A kos link that gives more detai. -- from a Time mag. piece. It seems there's a more sinister side to this than "Hooray, the anti-Christ is here!"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/8/115557/4023/828/564642

Thanks.

Agreed it's a mistake to cede ground. Esp now, esp on core principles. It's been the Dem's fatal flaw.

Wig, if you're listening, THIS is the ad that Gergen was talking
about on George S's show.

What's odd about this is that Obama's voice seems altered in the
section where he talks about the light shining down and you'll
know you have to vote for Obama.

I have SOME memory, though, of Obama saying something like this,
but as a self-spoof of how others were critting him.

But maybe the point is--as Carroll's article suggests--the
Republicans have balls the size of the sun and the Dems just don't.
I don't think they could bring themselves to do the equivalent
treatment on McCain, even though he's a "target rich" figure for
spoofing.

Living in a remote mountain town, the only AM radio station I can receive with clarity plays a steady stream of conservative talk shows. They're somewhat entertaining (until it becomes repetitive), but also revealing on a number of fronts ... so I listen.

The tact in the video ad very closely resembles the go-to trajectory Rush & Hannity try to drive home day after day ("Obama the great one" or "our saviour").

There may be an attempt here to build credibility via converging, yet different media sources (video ad + constant radio droning of the same message).

Nonetheless, I agree this ad lacks any substance and only serves to undermine the serious discussions about real issues our nation deserves to hear and take part in.

Steve,

I've thought for a while now that the foreign policy students and scholars are, and have been, blissfully unaware of the pronounced impact the Rapturists have had on the foreign policy of the US. Particularly our policy in the Middle East. I've always seen the topic as the 800lb elephant in the room no one wanted to talk about. I'm still waiting for one single reporter to mustard up the courage to ask Bush if he is a believe in the Rapture.

For Evangelical 'end-timers', if the Anti-Christ has appeared, they have already missed "The Rapture" (the event where all those 'saved' ascend bodily into heaven to await Christ's return at the Battle of Armageddon where he defeats the Anti-Christ and rules, with the Raptured, for a 1,000 years, and then The Judgment...)...so, by claiming that Obama is the Anti-Christ they have already self-judged themselves as the "Left Behind"...

I can't understand these anti christ religious fanatics, they are just insane to me.

If they were treated individually for their obsession they would no doubt be diagnosed as mentally unbalanced so it is scary that we have large numbers in this country who believe this stuff. They are like a cult in fact they probably meet the definition of a cult.

"What's odd about this is that Obama's voice seems altered in the section where he talks about the light shining down and you'll know you have to vote for Obama."

Sweetness, when you play it backwards, it says "Paul is dead." The left is officially as batshit crazy as the right now. And if they thought Obama was The One, as Oprah said, they would be voting for him. I think. Who really knows?

Sweetness/Carroll
"But maybe the point is--as Carroll's article suggests--the
Republicans have balls the size of the sun and the Dems just don't.
I don't think they could bring themselves to do the equivalent
treatment on McCain, even though he's a "target rich" figure for
spoofing"

I think there's more to it than this. What if the Dems lace into the Reps -- how do the media play the attacks? Have seen suggestions that Brokaw, ABC are pro-McCain. Fox of course is. So if, say, Obama laces in to the War Hero, older gentleman, MAVERICK (insert trademark symbol), the result is that Obama loses in the media criticism. If McCain laces in, vast quantities of talking points-bots are suddenly omnipresent and it's spun that McCain has a good point.

Can we clone Rachel Maddow?!

Carroll,

Many people, especially people who are inclined to look favorably on the Enlightenment, think these people are "just insane". And so, rationally, assume they must have little influence on national policy. Well, it tain't necessarily so. I think Bush is one of the "just insane", and I mean that. Not an exaggeration or a throw away line like 'ah, he's nuts'. This MF IS nuts. But who, among the 'serious people' in the Village, are going to go down this road? No one I've seen but Kevin Phillips.

Let's remember that there are several places in the country where
there are SERIOUS challenges to teaching evolution. Challenges
that have been supported by elected school boards. There is at
least one well-funded museum in which dioramas portray humans
riding dinosaurs. And the penumbra spreads out from there:
HUGE numbers of Americans don't "believe" in evolution. It's a
quick tiptoe through the tulips from there to the anti-Christ.

