The majority of people do not vote upon the facts, but upon perceptions. In the case of Obama the facts aren't in his favor, but the chickens are coming home to roost so the perceptions regarding him ain't too healthy either.

The far-left netroots (Daily Kos, Move-On and HufPo) are in a Fox-News-Dem-Defection nuclear meltdown and the DNC is headed for a significantly entertaining train wreck.

Obama needed a good GPS unit a long time ago. Seems he veered too far left when he should have gone straight, then took a Wright turn far too late. He is lost in fly-over country without a map, a gun, a bible, or a good set of bib-overalls.

While I agree with much of what Adler said, I don't think Obama is going away any time soon.
I don't think I would be wrong in saying he enjoys almost unanimous support from the American Negro community as well as a lot of white "progressives" who not only ascribe to his political philosophy but the fact that they think it's time for a Negro to occupy the White House. If he were to pull out now, he would encur the wrath of all his supporters, not to mention the Al Sharptons and Calypso Louie Farrakhans cooking up some story about him being bought out by Whitie. He's got to stay until all the ballots are in before conceding defeat.
These points will be all moot come the second Wednesday in November, because neither he nor Clinton will ever win.

it would be hard to say he has run out of steam when for the whole time he has been spouting nothing but air.

Obama will certainly NOT drop out of the race to lead the jackass party.

This is a contest of the survivability of Myths...
One Myth .... The Magic Negro .. who will right all wrongs by his very existence.
Other Myth .... Hillary the Leader (with experience)... doesn't exist except in her own mind and the feverish delusions of anyone blind enough to support her.
The leftstream media is torn between which myth to back ... both can't be accommodated. One must DIE... oh my!

It's already been proven that in the game of identity politics ... race trumps sex.

As usual the leftards will make the choice that causes the MOST disruption and have the greatest negative impact on their own society.

Heads WILL explode ......

"It's already been proven that in the game of identity politics ... race trumps sex."

I think it's even simpler than that. The Democrats don't "need" the Clintons anymore; Obama is perceived to be "baggage-less" - no Bill Clinton millstone round his neck (though the Reverend Wright seems determined to step into that role for him!).

While superficially, this might appear to make good sense,* the Democrat platform, relying as it does on identity politics, suggests that the party could well end up tearing itself apart over it all.

* Also, it betrays a streak of political ruthlessness: to hell with Hillary, she's old news, we've got Obama now!

Obama is the liberal's Anointed One. He's the embodiment of all of the shallow stupidity that liberals have ever served up. He's redemption from their misplaced white guilt. His shoddy understanding of capitalism and foreign policy, in that country's don't have friends they have foreign relationships that match their self-interest, is as shallow as they are. That he is an arrogant elitist, a vacuous empty vessel, and a racist matches them perfectly. Liberal's racism is most often expressed by their bigotry of low expectations, so they aren't expecting much more from Obama than what we've seen.

They can't win the White House without the 90+% black vote that Dems garner every election which makes Hillary radioactive. A big mess for the Dems.

I'm hoping that this Obama-Hillary battle goes into the convention and all of the Dems' fringe element freaks show up. This election will determine how dumbed down, thanks to our schools and the media, the American public is at this time in history. Now, that's scary.

The meds seem to be wearing off "John". Is there something that you can self medicate with that'll help keep the delusions managed? As an aside, the handle 'maudlin', seems particularly apt for you.

The Dem party has hung the race card around their neck for years. Now it looks as if they will hang themselves. If they pick Hillary, they will lose the black vote. If they pick Obama , they will lose the white women vote.

Nice going fools!

Polls taken six months prior to the election cannot be taken too seriously. I've several, however, stating that about 20% of both Obama's and Hillary's supporters will NOT support the Democrat candidate if it's not theirs. They say they will either vote for McCain or stay home.

I used to think it would be nearly impossible for McCain to win with all the negative stuff happening now, but the Dems appear ready to shoot themselves in the foot again. Remember in 1972, during the (then) very unpopular Vietnam war, Democrat George McGovern only won ONE state.

The word is Obama has a lot of skeletons in his closet that haven't been exposed yet, but will be exposed big time if he is the nominee. Hillary is a know quantity. It's hard to see how any new damaging information can come out about her.

Obama portrays himself as a post-racial, post-partisan candidate, yet he surrounds himself with vile people like "Reverend" Wright, Weathermen (Ayers and Dohrn), and his own wife Michelle Obama, who seems to share much of Wright's point of view.

