No it's still ONE and that ONE issue has nothing to do with Nasa. The one issue has to do with powerful african americans, hence the Oprah jab. Exposed. Time to change your sig, your NASA disguise is no longer covering your true character.
Charles Krauthammer still believes Iraq has WMDs and the economy isn't going into a recession. Charles Krauthammer is an idiot.
He's not talking about any of that here....do you have any substantive to add,or just more of the typical drivel you normally post? Some people here,no doubt,think Josh is an idiot too.....
Nothing personal, I just thought the article you posted was garbage, I'll respond in more detail later, I'm going to the gym.
You also don't like african american quarterbacks. *cough* Vince Young. It all makes sense now. The quarterback position is a position of power in the NFL.
Each to his own,I recken.Given the "Obama Fever" on this board ,and I assume nationwide as well [I'm in a primarily Republican area so it's not as noticable here],I thought the article was spot on.
uh huh But I am flattered that you've been lurking and reading my drivel going on 9 years now! So what part of Krauthammer's article did you find "spot on?"
No problem.....I guess I have no room to talk. I'm off to a concert with my wife,will try to respond later
My nephew just got accepted to a siminary school for the fall somewhere around lufkin. A devout methodist with a purple mohawk. kids these days
I like the newsboys. KSBJ was my favorite station back when I lived in Houston. Have fun. Obama is a christian man by the way. He was raised by his white christian mother.
Great concert!! I think the paragraph below is the one I feel is the Obama sensation in a nutshell.I know others much more intelligent than me disagree with it,but I really don't see the stellar report that's being portrayed. "Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem. Promises to heal the world with negotiations with the likes of Iran's President Ahmadinejad. Promises to transcend the conundrums of entitlement reform that require real and painful trade-offs and that have eluded solution for a generation. Promises to fund his other promises by a rapid withdrawal from an unpopular war -- with the hope, I suppose, that the (presumed) resulting increase in American prestige would compensate for the chaos to follow. "
http://www.observer.com/2008/forget-kool-aid-obama-s-support-real Forget the Kool-Aid: Obama's Support is Real With Barack Obama's bandwagon picking up speed, Hillary Clinton's sympathizers have been pushing a new caricature of their opponent: the cultish figure who seduces the weak-kneed masses with vague and meaningless but oh-so-warm-feeling generalities. "There was something just a wee bit creepy," Time's Joe Klein, a Bill and Hillary stalwart, recently wrote, "about the mass messianism…of (Obama's) Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign." Alex Joseph, a student at Georgetown University who supports Clinton, boasted in a Slate column of his unique-for-his-generation ability to resist the siren Obama's call. "At Georgetown," he informed us, "the Obama supporters—devotees? cultists?—are everywhere." In their telling, the choice for Democrats is one between the brain and the heart. Obama is for hopeless romantics who are unschooled in and ignorant of the details of public policy and the realities of politics, while Clinton is for the more intellectually mature among us—sober-minded policy purists who have mastered the art of thinking with their heads. To be fair, the devotion of some Obama supporters has helped advance this caricature, and prompted some members of the media to buy into it. When Obama appeared at a Democratic dinner in New Hampshire last month, his exuberant supporters rushed the stage in a scene that evoked the Gospel of Luke, forcing the public-address announcer to plead with them to back off. Over the weekend, the Drudge Report linked to a video compilation of people fainting at Obama rallies. And the mere mention of his name in an online political forum has often been enough to unleash an onslaught of rabidly pro-Obama, anti-Clinton comments, effectively shutting down rational discussion of the Democratic race. (For an excellent example of this, check out the blog of New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman, who seems to have been pushed perilously close to a Heart-of-Darkness state of near-madness by his running battles with the Obama commenters.) But this hardly typifies Obama's support. Just consider the difference between Obama's present coalition and the one assembled by Howard Dean four years ago, which featured similarly over-the-top displays of enthusiasm. As with Obama's loyalists, Deaniacs turned out by the thousands to hear their man, expressed their devotion in deeply personal terms, filled his coffers with tens of millions of dollars in small donations, and flooded the email inboxes of journalists who didn't seem to "get it." In Dean's case, the real-world support never caught up with the intensity of the true believers. He faded badly in Iowa and finished in a distant third place there, then left the race a month later. His core supporters made plenty of noise, but in the end, there just weren't that many of them. Obama, meanwhile, seems to be appealing to what might be called the new "silent majority." Sure, he's got his share of stage-rushers and Kool-Aid drinkers, but he's also appealed to millions of casual voters—the ones who don't go to his rallies, don't donate to his campaign, but do show up on primary day and check his name off on the ballot. That's the kind of mass casual support that other idol-candidates—Dean four years ago, or, say, Ron Paul this year—never came close to attracting. That support may be rooted in something far more substantive than Obama's critics contend. While it's certainly true that his speeches represent sweeping statements of vision—and not, until recently, laundry lists of policy proposals—he has also presented original and specific ideas about what he would do as President. It could be argued, for instance, that Obama's pledge to sit down face-to-face with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the most substantively meaningful plank in any candidate's platform in 2008, a wholesale departure from the past 28 years of U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic—and from the cautiously conventional approach articulated by Hillary Clinton, who memorably branded Obama's posture "naïve." And when he talks about "ending the mind-set that got us into war," Obama raises the possibility of an administration whose global vision would not be shaped by the stale, nonpartisan national security establishment that has infected the thinking of both political parties for decades—and that helped convince an overwhelming bipartisan Congressional majority (Clinton included) to choose war in 2002. But the real problem with sneering at the fervor that Obama has stirred is that it ignores how elections are won and how governing coalitions are built. The truth is that even voters who aren't moved by Obama's substantive appeal are still, by and large, favorably impressed by him and willing to at least consider voting for him. In this sense, he can be likened to Ronald Reagan, who flunked all of the traditional tests of electability in 1980—he was one of the most ideologically extreme candidates ever nominated, he was ignorant of some basic policy details, and he was nearly 70 years old—but whose style, presence and wit connected with the masses and overrode all of those concerns. The term "Reagan Democrat" was born and he won in such an intimidating landslide that his political foes essentially let him enact whatever reforms he wanted for his first few months in office. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, calls to mind Walter Mondale, who in 1984 combated Reagan's sunny vision with what Newsweek described as "a gigantic To-Do List, a leaden compendium of programs heaped one on another … as if he intended to crush his audiences in specifics." Democrats have enjoyed simultaneous control of the White House and both houses of Congress for a grand total of two years since Jimmy Carter was voted out. Now, presented with a candidate who is inspiring record turnout and demonstrating broad appeal in some of the most Republican parts of the country, you'd think the excesses of a relatively small percentage his supporters would be the least of their concerns.