Sorry guys, I say this with affection, but you’re crazy if you think this ad only appeals to folks obsessed with eschatology. Maybe there is some coded message about the anti-Christ that only card carrying religious fanatics can discern. But I don't believe in the devil, the anti-Christ, the Wicked Witch of the West or the Wizard of Oz, and I think the ad perfectly captures what's wrong with Obama.

I understand that lots of folks disagree, but I would argue that the fanatics are the Obama supporters. Being unable to support him because of any of his deeds (remember he's done nothing in his life to prepare him for the job); they support him on faith alone.

Apparently experience doesn't matter, consistency doesn't matter, judgment doesn't matter; it's got to be something else. I guess it's like Bush staring into Putin's eyes. Obama supporters have stared into the eyes of their candidate and gotten a sense of his soul. How ironic is that? Obama supporters judging character the same way Bush does. Or maybe Obama supporters forgot that they're electing a President, not selecting an American Idol winner.

I get that Obama's policies are better than McCain's and that if nothing else, he can probably complete his term before dementia sets in. But I don't get why Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that millions of Americans (not just right wing Christians) find Obama genuinely creepy. The polling shows it. A higher percentage of Republicans plan to vote for McCain than Democrats planning to vote for Obama. Millions of Democrats, not just Christian fundamentalists, don't like or trust the Senator from Illinois.

And of course, to make matters worse, Obama decided to accept the nomination at a stadium in front of tens of thousands of adoring fans. Kind of like the Pope or the Beatles. If you think that's fine, good for you. Millions of people, many of whom are good Democrats, find it genuinely bizarre.

Sweetness, in your comment you wonder if Obama's voice has been altered in the ad. I have no idea whether or not it has been, but I do know one thing. Obama actually made the comments about himself that the video portrays. Those comments are messianic.

If Obama tries to sound like a religious figure he (and his supporters) are hardly in a position to complain about an ad that pokes fun at that.

In fact, I think there's a biblical passage that deals with just this. It goes something like
"whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

But if you’re not religious, you can always fall back on Karma to explain the McCain ad about Obama. You remember that oldie but goodie,

"What goes around comes around."

This seems like a peculiar choice on the part of the McCain campaign. If I believed that Obama is the Antichrist, would I vote against him? Wouldn't a vote for McCain be a vote against the divine plan? Casting Obama as Antichrist might offer some people a way to respond to an Obama victory, but I don't see how it will get out many votes.

ell, Wig, maybe it comes down to this: I'm a galitzianer and
you're probably a litvak.

I would like to see the original tape on that one because I don't
believe Obama meant the comment in the way it's portrayed in
the ad. If he did, you've got a point. Otherwise...

In any event, Gergen correctly pegged this as an open racist ad.

To be honest, I cannot see why anyone would consider Obama
"creepy." Not in the slightest. His faults, which I acknowledge,
strike me as garden variety for a pol. He's hardly flip-flopped
compared to McCain... His pastor weakness is no worse than
McCain's, if it's worse at all... His Rezko connections seem no
worse than the Keating affair and McCain's multiple lobbyist ties.

As to not standing for anything, he at least has a slogan folks
can remember and has held on to it for most of his campaign.
Back in the day, Hillary changed slogans with the weather and
her outfits as she tried to find something that would connect
with the electorate. I still don't know what McCain's slogan is.

On the issues, he seems reasonably consist in terms of his view
which was NEVER a straight ahead liberal or progressive one. he
ALWAYS said, or telegraphed, right from the 2004 convention
speech, that he would take from the Republican column in order
to achieve agreement. He always presented himself as non-
doctrinaire, dogmatic or ideological. So while it's fair to call him
a liberal, IMO, he isn't going to stand there and get machine-
gunned while "sticking to his guns." He's going to move, duck,
and weave...to keep moving. That, to me, is smart.

As to judgement, surely his is at least as good as that of his two
opponents who either supported a disastrous war or trusted
Bush to do the right thing with the AUMF.