"I insulted the hostess. This is shaky ground and I challenge Kate's readers to think on it."

That's easy. It's her blog just like Macleans Magazine is Macleans Magazine. They can publish what they like. They can establish rules of conduct on their own blog/publication. That is all. Was that hard?

My father-in-law is a long time Democrat and was gloating last fall about how it was going to be a Democrat election and that people were sick of "those damn Republicans" I told him then that it was indeed the Democrats election to lose, and that they were working hard on doing exactly that. As of right now he's supporting McCain.

Why the Democrats can't get their heads out of the butts I'll never know, but what I do know is the party thats about to self destruct is not the same party that ran Roosevelt and Kennedy.

Obama was on Sunday morning Tv & he looked & sounded like "Defeated Man Walking".

He's done like dinner.

Come November, the RNC will slice & dice him like bbq chicken.

The nomination is sewed up for Obama. Considering his extreme narcissism I put the probability of his exiting the race "for the good of the party" at about zero.

This, I feel, is a delicious outcome for the extreme egalitarians of the Dem party, to wit, their nutty proportional delegate award system.

You have to admit tho that we got a lovely new phrase out of it: the "post-racial candidate".

Will the Dems become the "post-proportional" party after the rout?

Mauldin sounds like a chastised child sent to his room.

[quote]Come November, the RNC will slice & dice him like bbq chicken [/quote]

Fred,
The Nov race is in the Senate, what does a State democrat run on... hard left socialist rhetoric doesn't sell at the state level.

Obama is the nominee... Hillary is now running for 2012 by moving to the center. keeping the race active removes the threat from a third party

FOX: Bill "O" is in the tank, and laura is now telling Obama how to redeem himself, talk about changing horses.

Israel,
The USA will always support Israel... pll are making a mistake if they think otherwise. That train left a long long time ago... Live with it or pay the consequences.

Let's all help Kate

n'feedez pas les trolls

they are not worth the time & trouble

Fred,
The Nov race is in the Senate, what does a State democrat run on... hard left socialist rhetoric doesn't sell at the state level.

Obama is the nominee & will lose... Hillary is now running for 2012 by moving to the center. keeping the race active removes the threat from a third party

FOX: Bill "O" is in the tank, and laura is now telling Obama how to redeem himself, talk about changing horses.

Israel,
The USA will "always" support Israel... pll are making a mistake if they think otherwise. That train left a long time ago... Live with it or
pay the consequences.

Obama likes to hear himself talk,he should have listened to what he was saying.

I must have missed the part where Kate banned the maudlin-one...from this post on, I'll ignore him. However, his posting that pleads for reconsideration does expose EXACTLY how much he (and many opponents of free speech) DOESN'T "get" the issue of free speech.

Dude, no one is stopping you from speaking...speak all you want...you just can't do it here because, as "owner" of this blog, Kate has exercised her right to remove you from THIS blog. This has NOT denied you of any right or ability to speak anywhere or any time else.

You have the right to speak, we have the right to plug our ears. That's the way free speech works. If I don't like what you're saying, I ignore you.

Kate is not the government...if Kate WERE the government and made a ruling that you could no longer speak on a topic, then THAT would be denying you your charter-granted right to free speech...hmmmmm, just like the HRC's are doing.

As a Canadian citizen, you ALSO have the right to assemble wherever you want...but NOT on private property...that's why you and everyone else who owns a home can kick an unwanted visitor from their home without violating their right to assembly.

HRC's, representing the government, are telling people what they can and cannot say...they are even telling people what they can and cannot think. THAT IS THE POINT. Do you get it now?

Sorry, Kate.

Back on topic...Obama will need something spectacular to draw the attention away from the short-attention-span Democratic voters...he'll need to find a "sparkly object" to distract them from his failings or he's toast. But I agree...he won't withdraw.

Fred,
The Nov race is in the Senate, what does a State democrat run on... hard left socialist rhetoric doesn't sell at the state level.

Posted by: Phillip G. Shaw

Phil . . I guess you haven't heard about the United States presidential election of 2008, scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008 ?

The superdelegates have too much to lose if they
don't nominate Obama. Obama has accumulated a lot of money in his war chest to "buy" favours now and make payoffs in the future to those who might want to replace him someday. But most of all, refusing the nomination to Obama at this point would arouse the possibility of race riots and lose the Democrats the black vote now and in the future.

nicht die futtern ein troll.

Barack Hussein Obama is a left wing loon.

Case closed.

