Dear B. H. O.May 22nd, 2008 - 17:57:47

Farrakhan or Wright comes to mind; your kind of people.

Report this comment

IS IT TRUE ?May 22nd, 2008 - 18:28:11

That ole cocoa bean is gonna ask Jimmy Carter to be Vice President ?

What a waste of time to appear a bigger idiot than he has done on his prolonged circus act. A bigger headed rookie turd-ball is hard to imagine.

The guy does`nt stand an earthly of getting anywhere near the White House. McCain will beat the bum with such a huge majority, that it will go into the Guinness Book of Records.

Republicans ; 54,000,000
Democrats ; 38,000,000

Hows abowt dat den ?

Report this comment

SP4: JindelMay 22nd, 2008 - 18:31:00

...interesting pick....

Report this comment

Barack Hussein Obama/George Soros 08!May 22nd, 2008 - 18:33:52

William Ayres, Tony Rezko, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez or his wife Michelle?


Surely I must have over looked someone with a few bucks that hates the USA?

Oh yeah, I have it: George Soros!

Obama/Soros 08!

Change you had better believe in... if you don't want to wind up in a gulag. (tm)

Report this comment

Hope 'n Change! (tm) not...May 22nd, 2008 - 18:41:02

It won't be democratic vice president candidates Joe Lieberman, Geraldine Ferraro.. Lieberman has endorsed McCain.

Democrats and Our Enemies
By JOSEPH LIEBERMAN


How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?

Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.

This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.

This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that 'it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.'

And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would 'pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom.'

This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and 'inordinate fear of communism' represented the real threat to world peace.

It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America's fault.
[...]

Today, less than a decade later, the parties have completely switched positions. The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001. The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.

Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.[...]

There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.

Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.

If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.

A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned 'no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.' This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.

online.wsj.com/article/SB121132806884008847.html

Report this comment

Obama/Osama 08!May 22nd, 2008 - 18:43:41

Oh it is perfect...

Report this comment

A new campaign slogan!May 22nd, 2008 - 18:47:19

The only difference between Obama and Osama is a little 'bs'...

Report this comment

OBAMA - OSAMA !! GREAT BUDDIESMay 22nd, 2008 - 19:52:27

I like that previous comment - these two have an enormous common denominator and personal bond.

THEY BOTH WANT TO DESTROY AMERICA. One with bombs, the other with stealth, deceit and betrayal. One has got stacks of money, the other is going to make it, whatever the cost to his adopted country or people.

Report this comment

PSSSSSTMay 22nd, 2008 - 21:48:23

WILLY WONKA and the chocolate factory

Report this comment

Not Americans..........May 22nd, 2008 - 22:32:09

none of the posters........

Report this comment