Of course it was an attack on Obama. Had he stopped at: "they are going to ask about his drug use" I would have thought it was tacky, but an arguably legitimate statement. The inclusion of 'selling drugs' took it to a different level. We can identify broad issues the Rs might address, but we don't have to bring up something that has never been mentioned by Rs (well, except for the crazies who will say horrible things about any of our candidates) and clearly has a racist tone to it.
Create a scenario in your mind for your candidate wherein a state chair for her/his opponent brings up a racist comment that has not been mentioned by the Rs and tell us how you would react to that statement.
Anyone who is the Democratic nominee will the assaulted by attacks from the Rs.
The role of the Governor of Texas is basically public relations. The Lt. Governor sets the legislative agenda. Democrats in Texas have a hard enough time without people thinking that being governor of this state is a 'real' job. Of course he was inexperienced (with a very, very experienced Vice-President), but he was/is also a shallow, petty man.
And, you really think Reagan won because he had the experience of being governor of California? He could have gone straight to the White House from Hollywood without stopping at the governor's mansion because people (for some reason) liked what he said and liked him.
People who don't like Obama regularly act as if his experience is irrelevant. I don't think it is. But, I also can't remember the last time a president was elected because of his experience. Maybe Nixon in '68 and '72? I believe the majority of the people vote for the person they like and trust.
Not sure about your final statement. Are you saying Obama will lose because he is black?
Thanks for letting us know where you stand, Don. Predictable that Oprah would endorse the black candidate? What does that mean? What's the excuse for supporting Obama from George Soros, Ted Sorenson, George Clooney, et al?
The Concord Monitor came to a different conclusion:
"Don't get sidetracked by the mandate debate"
December 07. 2007 12:40AM"
"The great health care mandate debate is a sideshow. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards insist that forcing individuals to buy a policy is crucial to providing universal health care or something close to it. Rival Barack Obama disagrees. A mandate may be necessary to force those who refuse to sign up once affordable options are available, he says, but that step should come at the end of the march to universal care, not at the beginning.
"The debate has degenerated into arguments over who is or isn't being honest with voters. The question voters should focus on is which candidate, if elected, can convince enough Republicans - who will use words like "confiscation" to describe any mandate - to go along with a plan. The next question should be: Is this plan the best and most affordable path to universal coverage?
"On the honesty question, when it comes to health care mandates, the edge goes to Obama. He rightly says they force people to buy something before they know what it will cost and how good it will be, and many won't comply."
Thanks, Lonnette, for using the line Obama has been using all through the campaign:
"We need our next President to be truthful and to sometimes tell us things we do not want to hear."
The audience booed her because she side-stepped the question at first. She could have directly said she would make it a priority in her first 100 days, but Congress would make the decision, instead of waltzing her way to it.
I think booing a candidate is inappropriate and hope it stops. I also hope that Hillary supporters now understand how those supporting other candidates felt when everyone but Hillary was booed at the CNN debate.
You'll be happy to know that Hillary - at a press conference in Iowa this afternoon - is questioning Obama's character. I am so glad mudslinging is frowned upon by all the Hillary supporters ...although I'm sure you will have a reason why this instance is okay.