I loved both of your long posts Dolce.

I think there is much merit to the Dean and Obama anti-war positions, being cost free. Obama was from a very safe Illinois seat in 2002. He wasn't not an actual US Senator. It is akin to comparing George Brett and Clint Hurdle in 1978. Brett had a bad year for him and there were many KC fans and sportswriters stating he was going to be better than Brett. Never mind that Hurdle was an outfielder and Brett was a 3rd baseman making Brett much more valuable in terms of defense.

Well in terms of competition and stress, Brett played against major league competition, Hurdle played against Triple A competition. I think that is a valid comparison to Obama being in the Illinois legislature. It is one thing to hit a homer off a guy who is never going to make the major leagues, it is quite another to hit three homers off a Hall of Famer in a League Championship Game (before steroids). You could compare Brett to John Mayberry, because they faced the same pitchers usually right after each other. Comparing Hurdle to Brett was a bit more difficult and for all of Hurdle's promise, he couldn't cut in the majors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bre ... aseball%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Hurdle

See the thing is since entering the US Senate, Obama hasn't been anymore anti-war than Clinton. Actually he has supported the Bush administration on some funding issues most progressives and Clinton have not. People change when they get to Washington, they try to play to the center, they try to appear "tough", etc. It's a false comparision what people do outside of the ring or the field.

When did I state my only criteria, strawman much?

Go look at Clinton's first term, and tell me in what ways was his inexperience not a hinderance. I ended up voting for him in the GE, but he would have been a better President as he got older.

Good thing to know that you fall for media crap, just like everyone else, in relation to the dynasty red herring. Never heard it in 2000 or 1980 when a the third freakin' Kennedy decided what the country needed was another son of Joe to reside in the White House.

Polls-Clinton was in third place in 1992, Dukakis was 20pts up in 1988. Polls this far out are meaningless, and this year polls have been extremely unreliable.

Obama will get about as much done as Carter. Dems don't get a fair shake from fellow Dems or from the media.

WTF?? BKB was talking about media bias, what are you referring? He was talking about the double standard.

We are not talking about the issues, that is just media BS. What are their stances on the EU, defense spending, medicare entitlements, rebuilding infrastructure, etc? The debates never touch on these subjects, no matter how much Wolf promises, "we will delve into these topics and more." So many Americans can't think for themselves, they take their cue from others on how to "think" about an issue.

The US is slowly becoming a second rate power like the UK around the turn of the century, because we support a military grossly outsized compared to our ten biggest competitors. Yet, we can't have universal health care. Truman fought for this 60 years ago and the world has passed us by in this metric. Neither Dem candiate can even make the case that universal healthcare will make us more competive with the EU and other industrialized countries, because it will lower our healthcare costs. Except American exceptionalism can never be questioned by a major party candidate. Dean did and they marginalized him ASAP.

-Bee

Please respond to this allegation, with actual statements and action that were "Rovian" and not media framing devices. I have read so much BS about the Clintons the last month that had no resemblence to reality. The fact that so many supposedly reality-based Dems fell for this garbage, doesn't make me too hopeful that the Dems have learned much the past 8 years.