I can't stand looking at his purple lips.

The only slim chance for the Dems is if the Clinton and Obama camps make nice, so the loser can join the ticket as VP. Even then, Democrats might still find a way to lose. A divided Democrat party will be torn apart by the GOP machine in presidential election.

But, hardly the time for Obama to resign; even if Adler is right and he is stalled (for Cdn context think of Rob Rae), he is still young and new enough to make an attractive VP, assuming Hillary can pull it off and they run together.

If I might be permitted a few more words on the subject. The similarity between the drug-addled Johnny and El-Mo & his Sock Puppet Five is telling: both sets want unrestricted free speech for themselves but not for others.

I saw a good example of how to fight back against this sense of entitlement: while out for a walk at lunch I saw a City of Toronto employee power-washing a pro-Palestinian flyer off of a garbage/recycling bin. Likely some leftie thought it his right to post on public property, but several thousand psi put that straight.

Power-wash Maudlin down the drain, Kate.

Happy 60th Birthday, by the way, to Israel. Long may she torment terrorists and their friends on the Left.

Obama, has been, destroyed by association with raving preachers.

Raving Reverend Wright said many things similar to the Lion will lay down with the lamb.

Problem is, he delivered the message in a mad, war mongering manner. Wright rants as though he is inspiring his followers towards civil war.

Any message of tolerance and cooperation can not be delivered in hate-monger fashion. Regardless of the message meaning, it is still *hate speech*, just by virtue of the violent delivery. = TG

Tom, those kinds of comments are NOT welcomed here. Take a hike.

It's not race-baiting Rev. Wright who's the most dangerous supporter of Obama.

Did I miss something or is it not a fact his grandmother was the one who raised him and encouraged him to educate himself?

Anyway, just follow the money and once the sources are disclosed, I would be less than surprised that much of his financing came from the Geo. Soros/MoveOn.org camp.

At some point it will dawn that Obama is only nominally an American. His father was important in Kenya, his friend Odinga is now Prime Minister of Kenya, and Obama doesn't even LOOK like an American black. "Dreams from my father" plays all of that down, and tries to make him seem authentic American inner-city. He isn't. That probably contributes to the unease which Americans other than left-wing fanatics feel with him.

I do hope that realisation strikes before the US election - the economic policy which Obama Sr. advocated, and which led Jomo Kenyatta to destroy his career, doesn't seem much different from that implemented by Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. And that is the "dream" which Obama Jr. received from his father.

Good point Violet! Baraks bank account is a major tool at his disposal. That being said the Dems will pick Billery for the following reason: the youth and the black vote are unproven commodities, especially the youth voters. To disenfranchise middle class women is a much more serious blow to the party, and the GOP will have a national caliber woman running for the leadership in 4 yrs to reinforce the new found support from the aforementioned women. The Dems are screwed for at least the next 8 yrs, they are paying the price for playing "Hollywood Politics" and have sacrificed the future for potential short term gains. Similar to a hockey team that gives away its youth for a shot at the cup today. If you don't win today you spend the next five years to get back to where you were before you sold out your future.

I'm surprised that Barak got this far, it goes to show that lefties don't actually listen to what their candidates are saying. In 2007 I told everyone that I know that Barak was politically dead, during a televised debate (maybe Fox) I knocked over my drink when Barak said that HE would invade Pakistan. I thought "That's it!", there is no way he'd get the left vote by advocating another war. Six months later I am wiser and I understand that it doesn't matter what he said, it only mattered how he looked.

Finally, I find it humorous how the left are trying to blame the right for all of the racial tension and the lack of issue based topics on the Democratic side. I've heard numerous people pointing the finger at FOX, and conservatives in general blaming them for why the Dems will not pick a black candidate. I've been enjoying this immensely and doubt we will see the likes again; but, I'm starting to feel some sympathy for this bunch. They remind my of my parrot and his arch enemy, the pesky parrot that is always looking back at him in the mirror.

Tom Robinson , done raped me, Atticus.
Ah'm right needy for the HRC's to protect little ol me.

vivian - I disagree; there won't be 'race riots' if Obama doesn't win the nomination. That sets up black people as prone to riot while white people don't. That's incorrect.

However, the nominee selection has moved outside of any possibility of rational choice and into some kind of virtual world of money, contacts and strings pulled.

Obama, the untried senator with about two years of political and legislative experience, vs Hillary with years behind the scenes in the political world. Obama and his rhetoric of a future utopia vs Hillary and her equally empty rhetoric of past experience.
Obama and his enormous baggage of the tunnel vision of racial hatred and black victimization. Hillary and her equally enormous baggage of the Clinton Political Machine.

