Hope is not a strategy. Stoking the base's fear of swarthy people on the other side of the planet, now that's a strategy. Go with it, you'll totally win.

Maybe if one or two of you nitwits took a little time and read his positions and listened to his speeches and watched the debates you'd learn a thing or two.

But no - the wingnut strategy is to sneer that he's an empty suit. That'll get you far. I hope that mantra keeps on spewing forth. That way the 30%ers that you folks are will feel happy inside while the rest of the country moves forward and away from the debacle(s) created by the dimwit in the White House.

(When the usual pack of howing wingnuts demand that I provide the facts my answer is do your own research - for once - rather than just spewing your idiotic talking points).

John "No Hope" McCain

hmmm, might need a little tweaking.

How does this sound?

"Hopeless McCain '08"

Stoking enthusiasm is up to McCain. He can start by picking a true conservative veep. If he picks the Huckster, he's dead. Next, he can promise to keep terrorists out of our courts. Then he can renounce the global warming religion. Those would be a start. I wait with bated breath.

Hope is not a strategy, but pointing out the vapidity - or the destructive tendencies - of the opposition is not going to invigorate conservatives. We know that already.

Obama's supporters are enthusiastic because they like him. McCain's "supporters" feel more like they've been conscripted.

We're at the point when even the slender hope of some small, vague change is better than the horrifying specter of another four years of Republicans in the White House.

Well put, Jeff. Obama is likeable, young, and has loin appeal, whereas McCain is old and angry. Obama should run ads that show McCain's jowly face for ten seconds, with the word Seriously? at the bottom of the screen.

This is going to be a cakewalk on superficialities alone, which is a good thing because the media doesn't really lend itself very well to serious policy discussion.

"Obama has moved supporters to tears. John McCain has too, but for different reasons. Hillary moved herself to tears - just when it was needed most."

That's beautiful. You have a real talent.

To the extent Ombama has any substance, it's exactly the same big government message that prior Democratic candidates have spewed for 30 years. If he really thinks that HOPE lies in bigger government, socialized medicine, repealing NAFTA and erecting new trade barriers, more regulation, etc. ad nauseum, then he's even emptier and more clueless than your post suggests. While I'm not big on McCain, BHO would be a true disaster on the foreign policy scene, where his policies are stupid and helpful to our enemies, not just empty and clueless. His campaign can truthfully be referred to as "The Audacity of Hype" or possibly "The Audacity of Taupe."

"Obama is likeable, young, and has loin appeal,"

You're right about that, Matthew. However, this would be a much better ad photo, and you can keep the caption "Seriously?" at the bottom for good measure. It's not surprising to me at all that you would cater to superficiality, since you're not an American and actually voting in this election.

I have to say I get a kick out of those from the right who want things to stay the same. A broke government borrowing from China to stay afloat, an unsuccessful disastrous Middle East policy, an unfair tax system, tens of millions not able to afford health insurance, a crumbling infrastructure, no solution to our energy issues, crooked politicians too numerous to count, two political parties almost incapable of cooperating with one another, an unsolved border issue, unsafe ports, a military stretched to the limits, and I'm not even going to raise the Iraq issue.
A, for the most part, non-existent, coherent foreign policy, the disdain of most of our allies, a looming China ready to be THE influence in Asia, a president who pretty much only knows where Texas, Connecticut and D.C. are, an executive branch that ignores laws that don't fit its purpose and takes unprecedented power unto itself and stonewalls and lies regularly to Congress and the American people.

And what you folks is more of the same? I don't and I surely don't think the vast majority of Americans do. The government has been entrusted to the conservative republicans in total for 7 of the past 8 years and you think you can make things better? Or you want to keep them the same?

And your answer is that one of the democratic nominees is an "empty suit" and you hate Hillary Clinton on a visceral level and you have a good man in McCain that most of you vilify. Good luck to all of you and your collective "vision" for America. Get ready for, yes, change.

oops....should have been "...want is more of the same...."

I love all the liberals who are coming out and saying this worship of Obama is embarrassing for the democrats. Crying at rallies? Oh please, I knew democrats were a little touchy feely but this is humiliating for them.

P.S. I saw something on TV the other day where they asked democrats what Obama has accomplished or some of his beliefs and crickets sounded (okay not really) but no one knew. All they knew was he speaks really well.

Well, by all means, let's vote for someone who speaks well.

Bwahahahahahah.....you can't make this stuff up -- only democrats, folks, only democrats... lol.

You're right JFO. I pine for the days when we were selling military secrets to the Chinese, burning unwelcome religious sects to death in their domiciles, forcing little boy refugees back to Cuba at gun point in the dead of night, and shuddering to think what use the president could make of hundreds of illegally obtained FBI files [a.k.a. abuse of executuve power]. Those were the days. The coming "change" is sure to be magnificent.

"because the media doesn't really lend itself very well to serious policy discussion."