Obama repeatedly pushes the messianic shtick ("I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"), but the Invesco decision is pure politics -- it's all about running around the Clinton delegates.

The neat thing about dog whistles is that only dogs can hear them. And the whistler can deny he was whistling at all.

Is that really "sinister orange"? It looks more like "warm sunset orange" to me.

You see what you want to see.

Pls people, can we tell McCain that he needs to stop these negative ads because they are just dumb and undermine the intellect of the American people. They are also venomous and unbecoming of anyone who wants to lead the country. VOTE FOR OBAMA!!! Visit WHYOBAMA08.ORG!!! OBAMA 08!

The reason this ad works is that Obama DOES come off as incredibly egomaniacal and has some fervent followers (yes, not all, but some very vocal ones) who are so devoted that they lash out like mad at the slightest criticism of him. It's as bad as the Bushies. Messianic imagery and quasi religious language have been overused by his own campaign. They're fair game for mockery. The New Republic ran a cover image of him as a religious icon, there have been photos of him with halos, his website and print design style is full of clouds and light..

McCain's ad people didn't use the Moses voice and all to paint him as the antichrist. They did it BECAUSE IT IS FUNNY. Hillary Clinton was funny too, mocking Obama with that riff on the skies opening up and shining light down and heavenly choirs singing. Do you ever get stuck watching a preview of an overwrought, melodramatic big budget Hollywood movie with a portentious voiceover telling you it's Very Serious and Important and the Fate of the World Is at Stake? That's what I feel like watching the Obama campaign.

If anything, I thought the McCain ad seriously risked offending evangelicals, because it used Biblical references and religious overtones as a punchline.

The irony in McCain repeating Hillary Clinton's failed 'He's a celebrity!' tactic is that John McCain is the celebrity in this campaign.

McCain has hostes Saturday Night Live how many times many times? Made guest appearances on sitcoms, etc., so often it's fairly mind-boggling when you think about it.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/08/verdict-isnt-john-mccain-the-real-celebrity-in-the-race/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0564587/

Sweetness, if your a galitzianer, I highly recommend an extraordinary website called Gesher Galicia. You can find it at:

www.jewishgen.org/galicia/

It is a really interesting site with all types of geneological and historical information.

By the way, if you are a galitzianer, I'm a lantzman.

But I still think Obama is a gonif and McCain is an alter kocker.

Wigwag,
This is what I meant by dishonest and wielding personal attacks that can't bear minimal scrutiny:
Wigwag:
"I understand that lots of folks disagree, but I would argue that the fanatics are the Obama supporters. Being unable to support him because of any of his deeds (remember he's done nothing in his life to prepare him for the job); they support him on faith alone."

"Apparently experience doesn't matter, consistency doesn't matter, judgment doesn't matter . . ." [etc.]

These things do matter, and Obama's the one that's got them.

Wigwag: " remember he's done nothing in his life to prepare him for the job." Wholly erroneous.

The Constitution states anyone can be Prznt as long as they're over 35 and native-born. That's why it's great to be an American. If you're that good, you don't have to descend from the House of WigWag, nor scrape and bow to fit her very particular aristocratic standards. History shows many Prznts have minimal experience (Abe Lincoln). And Sen. Obama has plenty of experience, law school, law professor, state senator admired by Republican colleagues, invested his energy on tough problems community organizing, US Senator.

The 'consistency' gambit is likewise bankrupt: Obama never switched positions on offshore drilling for example--merely said if it was done right, if it worked, he'd be stupid not to consider it.

And judgment? You had in mind Sen. Edwards, perhaps? Mrs. Clinton? who not only was for NAFTA before she was against it, actually allowed Mark Penn to lobby for Colombia while ostensibly serving this sountry. Never mind the clear conflict of interest with his obligation to Hillary; she couldn't even fire him---because she owned him too much money.

MoveOn.org had Obama calling drilling a "gimmick". He's all over the map.

Rich, I never said that he wasn't qualified to be president under the constitution. He's certainly 35 years old and presumably he and McCain are both natural born (although I know there has been controversy about that for both candidates). It's his credentials to be president that are lacking.