There's no policy, no concern about the USA. It's moved into some kind of virtual dual between two irrelevant rhetorics. In a way, it doesn't matter which one wins; both have moved outside of reality. The question then becomes, not who will be chosen to win, for I'm suggesting that rational choice has long disappeared. The question becomes who will be allowed to win the nomination by the Democratic political infrastructure.

having not read a single post i will say that american voters are as stupid and uninformed as canadian voters. therefore, any idoit can win based on any idiot ology that can be presented on the msm. pardon me for making up words.

If Americans are really so stupid as to vote Republican again, after the incredible mess they've made of that nation, they deserve whatever is coming to them. Sadly, the rest of the world doesn't deserve another 4 years from these incompetent assh*les.

You guys do realize that the US is in the middle of a major mess caused entirely by conservative incompetence, right? Right?

BTW... what do you guys think about the Conservatives dumping the access to info database? Oh wait... I forgot... you're so partisan that you aren't capable of caring. I know this is a reach, but you realize that once the Liberals are back in power - and it will happen eventually - they can use this to their advantage, right?

Hussein's denials aren't gaining traction. Train wreck ahead:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama’s standing has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his former pastor, according to USA Today/Gallup poll published on Monday.

The poll showed Hillary Clinton leading Obama 51 percent to 44 percent nationally among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters, in contrast to a CBS News/New York Times survey released on Sunday that had Obama leading Clinton by 12 points.

ET

I believe that their will be some civil unrest in the black community when Billery gets the nomination. I'm not sure what constitutes a "riot", but many blacks will see this as a slight against black Americans. None of this has anything to do with what whites are prone to or not.

John

What is wrong with getting rid of a service that costs more to maintain than the value that comes out of it. I'll take the PM at his word but if you say otherwise please feel free to justify why we shouldn't scrap data base.

The looking glass into the future of Canadian politics is murky. The Libs may find their way back as you predict, but they may find themselves leading a much smaller country in the years to follow.

sorry folks but it's going to come down to this;

old white guy McCain (Vietnam POW)
democrat nominee (gender or race no matter)

history sez; old white guy

John
If Americans are really so stupid as to vote Republican again, after the incredible mess they've made of that nation, they deserve whatever is coming to them. Sadly, the rest of the world doesn't deserve another 4 years from these incompetent assh*les.

As a conservative I have to agree with your statement. The Republican Party of true conservative ideals Ronald Regan, Goldwater or Buckley no longer exists. It now dances to the tune of different political masters. John McCain Hillary or even Obama are no different and will all dance the jig when instructed to. JFK was probably one of the United States true great president who was aware and probably tried to take steps to change it, even with his own personal faults. I doubt the US will ever have the opportunity again.

Why is everyone that is against Obama labeled a bigot? His race has absolutely ZERO to do with why I think he's a poor choice for President -- his politics and his associates speak much louder than his skin color.

I don't like Hillary either. Does that make me a bigot? Her gender nor her race matter to me. Her past actions and present lies are her downfall in my book.

I'd be happy to see another Democratic candidate. I'd be even happier to see a true Republican candidate -- McCain is a far cry from it. This election is no longer about choosing the right person for President; it is merely a process of eliminating the one(s) who will do the most harm. I hope to God we are right.

Lisa:

The Democrat Party has put forward two candidates who represent people who can correct alleged historical wrongs.

Until somebody can demonstrate that history can be changed, it would be better to live in the present.

Opposing Hillary makes you a sexist.

Hang on now ... Lisa?

"Why is everyone that is against Obama labeled a bigot?"

Because that's the knee jerk reaction of much of the left from what I've seen on the Internet. Race seems to be the defining trait of a person's character to them, rather than who that person is, what they stand for, and their accomplishments in life.

It's probably easier for them to label us racists and dismiss us rather than stay on topic and debate with us.

SYF: "The Democrat Party has put forward two candidates who represent people who can correct alleged historical wrongs."

So, what you're saying is that neither Obama nor Clinton can actually DO anything, but they represent the people who can? I'd rather deal directly with the problem solvers, thank you. Don't burn up your keyboard defending your statement -- I think I understand what you were trying to say, no matter how misguided. Unfortunately, I don't think it is our responsibility to "correct historical wrongs"; for what purpose? Would our time, energy and money not be better spent fixing what ails us NOW and help us move into a more stable future? I can't undo MY past; why should I elect someone to waste my tax dollars undoing anyone else's?

