BEAR on 1/7/2008 at 14:35

---

Were these analysts the ex-military, pentagon owned but still totally unbiased ones? Have you bothered to check out their positions yourself?

Rogue Keeper on 1/7/2008 at 15:46

---

No. You know what a political analyst is. Like you and me and other smart people on the internet!

the_grip on 1/7/2008 at 15:49

---

And if you are wondering about what exactly i am referring to re: Obama and McCain and their positions in Iraq, here is an article:

(http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/foreign_policy_and_presidents_irrelevance)

If you find that biased, let me know.

Stitch on 1/7/2008 at 18:02

---

Yeah, Obama has since clarified his stance:

"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

Obama's campaign also says that the AP's claims about Obama allowing hiring or firing based on faith are false.

Zygoptera on 1/7/2008 at 22:50

---

Spot on, insightful and has opened your eyes to reality?

[Shrug]

My analysis was what has been true for every election for election for thirty years and is an absolute consequence of your electoral system. You want to prove that the old rules do not apply because Obama is 'special', the onus is on you, not me. Fact is that in the only meaningful comparison of the two dem candidates Hillary did better in the states, and voter blocks, which actually determine who wins, not just the margin they win by. Sticking your head in the sand and chanting an irrelevance mantra does not change that, it's only irrelevant if they'll vote wholesale for Obama anyway, or if Obama will win without their support.



Well yeah. I, as a wholly disinterested party, pointed out that that was not what was happening, except, sensibly, from Obama himself. On the internet in general your lot have exhibited orders of magnitude more ruptured-haemorrhoid class butthurt than those who lost. Bad Winners are absolutely brilliant at one thing, alienating those who lost, and if I, disinterested observer that I am, think you lot are bad winners there's a fair chance random Hillary supporter #32541 might think so too. Whether they think that enough not to vote, or to vote for McCain is a moot point.



[Shrug]

"Reality does not care if you believe it."



[Shrug]

As above, I don't accept that this presidential race is significantly different than previous ones. It's up to you to prove it is different.

As for the rest, I understand his appeal, it just doesn't affect me. He promises policy changes, a generational shift, a break from the same old grey suits and grey systems that run everything, and has inspired a bunch of generally apathetic and uninterested groups to vote for him with undeniable charisma, and he certainly is at times a truly brilliant speaker. His most important property though is that he's a visibly different symbol of hope after a president whose reign has not been... universally applauded.

But I simply don't believe it. I remember Tony Blair and, yes, Bill Clinton, both populists who rode to victory on the backs of popular disaffection with lame duck leaders and policies and a promise of fundamental Change. And everything I've seen from Obama since his victory has simply confirmed that he's doing the 100% sensible things which every single candidate always tries to do, make sure he actually wins first and foremost.