If there has been a less qualified Democratic nominee in the past 50 years, I would like to know who it might be. Which Democratic nominee in modern history do you think was less qualified than Obama? I can't think of any. In fact, I can't think of any Republican nominee in the past 50 years who has been less qualified than Obama.

And please don't site Bush and Cheney as evidence that experience doesn't matter. No one ever said that experience guarantees a person will be a good president. But I do think it's reasonable to conclude that experience is a prerequisite to being a good president.

And I know that Obama supporters frequently compare him to Abraham Lincoln, but in my humble opinion that comparison might be a tad premature.

But it seems we do agree on some things. We agree he went to Harvard Law School and did very well there. We agree that he taught constitutional law about 8 hours a week and we agree he was a state senator. We probably also agree that he was an activist for a few years but I think his activism and his state senate career were undistingusihed at best and corrupt at worst. You probably think he served in both capacities with distinction.

You think his record qualifies him to be president. I think it's pathetic. But I can accept the fact that you and I disagree about that.

I'd never go to a surgeon or a lawyer or an accountant or even a barber who were as inexperienced in their fields as the junior senator from Illinois is in his.

Perhaps you would. But frankly, I doubt it. I've had plenty of friends who have needed angioplasty and bypass surgery. Everyone of them wants the most experienced surgeon they can find.

Is the job of the President of the United States so trivial that experience for that job is less important than for any other job?

The next time I see an Obama supporter agree to be operated on by a Resident instead of a full fledged surgeon, I'll know that they're sincere when they say experience doesn't matter.

Oh, and when it comes to judgement, I have no problems at all with your criticism of the judgement of Senators Edwards or Clinton. But I do wonder which particular judements that Senator Obama has made that you think are so astute. His opposition to the war was meaningless. He was a nobody seeking a state senate seat in one of the most liberal communities in the country. His position showed no courage at all. When he got to the Senate he voted like all the other candidates seeking the democratic nomination. Of course, once he secured the nomination and it came time to vote on the FISA bill; the Senators and Congressman who ran agaisnt him voted against the bill and he voted for it.

So I wonder, what is it about his judgement that you like so much?

WigWag:
"I never said that he wasn't qualified to be president under the constitution." Sure you did. "(remember he's done nothing in his life to prepare him for the job)." Never mind the complete lack of honesty there. Let's skip the obvious-but-failing method of attacking Obama's greatest strengths, and with it, the facts on the public record.

You're attempting to impose a litmus test expressly forbidden by the Constitution. What makes this country great, and generates enormous feelings of patriotism, is precisely the fact that Americans---legally, politically, culturally---value merit, integrity and ability over conventional recognition or experience bestowed by the status quo. Anybody can be President, because the larger pool of work and life produces better candidates than the oxygen-poor aristocratic realm of wealth, lineage, 'breeding' or social 'class' or status.

You simply want to substitute a different litmus test, to include some and exclude others. America needs fewer insiders and more participation by people with less conventional experience. A fixation on 'experience' has served us poorly in the last 50 or so years.

"If there has been a less qualified Democratic nominee in the past 50 years, I would like to know who it might be." You would?

Jimmy Carter had 8 years experience; Obama has 11. Franklin Roosevelt only 2, Teddy Roosevelt--4.5, Reagan--8, Bush43--6, John Adams--8, Woodrow Wilson--0. And remember, Hillary Clinton only has 8 as an elected official---less than Obama.

Better yet, keep in mind James Madison had only 8 as a legislator---and none before he 'Fathered' the Constitution. Beat that.

Dwight Eisenhower had 0 years experience as an elected official.

Abraham Lincoln served 8 years in the Illinois House--and only one term in the US House before being elected President.

Abraham Lincoln.

So, WigWag, you're incorrect on several counts when you write:
"And please don't site [sic] Bush and Cheney as evidence that experience doesn't matter. No one ever said that experience guarantees a person will be a good president. But I do think it's reasonable to conclude that experience is a prerequisite to being a good president."

Bush and Cheney prove my point in both directions. Bush had less exp than Obama, yet was seen as a fit nominee whose experience was not questioned. Cheney proves experience is an active NEGATIVE, displaying all the blindness and disconnect and corruption the Constitutional provision was designed to avoid, if the electorate so chose.