In Denver, Al Gore will; be a *SUPER DELEGATE*. He will play king maker and demand his pound of flesh: government programs to stick green ones into his wallet.

Obama is getting greater than 90% of the black vote in most places. Doesn't that sound extremely racist?

The only way I can see that happening is if race is the only deciding factor some folks use when picking a candidate.

It is SO funny to scan the thread and see hardly a mention of the guy you-all got your hopes pinned to.

You know: the white-haired senior citizen running on the "let's stay in Iraq for 100 years" platform, who embraces a pastor who says the Catholic Church is the Great Whore.

You know, the empty shell who was tortured but now embraces torture. The guy who's wife and daughter were savaged by Bush's political hit men, but who now embraces Bush.

You know, the guy who plans a continuation of the policies of the most disliked President in history.

You know his name....it rhymes with ...insane...

Lisa:

It was purely a statement of the type of candidates the Democrat Party are putting up.

Got nothing to do with my personal opinion.

The Democrats are no different than the alphabet soup of lefty parties in Canada ... all portray themselves as champions of an assorted bunch of victims.

It's just that the Democrats believe they can somehow change historical wrongs. They can't change history, of course, so it's curious as to how they act in the mistaken belief they can by punishing the so-called oppressors.

This US campaign does little to address the real issue .. and that's how to best allow individuals to make individual choices.

These lefty trolls are completely out of their league here. One says he is banned, yet he on keeps posting. Huh? One tries bad poetry hoping someone will pay attention. What kind of kook vomit are this aholes eating anyway?

As far as hussein osama is concerned, he is a muslim patsy. I wouldn't trust him anymore than I would trust any left wing puke eater.

Bolik, you need to look at this race through fresh eyes. Here's how it breaks down. On one side, there still two candidates left. You've got a bitch, who''s a lawyer, and who's married to another lawyer. She's still fighting it out with a lawyer who's married to a bitch -- who is herself a lawyer. The other side's candidate is a war hero married to a large-chested woman who owns a beer company.

So ... why is this even a race?

BIG

*****The other side's candidate is a war hero married to a large-chested woman who owns a beer company.******

dems best hope she don't buy up JD!!!!!

I don't know, 'Big Picture',

But the overflowing misogyny (a symptom of your inability to get laid) in your post sure is informative about yourself and the rest who post here:

Y'all have supported the most disliked President in history, supported what's generally recognized as the biggest military disaster in history, and reject the testimony of one hundred Nobel Laureates who declare global warming to be the biggest problem facing humankind.

Aside from the racism and misogyny endemic to this site, it's laughable that any of you should dare criticize either of the Democratic candidates.

Large-chested women. Beer.

Sound like much more fun than listening to a bunch of victims whine.

Glad you think it 'SOUND like much more fun'.

Because types like you can't do much more than talk about it anyway, right?

Doz dems have gone done shot theyselves in they foot big time!!

Desperate to appear all inclusive, they only set themselves up to lose. Rather than settle for either Billary OR OsamaBamaRama, in desperation they go for the home run by offering two choices; chocolate and vanilla. I guess they thought both would win? If they wanted to go for the home run they should have done the proverbial “black–female–in-a–wheelchair” routine.

Talk about being hoist by one’s own petard!

How utterly premature, or naive, of Adler to assume that Obama has lost. The numbers via delegates/superdelegates simply do not merit such prognostication. Certainly, he has made several horrendous--so aptly pointed out---the handling of J. Wright was one of them. While one might understand the 'spirit' of which Obama attempted to retain his relationship with Wright...it was a political nightmare upon which Obama will not soon awaken..especially if he moves into th general election against McCain.

But, why was Adler premature (beyond laws of simple numbers) in his assumption? One reason: The American/U.S. media. The media in the states will attempt to push a close race..e.g. if Obama is up (his polling) than the emphasis on affirmative coverage will be upon Clinton and visa-versa.

The same can be said regarding the general election. I already, as implied by Alder, have seen individuals touting how the RNC and McCain will eat the DNC candidate for lunch..The fact is, by the time McCain and the democratic candidate square off...corporate media will already have 'equalized' both candidates to the point of seeing many 50/50 polls McCain vs Hill/Obama.

