Posted on 07/27/2007 7:39:23 AM PDT by hardback
Edited on 07/27/2007 8:01:28 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- For Barack Obama, it was strike two. And this one was a right-down-the-middle question from a YouTuber in Monday night's South Carolina debate: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?"
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
“a malevolent clown like Hugo Chavez.”
Perfect
Krauthammer is a genius, but I hate it when I agree with Mrs. Clinton. Obama continues to provide definitive proof that he is not ready for prime time. Imagine putting that naive, pretentious pratt in charge of our foreign policy. It would be Jimmuh Cartuh redux. All Obama has to run on is his record of achievement.
Osama Obama’s star is setting. He doesn’t have much of a shot at the nomination.
bump
Tell it to Oprah, who thinks she is single-handedly going to get him elected president, although I doubt she would trust him with the assistant producer’s job on her TV show. Go figure.
ya'think?
Obama has officially been “Krauthammered!”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is the reason the democrats do not debate on FOX. Obama seems to wish to preserve his political life while throwing the life of our Nation under the bus.
Well said. Oprah’s support for OsamaObama is all about proving to the world how powerful she is. She definitely wouldn’t trust her TV show to the guy... or her finances. He’s an empty suit, she knows it, and she’s going to stick him in the WH just to show us her own personal power.
Of course, it’s not going to happen, but that’s what her motivation is.
> Osama Obama’s star is setting. <
Wanna bet? I say he’ll serve 8 years as Hil’s veep — even tho’ the thought sickens me.
O-bomb-a,
O-bomb-a,
Someone set us up the O-bomb-a
The only real question is has the Obama myth calcified in the minds of the Dem primary voter. If so, as we’ve seen from ample observable evidence, the primary voter can be blind to their candidate’s inherent and obvious weaknesses. No other way to explain: Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
Doesn’t mean these candidates can’t win, including the 08 version of Clinton...
She calls him too naive to be Prez and then picks him for her VP? That’s not going to help her win the general election... which is already going to be a tough up-hill battle for her, even if we nominated JulieAnnie (which we most definitely will not do).
It’s going from Hillary/Obama ‘08 to Hillary/Web ‘08
It depends on how the Republicans handle it. If they run a GeorgeBush/KarlRove type of election — basically, be nice and smile a lot — then they cannot win in ‘08.
But if they actually fight back, with imagination, enthusiasm and careful attention to detail — including all the details of what the Beast has said over the last few years — then they can’t lose.
In my opinion, Rove the Genius and Jorge the President would have lost in 2004 if it hadn’t been the courage and patriotism of the Swift Vote Vets.
Look at how badly those two screwed up 2006.
Whoops!
Swift Boat Vets!
>>Imagine putting that naive, pretentious pratt in charge of our foreign policy. It would be Jimmuh Cartuh redux.<<
Bingo. Obama, like Carter and most other ‘rats, believe a president should be nothing more than a glorified social worker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.