Novak: "Not since RFK"

Unfortunately, Paul just doesn't have Obama's charisma. It's all about the charisma.

JFK won by just 100,000 votes nationwide. Dead people voted for him in Illinois (of course). Nixon won "in a landslide." Reagan won "in a landslide" over Carter. Now the country looks more like it did when JFK was elected and Carter was pres, divided. If Obabm wins and tries to usher in his socialist agenda, the next Republican will win "in a lanslide." Americans do not want to "change" America. Not even "the youth." Sooner or later young people grow up, and want to keep what "they" have earned.

Is ANYONE going to asK Obama a tough question? Will ANYONE examine his wafer-thin record? Saying CHANGE every 3rd word is not an policy idea. Apparently we are so dumbed down collectively that we cannot wait but to fall all over a polite young man who can speak reasonably well.

I'm no fan of the Clintons, and I would never vote for her.But better the devil you know. I know that Robert Rubin running the economy was better than the current Bush crew by a lot, and that Clinton restrained his more liberal instincts afte his first 2 years were a policy disaster.We could live with that, if the soap opera would again get tiresome.

He's charismatic! He's a wonderful speaker! He makes you all gooey in the knees! He's dreamy! And we have no idea at all what Obama would be like as president. So when all these wonderful reporters continue to verbally fellate Obama on a daily basis, it would be nice if they occasionally got off their knees for a moment, looked up into their eyes of their hero and asked him how he would govern. But 2 years into the Obama Adminstration, we'll have more than enough tales of hackery, incompetence and sheer arrogance to make Jimmy Carter a comparatively potential Rushmore enshrinee.

"obama/ ron paul 2008

come on you know you want to"

Yeah, that's about as likely as a David Duke / Jesse Jackson ticket.

"Democrats have never proposed anything as expensive as Iraq."

Depends how one delimits a proposal and how one counts time. The so-called "War on Poverty" and its offshoots has chewed up much more money, to little effect. Or how about Social Security? That's been much more expensive than Iraq.

Bugg, you are exactly right. We have no idea if Obama would actually be able to accomplish anything in office. Not only that, though I don't regard him as "an empty suit" I haven't heard much, if anything, of substance coming out of his mouth in this entire campaign.

And I have a feeling, as a political moderate, I might not like many of his positions, that I might feel they are weak, or just plain wrong. I think he might an idealistic, but weak POTUS, though he might not be as self-righteous and smug as Jimmy Carter, all the adulation is bound to go to his head. Actually having to govern could be a rude wake-up call.

Republicans can dance around the war in Iraq all they want. Yes, 600+ Billion Dollars since Bush landed on the aircraft carrier is the most extravagant outlay in real dollars ever given for a federal government venture. It doesn't include long term costs for vets that Republicans would just assume forget about.
Why do you think the Bushies wanted to keep the Iraq war expenditures off the federal books each time they disclosed the yearly budget?
Social Security is a trust fund and not a tax. Don't be a dolt. When the national debt tripled under Reagan & Bush I where do you think politicians drew extra money from?
Republicans have brainwashed their blind legions into thinking Social Security is a tax.
Because Barak Obama didn't support Iraq when it was popular he is gonna offer a clear contrast to anybody the Republicans run minus Ron Paul.
The Fox News war machine didn't do Republicans any favors keeping Paul out of the New Hampshire debate they held.
Yes to change! No to war-mongers!

Can you say "Icarus"? Just like so many of the Kennedy men, Obama may be destined to crash and burn, or to introduce "the new politics, same as the old politics." Just something for the Obama supporters to consider.

Bugg, Alicia, and Rob G.,

Hilzoy over at Obsidian Wings compiled a list of legislation sponsored by Obama so far in his career, both in the US Senate and in the Illinois legislature:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

The list includes bills on nuclear non-proliferation, prevention of no-bid contracts in Katrina reconstruction, tort reform on medical malpractice, and a revamping of ethics oversight in Congress to ensure that the system is really bipartisan. Among other things.

It's true that I would support Obama even if he really hadn't accomplished anything, so repulsed am I with the other candidates. But when ignoramuses (*cough*) accuse him of being an empty suit, that requires correction.

It's early yet. I hope the mania subsides to the point where his supporters can recognize that while you can make a reasoned, solid case to support him, you can also make a reasoned, solid case "to not to," to quote Mater from Cars. I'm not trying to imply that anyone has said such things, but reading Ezra Levant's embarrassing praise makes me think that it will happen.

The one indisputably bad thing that could come from an Obama candidacy would be the playing of a form of the race card against the To Not Tos, i.e., "You're not supporting him because he's black." That would get very ugly, very fast.

Joel, thanks for your comments, though I would appreciate more civility, since people who don't agree with you may not be "ignoramuses." (Or, then again, we may be.) We may just have different life experiences and perspectives.

If you note in my comments above, I said I don't believe Obama is "an empty suit." I just haven't heard much of substance about what he believes (other than in hope and change) and what he would do as President. I think this is a legitimate thing to consider about this candidate. I suspect he may not be talking much about his positions not because he doesn't have any, but because he wants to avoid talking about them for as long as possible. That worries me a bit. What if he believes something really flaky?