In the end the winner will be who can best distort the nature of the economy in the U.S., mask the failure that the Iraq war is (perhaps by increasing rhetoric against Iran), and those who can further sell the distorted "american Fallacy" that of the "American Dream"...what a farce. That will be, as par usual, the candidate whom wins.

-PRIME-

How utterly premature, or naive, of Adler to assume that Obama has lost. The numbers via delegates/superdelegates simply do not merit such prognostication. Certainly, he has made several horrendous--so aptly pointed out---the handling of J. Wright was one of them. While one might understand the 'spirit' of which Obama attempted to retain his relationship with Wright...it was a political nightmare upon which Obama will not soon awaken..especially if he moves into th general election against McCain.

But, why was Adler premature (beyond laws of simple numbers) in his assumption? One reason: The American/U.S. media. The media in the states will attempt to push a close race..e.g. if Obama is up (his polling) than the emphasis on affirmative coverage will be upon Clinton and visa-versa.

The same can be said regarding the general election. I already, as implied by Alder, have seen individuals touting how the RNC and McCain will eat the DNC candidate for lunch..The fact is, by the time McCain and the democratic candidate square off...corporate media will already have 'equalized' both candidates to the point of seeing many 50/50 polls McCain vs Hill/Obama.

In the end the winner will be who can best distort the nature of the economy in the U.S., mask the failure that the Iraq war is (perhaps by increasing rhetoric against Iran), and those who can further sell the distorted "american Fallacy" that of the "American Dream"...what a farce. That will be, as par usual, the candidate whom wins.

-PRIME-

How utterly premature, or naive, of Adler to assume that Obama has lost. The numbers via delegates/super delegates simply do not merit such prognostication. Certainly, he has made several horrendous--so aptly pointed out---the handling of J. Wright was one of them. While one might understand the 'spirit' of which Obama attempted to retain his relationship with Wright...it was a political nightmare upon which Obama will not soon awaken..especially if he moves into th general election against McCain.

But, why was Adler premature (beyond laws of simple numbers) in his assumption? One reason: The American/U.S. media. The media in the states will attempt to push a close race..e.g. if Obama is up (his polling) than the emphasis on affirmative coverage will be upon Clinton and visa-versa.

The same can be said regarding the general election. I already, as implied by Alder, have seen individuals touting how the RNC and McCain will eat the DNC candidate for lunch..The fact is, by the time McCain and the democratic candidate square off...corporate media will already have 'equalized' both candidates to the point of seeing many 50/50 polls McCain vs Hill/Obama.

In the end the winner will be who can best distort the nature of the economy in the U.S., mask the failure that the Iraq war is (perhaps by increasing rhetoric against Iran), and those who can further sell the distorted "american Fallacy" that of the "American Dream"...what a farce. That will be, as par usual, the candidate whom wins.

-PRIME-

Bolik:
You said "Y'all ... reject the testimony of one hundred Nobel Laureates who declare global warming to be the biggest problem facing humankind".

Actually, we reject the testimony of 2501 Nobel Peace Prize winners i.e. the 2500 members of the IPCC and one (1) Al Gore.

"Most disliked president"

The word "President" kind of negates your taught, eh bolly.

George Bush was proven way more "liked" then Kerry and Gore, and everything else is just sour grapes.

Cindy McCain is a small petite woman who owns a Beer Distribution Dynasty, and refuses to disclose her wealth to the American Public, or the US Senate.

I just hope they don't run out of Canadian Whiskey before November, because I will need to be good and drunk to vote for John McCain who supports Amnesty for Illegals, Global Warming cause by man, the Keating 5, McCain/Fiengold, the Senate 14, and voted against every Tax-Cut Bush proposed.
,

Gee, richfisher!

You have to go all the way back to 2000 and 2004 to try and counter the fact that your man has replaced NIXON as the most hated President of all time!

He's more HATED now than Nixon was when he was forced to resign!

And of course Clinton was at 70% approval - nearly 4 times what your man has - when the Reich Wing was impeaching him!

Guess you gotta take your comfort where you can find it, eh, Rich?

Haw! Haw! Haw!

Scoreboard.

Yea, and those approval ratings for Slick Willy were conducted by the Alphabet Channels which means they were scewered.

Oh, that's right Ratt

Clinton's approval ratings were down at Geo. Bush Jr.'s levels back when he was being impeached.

It was all a massive conspiracy by the liberal media that made it appear that 70% of the public approved of his Presidency.

Just like that liberal media hides the fact that Iraq is a rousing success, and pushed forth the lie that Geo. Bush is disliked by 80% of his people.

Damn them!