We've disproven your notion that "experience is a prerequisite to being a good president." It just is not so. See James Madison, Franklin Roosevelt, Ike, and Abraham Lincoln. The litany of presidents with very little experience--and comparable experience is endless.

Bottom line is your exhausted and tawdry line of argument was ignored and dismissed when Hillary Clinton tried it rather than running on an actual set of policies. Worse, though, your litmus test is extremist, contradicts the best qualities of the American character, and relies on a total denial of Senator Obama's actual record. Yours is an absolutist stance; Americans are by definition not absolutists.

MOST curious, WigWag, is:
"Senator Obama['s] . . opposition to the war was meaningless. He was a nobody seeking a state senate seat in one of the most liberal communities in the country. His position showed no courage at all."

A "nobody"? I think your attitude speaks volumes. It's the prime indicator for getting a read on where you're coming from, not to mention the integrity with which you characterize people and politics. America is full of "nobodys." Thank god, too. Somebody told me most of them were pretty decent people and worthy of great respect.

Far from being "meaningless," Obama's opposition to the war was a lone honest voice that galvanized the American people when every 'experienced' leader failed the country on that score. Obama's speech rang out when most of our glorious leaders had neither the guts nor understanding to speak the truth, even if any had the clarity of insight, wisdom or leadership---or the political acuity---to even see that the Iraq War & Occupation was not only an unbelievably poor idea and hardly in the national interest, but illegally entered into dishonestly pursued by George Bush.

Meaningless? Hardly. It only won him the nomination and turned the overall tide this country.

No courage? Please. The guy's running for President, which means he has to deal with folks like you.

Speaking out in general is meaningful and requires courage, regardless of the forum, or the individual's station in life.

Senator Barack Obama had courage when experienced elected officials had none. He could've kept his mouth shut, but instead he spoke out, and the guts that took in all likelihood won him the Presidency.

WigWag, you said "Live and let live," but you don't operate that way. You don't just attack or deny; you totally eviscerate Senator Obama's lifelong accomplishments, judgment and professional experience---all of which are considerable. By speaking in absolutist terms, you leave behind the reality of the factual record and presume to leave Obama nothing. He's "done nothing in his life"; he's "a nobody."

That's wholly dishonest. It's a method of smearing a person of great integrity.

And it's eliminationist. I mean that in a very specific sense, not only of Orwellian totalitarian erasure, but that you intend to deliver your own personal holocaust by eliminating Senator Obama, his entire reality and person, from the public realm (here, anywhere).

That's sad. But, with all due respect, speaking in less absolute language and refraining from such abuses would much further in making your case. Catapulting the propaganda only works on the true believers and a sliver of rubes. Neither will tilt this election.

So repeat the talking points, erase all the widely availabe facts you like, deny, deny, deny. Feel free. It's what I meant when I'd said you're dishonest. You'll make no headway at all. People wised up decades ago.

Funniest thing: calling Obama supporters 'naive' or "fanatics." Pragmatic, down-to-earth, and realistic come to mind: we could've nominated another Kerry or even Hillary. But we've too much experience to fall for the same-old, same-old one more time.

Btw, did you see John Kerry faciliate Joe Lieberman aggressively catapult John McCain's dishonest talking points on Meet the Press last week. Let old Joe walk all over him, never contradicted a single point Joe made, and let Joe have 90% of the airtime. That's experience. Almost like they work together.

Reminds me of Hillary Clinton co-sponsoring bills with Lieberman to denounce violence in video games. So eager were they to exploit parental reflexes and assume an assiduously moral posture, they threw free trade and free expression under the bus. It's Lieberman's PMRC gambit: his staged 'moralism' trumps the basic freedom, held by right, of Frank Zappa and Jello Biafra to engage in free trade and express themselves in the public square. But American liberties and Constitutionally protected speech wasn't enough for Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman: they had to insist other people meet their moral standards, and sought to exploit that for political gain.

Get it? Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman had time to denounce PRETEND violence and sexual content in video games---but don't have the integrity to put a screeching halt to the real killing and maiming of adults --- and children! must protect hte children--- in Iraq.