Watsy,
What makes you think that Mitt's only in it for himself? What has he DONE that makes you say that? What did he DO as governor of Massachusetts that makes you say that? What did he DO as the head of the Olympics (for which he refused any pay, as well as refusing pay as the governor) that makes you think he's in it for himself?

If you want to know why he decided to run, it's because he wanted to serve his country. That's what he says and I believe him. Everyone that I have heard who actually knows Mitt says unequivocally that he's a man of high integrity. You may dislike him for his policy stances or that he's not as charismatic as Obama or Huckabee, but he's NOT dishonest. You may have a problem with someone changing their positions, but I don't. I've changed my positions quite drastically in the past 5 years and when I hear Mitt's explanation for his change, it rings true and I believe him.

Watsy, I agree about McCain and Hillary being the Republican and Democratic candidates. However, if Obama runs against McCain (a good problem to have, actually) I will probably vote for McCain.

Watsy,
Other than abortion, what issues has he changed his position on that bother you? The abortion change he has pretty much explained. He hasn't changed on gay rights, although everyone keeps saying that. In 1992 he supported gay rights, and at that time gay marriage wasn't a part of the discussion. Since then it has become part of the discussion and Mitt believes marriage is between a man and a woman, but he still supports equal opportunities for gays outside of that. No policy change there, just a change in society.

You know, the guy has only been a politician for 4 years (even though he ran for senate in 1992). I have no problem at all with someone's views evolving. He hasn't flip-flopped (meaning he hasn't gone back and forth on this views), they have evolved. I would expect any thinking persons views to go through some changes. Mine have evolved quite as dramatically. I used to be more of a moderate Democrat, now I consider myself a moderate/conservative Republican. Are my views now suspect because I've changed them as I've gotten older and looked more closely at the issues?

And I would agree on your Dr. Phil quote. Look at Mitt's past behavior. When he ran for governor, he had his aides write down all the campaign promises he made. Then he went about keeping them. Kept ALL of them (I think there were 90 or so). So, if he's saying in this campaign he will do something, he'll do his darnedest to follow through. He's not wishy washy, as the media like to portray, and he's not a chameleon. He's wicked-smart, a great businessman, data-nerd, highly ethical man. Look deeper than what the media is portraying and you will see the "real" man.

DeeAnn, here's a contest for you:

You list all the issues on which Mitt has been consistent over the past five years.

I will list all the issues on which Mitt has reversed himself within the past five years.

Whoever generates the longer list, the other owes him/her a steak dinner.

Want to do it?

Wikipedia:(I know it's not the gospel, but you have to start somewhere).

2002:
"We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern." [59] In 2002, Romney spoke regarding domestic partnership benefits, saying, "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation." Romney said that domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.[60][61]

Now let's look at Romney's web site:
Traditional Marriage. Governor Romney supports a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

That's it. Mitt no longer thinks that all citizens deserve equal rights. Show me on his web site where he would promote domestic partnerships? I couldn't find it. Basically, he's decided to leave gays in the dust to advance his own career.

With friends like that.......

I became a Reagan Republican when he asked in 1984,
"are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

Today I would answer that question with a resounding "No!"

Obama for me and millions of other Republicans who are tired of the GOP being hijacked by the religious right. The group that does nothing to prevent over population....and nothing to help a child once it's born into this world.

Glen Bentley
Lancaster, PA

Let's look at guns:

Wikipedia(old Romney):
"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."[41] As governor, Romney signed a 2004 measure instituting a permanent Massachusetts ban on military style assault weapons, to take the place of a Federal ban, which was then about to expire. The bill made Massachusetts the first state to enact its own such ban on specific semi-automatic weapons and some shotguns with specific accessories, and Romney supported the law with the comment: "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."[42

August 2006
Romney joins NRA!!

Well, I personally have no problem banning semi-automatic assault weapons and don't see his membership in the NRA as a change on that position. One can be for assault weapon bans and still be a member of the NRA.

One can be for assault weapon bans and still be a member of the NRA.

That's like saying that one can be prolife and a member of Planned Parenthood. The NRA fights reasonable gun legislation at every turn by scaring the hunters into thinking that liberals are trying to take their trophy gathering tools away.

A person with integrity doesn't say that they sponsor reasonable gun legislation and give money to the NRA. Heck, even my Dad who's an enthusiastic hunter has stopped supporting the NRA.

I became a Reagan Republican when he asked in 1984,
"are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

Today I would answer that question with a resounding "No!"

Obama for me and millions of other Republicans who are tired of the GOP being hijacked by the religious right. The group that does nothing to prevent over population....and nothing to help a child once it's born into this world.

Yet Reagan's pro-life views and alliance with the "Religious Right" didn't bother you in 1984?

DeeAnn, I would like to kindly remind you and other folks that an assault weapon is defined as fully automatic, not semi-automatic. And it's been illegal for an ordinary citizen to own an assault weapon since 1934. Ms. Feingold only brought about the illegalization of about 147 guns that look like assault weapons.

Dale, are you trying to convert us all to atheism? Wouyld you have us burn all religious books (the Talmud, Bible, Koran, et al)?

Robert,
Thanks for the clarification. I'm really not up on gun jargon or rights issues. I don't own a gun and probably never will, and I don't know much about them.

The Secret Service reportedly has almost as many agents on Obama as they do on the President himself.

Charismatic progressive leaders tend to get shot and killed in ways that are never fully explained.