That's because the people like your self, who are ideologically communist, but refuse to recognize that fact loose big time in serious policy discussion. The media always want the neo-communist (or Democrat, if you prefer) to win so they simple keep things on the superficial level so the useful idiots will vote for their candidates.

"one or two of you...took a little time and read his positions"

I did. And I remembered reading the same thing before. Now where was that...

Oh yeah, here it is.

"When the usual pack of howing wingnuts demand that I provide the facts my answer is do your own research - for once - rather than just spewing your idiotic talking points"

In other words, JFO can't prove anything but the really, really, believes all the shit he's been fed so that should be enough.

Your Cold War dichotomies reflect your deep grasp of 21st century geopolitical realities, P. Bunyan. At least your views won't be represented following the general election.

There's a red under the bed! Get 'em, Tail-Gunner Joe!

"hope is not a strategy"

Neither is "failed strategy". In a run-off between the two, "hope" wins.

>"Obama is likeable, young, and has loin appeal,"
It's not surprising to me at all that you would cater to superficiality

As opposed to voting for someone because he's a guy you could have a beer with.

Got it.

They're not under the bed mantis, they're running for president. And you useful idiots are supporting them.

They're everywhere! Ahhhhh!

You know Matthew, the reason you Candians are able to maintain your socialist ways is because you sponge off the prosperity of the United States.

If the Democrats gain enough power that prosperity will end and you'll be feeling a lot sooner and harder than we will.

You know, I've demonstrated time and again on this blog with facts, evidence, & personal testimony the commonality between communists and modern American Democrats, and not once have any of you leftists presented one substantial shred of evidence to refute anything I've posted.

All you have is chilish invectives. You will only convince other useful idiots with your childish invectives and the other useful idiots don't need convincing.

In fact you're inability present a mature counter argument pretty much proves I'm right.

"As opposed to voting for someone because he's a guy you could have a beer with."

No one here said Huckabee's beer-buddy appeal nor his likability made him a serious candidate.

You know, I've demonstrated time and again on this blog with facts, evidence, & personal testimony the commonality between communists and modern American Democrats, and not once have any of you leftists presented one substantial shred of evidence to refute anything I've posted.

All you have is chilish invectives. You will only convince other useful idiots with your childish invectives and the other useful idiots don't need convincing.

However, after a decade or two more of disinformation about the Soviets and Cold War American Politics, they will have a solid generational block who think "Communisms Great!" and that it didn't fail under its own weight.

Isn't there a Godwin corollary that substitutes "communist" for "Nazi"?

Perhaps I just think your idiotic conflation of left-centrist social democratic values and practices with Communism is too fucking stupid to pay attention to, you unthinking putz. If I'm a Communist then you're a fascist.

As far as Canada "sponging" off of the United States, it seems as though China will be more than happy to buy our natural resources (especially oil) once your dollar tanks even harder. I've moved my investments out of the U.S., and consequently I made good returns on my mutual funds last month whereas my colleagues who kept their monies in your country all experienced net losses.

We're a country of 30 million, so obviously our fate is intertwined with other nations'. We are, however, more than happy to hitch our wagon to a better horse, and we are gradually making the transition. Maybe we should use some of our massive budget surplus to build a wall along the border to keep illegal immigrants from the United States from taking our service-sector jobs...

In fact you're inability present a mature counter argument pretty much proves I'm right.

The fact that you think my making fun of you proves anything is why you aren't worth arguing with. I'm not unable to argue against the argument that all Democrats are communists, I simply will not waste my time on something so stupid.

What's the difference between a socialist and a communist, Matthew?

Again with the straw man mantis? I never said all democrats are communists. Most of you are just useful idiots who fail to recognize what is happening.

Actually there were two strawmen in that single comment mantis. I also did not say your making fun of me proved anything- I said you inability to provide a counter argument did.

For fuck's sake, do your own goddamn homework you moron. Here's a head start for you:

-Are all people who believe that infrastructure (i.e. roads) ought to be maintained with public funds COMMUNISTS, or is this merely one socialist precept that EVERY SANE PERSON in the Western world agrees with?

Also, when doing your homework, try and take note of the emphasis on the individual's welfare in socialism vs. the emphasis on the good of the state (or the equivalence of the welfare of the state with the welfare of the aggregate individuals) in Communism.

O.k. that's a good start Matthew. People who believe that a few very limited things are best handled by the government are not communists.

Now what about people who believe the government should be responsible for controlling ever facet of our lives? Or those who look to the goverment to solve every problem?

Imagine my surprise, when I found out...

"try and take note of the emphasis on the individual's welfare in socialism vs. the emphasis on the good of the state (or the equivalence of the welfare of the state with the welfare of the aggregate individuals) in Communism."

Bill's wife: "we're going to take things away from for the common good."

The communists goal is to improve the individuals welfare. It just happens to fail every time because socialism taken to the extreme is in direct opposition to human nature.