okay, so he has no substance, does not answer direct questions, speaks poorly, and is very self centered...

but can you give me a reason he shouldn't be elected president?

I think the exact opposite Happy! I think he speaks very well, has plenty of substance (look at the bills he has sponsored/cosponsored), and looks to improve everyone!

That's why he should be elected...hehe...

And plus, I don't take my Obama news from the National Review...I get it from Olberman...haha.

The question should be, is our children learning?

Seriously, if speaking poorly were a reason not to be elected, do you really think Bush would have made it? ....twice?

So, the National Review doesn't like Obama - not much of a newsflash there!

In a related story, moveon.org isn't crazy about Bush.

But Frank - it is reported in the media, therefore it must be true. Do you mean to tell me that the media would report something inaccurately? Or not be 100% truthful in their reporting? Or better yet, they would embelish on a minor fault, making it larger than it is? Oh, perish the thought...

Ummm...when have I ever said the media is 100% true?
Besides...it's the National Review...lol...that's like saying a story in The Progressive says President Bush supports blood for oil.

I shake my head, and say "bunch of radicals", and I move on.

Frank - humor is lost on you, isn't it?

nah...
just tired and uptight
was out last night in NYC eating Pizza and drinking Beer
Woke up to this whole moderator thing

maybe we can ask them to give us a sarcasm font on here...

Did I say it was a newsflash? I thought it was an interesting critique, and one that those who are supporting Obama based, basically, on a personality, might benefit from reading.

Also, it's National Review, not the National Review.

so he needs to have the plan for EVERYTHING? imo, a good leader is someone who can use those know a certain issue better than them to confront an issue with aplomb. certainly the author seems to think that obama has the ability to evaluate the plans of others.

in my opinion, this editorial was rather vapid. did he even have a point in all honesty?

hope that pizza and beer was in practice for our April shindig...

I'd be all over that sarcasm font...

HMMM. I smell a whiff of hypocrisy here.
Obama didn't want to get rid of Saddam,
who had made a point of rewarding the families of suicide bombers
who had killed Israelis.

Didn't Obama think the Israeli victims of suicide-bombers deserved to live?

We know Obama didn't care to defend the Shi'ites who were "savaged" by Saddam. We know Obama doesn't care to defend the unborn American who are being "savaged" by abortionists.

How does Obama decide who deserves to live?

I just can't believe how far Barak is in the polls. I heard of a poll that has him 35 points behind Hilary. Is this true? Although I think he would make a bad president, I find it amazing how many of the youth love this guy. I think that, because of this phenominon, he could lose here but win another run in the future.

Obama's about 19 behind Hillary in some of the more recent polls.

I took the article to be about the lack of substance in the Obama campaign thus far, and that he is basically running on his (admittedly appealing, I think the author concedes) personality.

what substance, relative to obama, is ANY candidate running on, j?

Obama To Raise Over $1 Million In One Night At Hollywood Event

Well, I saw some detailed proposals from Mr. Romney on tax policy just the other day. Mr. McCain has been very detailed in his criticisms of the current administration's efforts in Iraq. Mrs. Clinton has been involved in serious policy discussions and legislation previously. I think it's a fair criticism of him. You will obviously find any criticism of him otherwise.

Three weeks ago, this was the response by BOL's most fair-minded poster when I linked to an article on Obama published by National Review. From the that article's writer, today on National Review:

"Wow...Finally got around to reading Obama's Selma speech from last week. It's truly exceptional. It's a deep and challenging speech that embeds Obama's political themes in the Bible in a powerful way. Right up there with his '04 convention address. At his best, this guy is something special."

Your recent posts have made this much too personally-oriented for my comfort. Bye.

mods: just because you like J's politics doesn't mean that you should turn a blind eye to his condescending, derogatory jabs at other posters.

The first thing Ron Mexico and I have agreed on for a long time.

I am watching the posts, but why make a derogatory comment about the mods ability to remain impartial? I believe many more posts and threads started by political conservatives have been deleted in the recent past.

sorry. i respect what you guys are doing but i was just pointing out some potential irony. constructive criticism if you will. i have noticed that J has called non me "the most unbiased poster on BOL" multiple times and you can still find all the those posts unedited. and, the object of these jabs has ACTUALLY BEEN OFFENEDED.

now personally, not that big of a deal to me, but i think there was a heavy hand applied to what seemed to be more innocuous posts in the recent past.