Against sex, pretend-horrified at sexual content on TV and in video games, yet the obscenity of war somehow escapes both Clinton and Lieberman.

THIS is why experience matters, and why Barack Obama has all the experience any candidate needs. Experience kills---literally. Experience embraces jaw-dropping hypocrisy with unbelievable chutzpah.

Experience does not have the gumption, wisdom, political acumen or leadership to vote againstthe War and Occupation of Iraq. Or hold George Bush accountable.

That's why Barack Obama's speech and stance on the war was so important and so electrifying. It cut right through all the bullshit and told the freakin' Truth. And the contrast with our experienced glorious leaders in DC could not have been sharper. They had every advantage, and they got it wrong.

WigWag, that's why your plaint about experience is so laughable. Experience ran for President, on a platform of Experience---and lost. Clinton patronized and attacked and it didn't work, because her experience did not confer good judgment. And again, she had less of it than Obama.

I never though it was so :O

Arizona journalist with long history of covering McCain says...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/8/91630/57190/880/564566

questions:

I like the one Pat Murphy relates about Rose Mofford, who assumed the AZ Governorship after Ev Meacham's impeachment.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_08/014255.php

>>
"Coincidentally, that very same day, Pat Murphy, then publisher of the Arizona Republic, was also in Washington to meet with the delegation. He and his wife had lunch plans with McCain, and as Murphy recalls, they went to the hearing room where Mofford was testifying, to meet up with him. Murphy had written glowingly of McCain and considered him a personal friend."

"....During lunch, McCain said, almost with mischievous glee, that he had slipped some highly technical questions to [James McClure] to ask Mofford — questions she wouldn't be prepared to answer or expected to answer."

The hostile questions were about CAP, AZ's water project. And apparently, the brand-new Governor----a woman with a bright white beehive hairdo who had quietly overseen Arizona's elections for decades and had no ambition for higher office---was humiliated at a largely ceremonial appearance, for no real reason.
questions:

I like the one Pat Murphy relates about Rose Mofford, who assumed the AZ Governorship after Ev Meacham's impeachment.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_08/014255.php

>>
"Coincidentally, that very same day, Pat Murphy, then publisher of the Arizona Republic, was also in Washington to meet with the delegation. He and his wife had lunch plans with McCain, and as Murphy recalls, they went to the hearing room where Mofford was testifying, to meet up with him. Murphy had written glowingly of McCain and considered him a personal friend."

"....During lunch, McCain said, almost with mischievous glee, that he had slipped some highly technical questions to [James McClure] to ask Mofford — questions she wouldn't be prepared to answer or expected to answer."

The hostile questions were about CAP, AZ's water project. And apparently, the brand-new Governor----a woman with a bright white beehive hairdo who had quietly overseen Arizona's elections for decades and had no ambition for higher office---was humiliated at a largely ceremonial appearance, for no real reason.

Kinda goes to character.

Obama is the Messiah for all extents and purposes.

If elected, he shall deliver us from The Evil Ones.

If not, The Evil continues.

Do you not think it Evil to deceive a nation into War, a War that has killed 50,000+; or is it only that they were sadly mistaken about WMD?

This election IS the battle of the Messiah vs. The Evil, and The Evil must be destroyed.

Will you vote for The Evil to continue, or deliverance from it.

Vote Messiah, and deliver us from Evil,

Amen

Rich, calm down. I get that you disagree with me (strongly) but I do think this is a bit much:

"...but that you intend to deliver your own personal holocaust by eliminating Senator Obama, his entire reality and person, from the public realm (here, anywhere)."

I can only think of one type of person who would make such an over the top statement. Now lets see, what was it I called Senator Obama's supporters? Oh, that's right, I said they were fanatics.

Thanks for proving my point!

WigWag, I have read and respected Rich's posts for a long, long, long time on the Note. He NEVER responds, (as I sometimes impatiently do), with cheap shots and gratuitous insults. He sticks to the high road. He discusses the issues and eviscerates his opponents with facts, not imaginings or innuendo.

Imo, Rich is one of the premier thinkers contributing to the Washington Note. What he types, I read avidly, always learning from the experience.

