With Ron Paul gone which political cult with the Lyndon LaRoche type groupies go to next?

Maybe Chuck Norris will run for office.

The next three links are read meat for the Obama supporters.

haha Norm. Very funny. Seriously, though, all this talk about cults keeps us from discussing policy issues.

I looked up Obama's record as a state senator in Illinois and his record is impressive.

red meat?

sorry, I'm vegetarian.

Is Hillary paying you? I don't understand your anti-Obama arguments, they are weak and counter to other ideals that you regularly uphold.

I'm not sure what happened to you guys but this kind of obsession with that Obama argument is scaring me a bit. What's with the sudden change? A few weeks ago we were all about being objective, skeptical, progressive, etc. All of a sudden this has become an anti-Obama "assassin" blog.

I've been a lurker on this site for years, often checking it 3-4 times a day, and I have to come out and ask: What the hell is going on these days? You'd think that Obama is the new George W. Bush. Are there certain progressives who, with Bush almost out of the picture, now have to direct their rage toward one of their own?

These "cult" links, along with the posts from Charles Lemos, seem tired and condescending. I've seen on this blog Obama's past get nit-picked, yet nothing on the Clinton's infinitely shadier dealings. I've heard Obama criticized that he is nothing but a "brand", but EVERY politician is a brand. Obama just happens to be an incredible salesman. That doesn't disqualify him from being a smart decision-maker, and makes him MORE qualified for the job of the presidency, which is largely a figurehead position anyway. The job is to set the agenda, to inspire his or her people, and to show a positive face for the world. Progressives everywhere should be rejoicing that a man who shares their fundamental ideals has the ability to incite such passion in such a variety of people. Sometimes that passion comes out in silly ways like dumb music videos and mindless slogan chanting, but that's how a large part of the population shows enthusiasm. And it's an enthusiasm that academic minds like Lemos' seem to be sadly shut to, not realizing that that passion can bring about the changes we progressives have been wanting for so long.

Norm, I'm going to call you on this again, because you haven't responded . . .

you say the worst decisions in your life have been made as a result of being swayed by emotion . . . hmmmm

as a known evangelical atheist, are you just a little perturbed by the fact that Obama is a progressive Christian?

I don't quite buy your 'reasoning'...

Norm, you need to diversify your reading material.

Have a Cookie..

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?ex=1360299600&en=23f6946c1d507644&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

And another...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/playbyplay.asp

I'm deeply suspicious of those who rely on rhetoric as opposed to reasoned argument

But not those that use misdirection?

Have a Cookie..

Oh that red herring was yummy.

But not those that use misdirection?

I'm concerned about both, but we may differ on what qualifies as misdirection as I'm sure we disagree on what qualifies as emotional language used to persuade.

The question isn't is one bad and one good the question is on balance who would make the best president.

That's something that could stand to be made more prominent, IMHO. I know it isn't your point, Norm, but people are definitely coming away with the impression that you (and Mr. Lemos) think Obama is evil or something.

I think Hillary and Obama are both relatively decent, as electable candidates come. I don't think either candidate will have any significant problems in terms of general Presidential functioning.

I happen to think some of Obama's policies are a lot better, and I'm inclined to believe Obama is somewhat less "bought", compared to Hillary.

But it should be emphasized: Neither candidate should be dismissed outright, nor should either one be condemned wholesale.

How they are running their campaigns is pretty fucking obvious: They are trying really hard to get people to vote for them. All the mainstream candidates utilize the usual political bullshit in equal measture. None of them will admit it; they all pretend they are something special.

That us OGM regulars (noisy trolls and fanatics excluded) should be smart enough not to fall for the obligatory rhetoric and bullshit of either candidate is a given. Good for us.

Like the good lady said:

Seriously, though, all this talk about cults keeps us from discussing policy issues.

No more so than I am by Hillary's Christianity. In fact I consider Obama's views on church and state better than Hillary's.

It seems that the major difference between H. Clinton and B. Obama comes down to health care. Clinton's plan makes more sense in that if everyone is paying into the plan (that is "mandated") then it reduces the costs for everyone. In the end, however, the major point should be how do we make health care affordable? I don't have health care because I can't afford it. Both of their plans allow for those of us with pre-existing conditions to have health care and being selfish, this is the most important aspect for me.

What aspect of health care is most important for the rest of you and in what way does any of the two Democratic candidates solve that problem?

And, to be fair, how does McCain solve any of the health care problems that all of us have to deal with?

That us OGM regulars (noisy trolls and fanatics excluded)

And us cultist regulars lf 1gm too. Don't forget about us!

They are trying really hard to get people to vote for them. All the mainstream candidates utilize the usual political bullshit in equal measture. None of them will admit it; they all pretend they are something special

Yes, they're all praying to God and shit. We have to decide between two people who are pandering to the average American.

Yes, they're all praying to God and shit. We have to decide between two people who are pandering to the average American.

Exactly! :)

Ron Paul didn't quit. He just scaled back the campaign since there most likely won't be any more debates since Super Tuesday is over and the media has effectively decided to award McCain with the nomination in everybody's mind. I predict McCain wont have the required number of delegates going into the convention so the delegates are allowed to vote for anyone. So there is a remote possibility Ron Paul could still win since some delegates are Ron Paul supporters incognito and the remaining ones hate McCain. Anyway, the point is that it can only go downhill from here for McCain, Ron Paul needs to concentrate on winning his seat in congress since they will be gunning for him and use a victory over him as an excuse to shut down his message, and most importantly Ron Paul still gets to be a thorn in the Republicans side making them worry and spend money while he gets to continue to spread his message.

As for Ron Paul not running in a 3rd party, it's a good strategy. When McCain loses, the Republicans will have to blame somebody and with Ron Paul not running against McCain they only have themselves to blame. This will also be an excuse to treat Ron Paul and his message as a black horse, just like the Democrats did with Ralph Nader and his issues.