I found this pretty amusing. http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

Originally Posted by Lil Dancer

I found this pretty amusing. http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

I might have found it funnier if it wasn't so true in many respects. I think Morford short-changed McCain but we are talking the Chronicle and I would have been surprised to read a positive statement about a Republican candidate. Just not gonna happen in my lifetime.

However, if we simply look at comments made in this forum, it makes it so much less amusing. The degradation of Obama's name has even been done here. The scare tactics about his name, the fact that his names are Muslim, that he is not patriotic, ad nauseum, has been mentioned more than once.

I'm still not sure how he proposes to make the changes he wants and I'm hoping there will be more details if he gets the Democratic nomination. But rather than focus on these issues the Coulters, the ultra conservatives and their followers play games with his name, accuse him of being a Muslim and warn that he will give this country away to HIS allies (and our enemies), etc.

For now, I'm still in the Hillary corner even with Bill standing behind or beside her. I've never been thrilled with Bill's morals but that, to me, is none of my business. Some women can accept infidelity, some can't. I'm in the can't camp. Hillary obviously isn't no matter what her reason. No matter, barring nosy media and the like, it is not a national concern. It wasn't for Presidents of the past, it shouldn't be for Presidents of today.

I do believe Hillary is a very cold, calculating person but that can be a good thing in any person leading a country, especially one like America. I really don't want a bleeding heart, cry at the drop of a hat type person making decisions such as whether we should be in a war, whether we should defend ourselves, etc. That needs a level head. I sincerely doubt Hillary has ever made a decision without weighing the pros and cons and thinking what the possible outcome of those pros and cons will be.

I have a hard time with a Bush bashing reporter from California who is for all practical purposes making a mockery of our nominating and campaigning process (some of which may be deserved). It is a credibility issue. Like Matt Drudge....uuuurrrrrppppp!!!!
Be first no matter whether true or false...BE FIRST!!!

What do we see? A non traditional candidate? Inexperienced in DC (not a negative in my book). Right or wrong he represents to our youth something other than the lying, cheating, lecherous power grabbing incumbents including Hillary and McCain.

It will be interesting to watch.

I find it disturbing on an ongoing basis that the best people for the job are not in the running!!!! There isn't one of the three at the moment worthy of the office....all for different reasons.

Just keep a low profile so as not to be hit by the mud slinging that is just warming up.

BTK >

No comment except to recognize that it comes to us from San Francisco.

1rnfl Hancle: OMG! You're probably a very nice man and I love your picture, but what does that even mean???? It comes from San Francisco?? Did they secede from the Union?

I could understand if you said it came from the Chronicle. It is a very liberal paper. However, to make it a blanket statement about San Francisco is pushing it. There are some conservatives there. Heck, there are even some true-blue John Birchers in SF and the Bay Area. There are even newspapers just for them. So, change your statement to, "No comment except to recognize that it comes from the San Francisco Chronicle." and you'd have hit the nail on the head, but the column still has some valid points.

And, Chels, there are many Californians who would love to secede from the union. They were the 7th richest nation in the world 10 years ago. Not sure where California stands today.