Political Punch

Spock, once again you miss the point. I knew perfectly well what you were asking, and it is still none of your business. Since you've described what (you think) "libs" believe in, allow me to list what conservatives obviously believe in, based on their behavior: soliciting homosexual sex in bathrooms, making lewd propositions to Congressional pages, accepting numerous kickbacks from lobbyists, and engaging in other clandestine activities, all the while acting hypocritical about how they would NEVER do such things. Please spare us your assessments of the "libs" from your point of view.

chuck - Lib talking points at its best , all talk and nothing to back it up, I was not asking how much you paid just a yes or no. Interesting.

First a little bit a knowledge for you, I am not ultraconservative, (i find it funny if you speak the truth your a conservative, if you fight back against the liberal hordes your ultrconservative)
Attila the Hun and actually Hitler were closer to communism beliefs then anything else. Conservatism is new to the US, see conservative believe in the Constitution as it was written, and that it can only be changed by amendments, not like libs that believe it changes with time. We believe in state rights, small Government and so forth.

What do libs believe in? Large Government, High taxes, the average person can not work hard and get the car they want but a trila lawyer can get whatever he wants because he says he worked hard. (Edwards anyone?)

Spock, I didn't answer you because, quite frankly, it's none of your business. If "modern day lib is closer to Stalinist Communism then anything else", as you insist, then modern-day ultraconservatices like you are closer to Attila the Hun tha anything else.

chuck - you did not answer is that because you got a tax break or that you did not pay taxes? You are actually right the modern day lib is closer to Stalinist Communism then anything else.

Bunch of phonies

Spock, how dare you presume to tell me what I must think! This tactic is a very old trick from the ultraconservative playbook, where you set up exaggerated, untrue statements which were never expressed and then attack someone as having stated them. Your grotesque distortions of the positions of the "libs" simply reflects your, and your party's, increasingly out-of-touch positions.

Hey why not did not Clinton use Reagan's play book.

The point is also not just his inexperience in Washington but his overall experience, what has he ever run? NOTHING.

Dave - What did Obama accomplish. please let us know, since you seem to be the only one, so it must not be that impressive?

There is no comparing President Bush to 2 year senator Obama, see Bush is a man of substance, a True leader that believes in Liberty and Freedom.

When did you ever hear one of these socialists speak of Liberty or Freedom?

Grant - Yeah right!! Bomb our allies ok

Chuck - tell us the truth did you get a tax break? from the taxes you pay? What do you consider wealthy? We know Obama and Edwards think anyone making over 25,000 a year is wealthy? You must think the same because the tax breaks were given to anyone who paid taxes and since Bush raise the taxable level from Clintons 15,000 to almost 20,000.

STOP With the Propaganda Libs who hate this country!!!

Politicians all, to some degree, read lines from the same book. It is difficult to discern the difference except by judging their character from past situations.

Obama makes more sense than Bush has ever has, and he can speak without his notes. We really do not need a President elected in 08. We have done without for 6 years now. Everyone that was around Bush, has now left his side. Scum Bags are gone, on the Scum left. for now.

In general, Sen. Obama is indeed singing the same song that the President sang during his campaign, albeit with slightly different lyrics. However, he must do this to differentiate himself from the front-runner of his party, as well as to defuse her criticisms. As SteveW. so correctly pointed out, virtually every one of the presidential candidates since Watergate has run as an "outsider" to Washington, and some have been more successful than others in emphasizing their "experience."

But, in my estimation, these questions aren't really as important as the candidates and media would have us believe. Rather than focusing on the red herring of "experience" (keeping well in mind that most of the "experience" which our most recent presidents have had before their election to the office was heading a state government) or of being an "outsider" (to politics in our Capitol, but not to politics at the state level), we should pay close attention to the candidates' records of accomplishment--what they did as opposed to what they said they would do.

If this were done in 2000, one casual glance at the Texas governor's record would have shown that he was like Arpege perfume: he promised a lot but delivered little--tax breaks for the wealthy, shoddy education to the poor, the highest capital punishment rate in the country, and was certainly not a "uniter, not a divider" when it came to highly partisan politics. Instead, voters focused on the fact that he was an "outsider" who now has as his legacy execrable relations with Congress and cannot build consensus on the time of day, much less any important legislative issue.

Four of five elected Presidents since Watergate have been Washington outsiders, all of whom were accused of lacking experience. All argued that they did have some world stage experience--all of it positive--while their opponents' more extensive experience included many mistakes and bore the taint of D.C. Hillary-Corp. runs like a machine because of her campaign experience and her Washington contacts. She's a proven Liberal in a liberal party. Her main vulnerability is her Washington experience--voting for the war, the Vince Foster 'suicide' with its ties to Whitewater, firing the non-partisan Travel Office staff to give those jobs to cronies, closed-door meetings on health care, renting the Lincoln Bedroom, pretending she didn't know about her brother selling pardons, pretending she didn't know about Bill's decades-old sex addiction while it was ruining some young womens'lives, and accepting contributions from Communist Chinese fat cats--once for Bill, and now, again, for her. Obama knows how he has to criticize Clinton, and he is doing it--exactly how it has been done successfully in the past. So who could possibly be surprised by or critical of Obama's strategy? Only Clinton people, who believe that any criticism of their candidate's misdeeds is a plot and that their criticism of others is fact-finding.

yeah, and this just in: Obama has two arms. And so does Bush. The similarities never cease!

Mr. Tapper,
this is getting pathetic. Are you working for the Clinton campaign. There is no comparison between Obama and Bush that anyone with half a brain can discern. As a reader above noted, the actual comparison is between Obama and Bill Clinton, who was very clear about the irrelevance of Washington experience when he ran in '92 but suddenly thinks it's important. This is just more of your garbage---like Obama want's to invade Pakistan. If you actually spoke with anyone with foreign policy experience (i.e., read the WashPo) you'd know they almost to a person, agreed with Obama's policy positions.

Big difference Mr tapper Obama is smart... and he actually accomplish something before he came to Washington. Bill Clinton in (92 is a better analogy. Go find that Video where Clinton talks about experience.

I see you are getting your talking points from Hillary.

Won't work...

uh, Sen. Clinton has only been in the Senate 4 years more than Sen. Obama...to me, that does not make her vastly more experienced...sure, she played an important role in her husband's adminstrations both in Little Rock and in Washington, but that's just not the same as having actually governed as an elected or confirmed official