had with Hispanic leaders and various other perceived “flip flops” this week.

Politico reports McCain assured Hispanics that he would push for comprehensive immigration reform. To that, Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs dubbed today, “The end of pander week aboard the Double Talk Express.”

Gibbs said his stance on immigration reform is a contradiction from what he said at the Republican debate at the Reagan Library where he said, “No I would not” vote again for the comprehensive immigration reform package he had voted for the previous year. In New Hampshire, McCain called that vote a mistake after an outcry from the right.

Gibbs went on to cite McCain’s positions on off shore oil drilling and abortion. On Tuesday, McCain proposed lifting the moratorium on off shore drilling, but in 1999, “championed the off shore oil drilling ban in California,” Gibbs said. Gibbs added that McCain’s new position was a pander to the oil executives McCain was speaking to in Houston where he proposed lifting the ban.

McCain said that with gas prices at record highs it was imperative to expand energy options.

Gibbs also cited McCain surrogate Carly Fiorina telling Clinton supporters in a conference call, per Newsweek, that McCain has never signed on to efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade. But McCain has been staunchly anti-abortion rights and, per Gibbs, McCain said in 2007, “I do not support Roe v. Wade. I think it should be overturned.” He also has reassured conservative groups that “he’d appt pro-life judges,” Gibbs said.

This week shows McCain is “quite comfortable saying one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience,” Gibbs added.

The amount of flipping positions and outright pandering this week alone should have turned heads. Is anyone covering this stuff?

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

Obama's team highlighted the myriad flip-flops of McCain this week. Will anyone in the MSM (particularly TV) take notice? This is from First Read:


The amount of flipping positions and outright pandering this week alone should have turned heads. Is anyone covering this stuff?

It is not in the media's interest to broadcast this stuff. Thatis the sad thing about all of this.

 

[Gaborn]

A lot of you gays guys here aren't as smart as you think you are. Would you honestly not vote for Obama over this? Or is this basically you guys ranting about his views but with Obama support.

Yes, I'm not an Obama supporter but if I was this would be a strong deal breaker. It might not TOTALLY make me withdraw support if I was inclined to support him but it'd severely damage him in my eyes. the Donnie McClurkin incident didn't help him either.

Because I hope you guys realize that a non-vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. And McCain don't play. He will put sepreme court justices on the court that will strike your near victory for civil unions to the stone age.

But I don't intend to vote for either, so technically my virtual vote for McCain is cancelled by my virtual vote for Obama (since a non-vote for one is a vote for the other and I'm not voting for either...)

You problems won't get to the level of civil unions and McCain won't strip away the DOMA law like Obama will.

True, but that may increase the impetus for true EQUALITY. In other words, delaying civil unions today may lead to marriage equality sooner.

You gay guys have to get your priorities in order believe me.

I think our priorities ARE in order.

Black people during the civil rights era would be taking every little extra right that they could get and then fight for more. You guys don't want these extra rights one by one. You want everything at once and that's not something that tends to happen. Learn and read up on some history. Black people didn't get full rights after we were freed from slavery. But you didn't hear them saying some dumb shit like "nope I want to stay a slave until I can get every right that my white master had."

Black people weren't described as having a "lifestyle" by Obama's communication director. Do you seriously know how offensive that is? Nor were they asked to support a candidate that appeared on stage with an EX-GAY ADVOCATE. Nor were black people asked to support giving themselves something less than marriage.

No they took freedom first then they continued to fight for more rights. That's what you guys nned to do.

That's where we're at already, we won that with Lawrence. The next step is marriage equality, same as interracial couples got.

 

[Tamanon]

It is not in the media's interest to broadcast this stuff. Thatis the sad thing about all of this.

I think McCain's boring speech style actually helps him here, makes it tougher to justify showing multiple clips.:lol

 

[kkaabboomm]

it's the 20th - any word on fundraising numbers for may? or will we have to wait until midnight like have for april and march numbers?

 

[reilo]

Oh good god not this shit again.

 

[GhaleonEB]

it's the 20th - any word on fundraising numbers for may? or will we have to wait until midnight like have for april and march numbers?

McCain's was out today - $21.5m, his best to date.

Obama has to disclose his today (it's the due date). It looks like he's going to bury it in later afternoon Friday news.

It is not in the media's interest to broadcast this stuff. Thatis the sad thing about all of this.

Obama needs to hammer McCain on these directly, repeatedly, next week.

He also needs to lead on the FISA vote in the Senate.

 

[Learn2read]

Obama's team highlighted the myriad flip-flops of McCain this week. Will anyone in the MSM (particularly TV) take notice? This is from First Read:


The amount of flipping positions and outright pandering this week alone should have turned heads. Is anyone covering this stuff?

What the fuck are you talking about? McCain is a straight talker.

*plugs ears*

LALALALALAAAA

 

[kkaabboomm]

Oh good god not this shit again.

but but its fundraising numbers! everyone loves numbers!

 

[Clevinger]

blah

I agree somewhat. Realistically, you have four choices for this issue during the election.

1. A vote for Obama, which, although it's not the leap forward that's ideal, is a step forward on the issue. A step that will encourage more.
2. A vote for McCain, which would keep the issue the same or step (or leap) backward.
3. A vote for Bob Barr, who won't get elected and therefore will do nothing.
4. Don't vote for anyone, you contribute to nothing.

You can be sure, though, that bitching on an internet forum about your less than ideal choice will do nothing to help your cause.

 

[The Lamonster]

Man, Politico is hitting Obama hard on this campaign finance decision. I used to view them as un-biased.

Their poll on the issue has 75% of their readers agreeing with Obama's decision.



conservative blog with liberal readers?

 

[Gaborn]

I agree somewhat. Realistically, you have four choices for this issue during the election.

1. A vote for Obama, which, although it's not the leap forward that's ideal, is a step forward on the issue. A step that will encourage more.
2. A vote for McCain, which would keep the issue the same or step (or leap) backward.
3. A vote for Bob Barr, who won't get elected and therefore will do nothing.
4. Don't vote for anyone, you contribute to nothing.

You can be sure, though, that bitching on an internet forum about your less than ideal choice will do nothing to help your cause.

I'm honestly curious now, what was the point of your last line? the same is true of... well, literally anything. I can only speak for myself but I find Obama's positions on gay issues to be frankly troubling, and I'm expressing that. It won't change anyone's minds any more than the 5300 odd posts are going to convince people of their own positions.

 

[Tamanon]

Man, Politico is hitting Obama hard on this campaign finance decision. I used to view them as un-biased.

Their poll on the issue has 75% of their readers agreeing with Obama's decision.



conservative blog with liberal readers?

Nah, remember Ben Smith was a big-time Hillary shill. He's been working on that piece for months.