For you to have raised the ire of Rich to the point that he has chosen to respond personally to your nonsense only confirms my worst opinions of you.

So it isn't just me and a few of the other commie-pinko, Arab-luving anti-Semites that are infuriated with your belligerence and bellicosity – your disingenuous dishonesty – your slick, slippery sentences and your condescending, googlized, simplistic ways of explaining things to your minions - it’s also those measured, respectful contributors in this maddening crowd who are tired of your braying nonsense.

Surely, that tells you something?

WigWag,

You are correct that most of Obama's supporters are fanatics as our first and foremost goal is to destroy The Evil Ones and those who wish to continue The Evil.

A follower of Evil will likely see fanaticism when looking upon the zeal of those filled with the righteous wrath to destroy The Evil Ones in our midst. The fanaticism you see is a righteous wrath to see that our ideals to ascend once again and that Evil reigns no more.

Should not Americans be fanatics when they have a chance to destroy The Evil within that has deceived their nation into an illegal, immoral and unnecessary War that has resulted in the deaths of 50,000+?

Turn away from the Deceivers who will lead us further down the path of Evil and destruction.

Verily, this is our last chance to be delivered from The Evil Ones.

Vote Messiah.

Hey, Arthur, I warned ya. It doesn't take a genious to to pick the ass out of the horse herd. That would be the little squat critter nipping hind ends and brayin' for all its worth.

POA: "Hey, Arthur, I warned ya."

Yes, you did. I'll listen closer next time.

I promise.

WigWag,

You prefer to label Obama voters as "fanatics" rather than deal with them as thoughtful human beings.

That's an extremist position you are attempting to defend.

Such demonizing tactics can only be intended to mislead and marginalize.

Every totalitarian state had their rhetorical handmaidens and active public relations men and propagandists, whether Stalin or Hitler---or anyone else. Who is your use of language intended to abet?

A little nuance and some recognition of human complexity would aid your cause and come across more persuasively. Try it.

But why say "calm down" when I'm not riled up? I suggest you respond on substance---and refrain from patronizing fellow commenters. Painting me as 'angry' doesn't make it so---and does not devalue the merit of my comment. Think! Abraham Lincoln, one term in the US House of Representatives.

I'd await an on-point response, but once someone shreds the kind of flat statements you've been pushing, there's just not much more you can throw at the wall. Funny though, attempting to demoralize a campaign based on hope.

Point is, you say "Live and let live," but operate in a manner that completely contradicts the virtues of tolerance and open-minded engagement---your isn't reasonable.

You're obviously very intelligent. What have you got to offer that's constructive? Personally, I'd be very interested in hearing what you would do to restart the American economy and revive our military. Give it a shot.

He who casts the first stone is the anti-christ... He who refuses to turn the other cheek is the anti-christ... He who does not do unto others as he would have done unto himself is the anti-christ....He who does not love his enemy is the anti-christ....

Meanwhile, back in the Beltway.... I see a lot of horny, pointed tailed critters running around...

Little entertainment.

Here's Sen. Obama's response to McCain's "Celebrity" ad. It's called "Embrace."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBPZyXvEw6M&eurl=http://www.crooksandliars.com/

And here's Cokie Roberts, opining that Obama stumbled by vacationing ... at home. Because, you know, Hawaii is so exotic, and foreign-like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My7-CCGfD3s

Who ever become the president of the united states will be the next Anti-Christ,lol... there is no doubt. Those christians pastors are scared because they know they will be judge and go to hell for lying and abusing children of God. Most

all so called Pastors or evangelical online tried to say people how to avoid the anti-christ... this is no sense. Nobody is stupid no more and they don't see that. The anti-christ has been in the world for quite bit now, I just believed, the end of the Anti-christ will be finish soon if you consider the fact that Joshua the hebrews that the Romans killed was a black person and his name wasn't Jesus in any Hebrew translation, the so called christianity that we got now is already the anti-christ... how many false peace those goverments with the blessing of so called pastors promised already or signed? world war 1 world war 2, Hitler killed for Jesus...etc... Hitler killed europeans Jews for a black man name Jesus? got real people!!!
When the non sense will be finish? smarthy people!