1. Ann wrote:

Can we deport the Clintons?

2. San wrote:

Yeah I’m with you…I don’t know how I feel about this! It is setting the stage for the rug to be pulled out from right underneath Obama.

3. Logic wrote:

Ditto to everything you wrote. This, along with his subpar performance over the weekend, has me feeling like the election might slip away. If it does, I’m done with politics.

I said the same thing back in 2004 when these idiots re-elected GW Bush. This country is filled with so many stupid people. This fact gets me depressed sometimes because I know that no matter how much better Obama’s policy positions are than McCain’s, America will focus on silly shit like flag pins and middle names.

That’s why I don’t fault Obama for some of the acrobatics that he has performed. If he wants to get into office he has to get his Mary Lou Retton on.

4. Concerned wrote:

I’m right there with you. This is a chilling reminder of the 2000 elections. At least now I am old enough to vote!

5. Garrett wrote:

A lot of Americans disagree with your opinion about the quality of Obama’s policy positions. The general election will show just how many. Not everyone that will vote against Obama is an ignorant racist, just like not everyone that will vote for Obama is a Rhodes scholar.

In addition, logic and simple economics show how foolish his policy proposals actually are. The Obama marketing team doesn’t want a close examination of his pie in the sky proposals.

6. wouldn't you love to know? wrote:

LET’S GET READY TO RUMMMBLLLLLLEE….

7. Tom Penn wrote:

Dr. Hill,

If someone was visiting the Barbershop for the first time today, and read your piece, they might walk away with the impression that you were a staunch Obama supporter, which those of us who read your comments on a regular basis know that is simply not true.

However, I do agree with you that Senator Obama has caved in a little too much to Billary, and this move aimed at party solidarity may possibly back fire and leave the American people with the perception of a party still somewhat divided.

Yet what concerns me the most is the latest tracking polls. It is beginning to appear that Barack Obama has slipped a few points over the summer, and just as in the primary season, there is this dangerous perception that the man from Illinois cannot close the deal.

I think we will get a glimpse into the mind of the campaign tomorrow morning when the Senator releases the name of his running mate. If he chooses Joe Biden, that will sense a message that the Obama staff feels the need to bring some gravitas to the ticket, which would not be a good sign. However, if the chooses Bayh of Indiana, or Kain of Virginia, then that will send a message of internal confidence within the campaign, that they believe they can grab a red state, and turn it blue.

I am somewhat concerned. I just hope that Barack Obama has not peaked too soon.

8. Gigi wrote:

It’s one of the two:

A) Obama is fronting Billary’s hand. He’s giving them the stage to hang themselves (for good). Obama has a liberal machine behind him (even though many white surrogates are not actively working the media circut for him (hmmm). Plus many democrates (politicans) are sick of the Clinton reign but are scared of Clinton power, so if they elimate themselves (by the use of foul trickery) it’s a win-win for many of those entangled in intra-party politics.

B)Dude is weak with little back bone. :{ I hate to cast stones without fully giving someone a chance.

9. missifyjd wrote:

Dr. Hill-
The concern is mutual. There are many hats that Sen. Obama has to wear, and each voter wants him in a different outfit, depending on one’s angle. I have never been a Clinton supporter (I am ready for all the rocks that’ll be thrown my way, especially since I am black and a woman), so obviously if it were left up to me, she would maybe be serving water at the DNC. But thank goodness it is not up to me. The current state of the Democratic party is one of mixed opinions–opinions that refuse to back down and demand to be heard by any means necessary. That being said, I will say that there IS a hat that Obama has custom-fit, and that is the hat of respect. Will it bite him in the butt–perhaps. Is Clinton getting a better deal than deserved–very likely. Will there be at least one brawl at the Convention (I see ya’ll grinning)…it would be entertaining. But though I attack his reasoning, attacking the person–Obama–in my opinion is not the way to go (in no way am I accusing you of this). Disagreeing without diagreeably speaking, I don’t like his decision.

But I respect it.

10. Sandra wrote:

I share the same concerns when it comes to Hillary’s name being placed for nomination. I don’t trust the Clintons. If Hillary wanted to do right, she would have given up her delegates.

If there is a major fight at the convention and a problem with Obama getting the nomination, I will not be voting in November. This would be the time to send a message.

11. Garrett wrote:

Obama peaked when he was a community organizer back in Chicago.

12. Garrett wrote:

P.S.

Team Obama is going to throw a Hail Mary: Hillary is going to be the VP.

13. R.oB. wrote:

garret,

Which pie in the sky proposals are those? I found the approaching sensible at least as much as is politically feasibly. Compared to the faith based economics from the GOP, they are downright Keynesian!

14. R.oB. wrote:

It’s hard to see #9 other than haterade man. The man draws legions to hear him speak. People act like he’s Jesus’ stepbrother!

15. R.oB. wrote:

marc, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean no one is out to get you

16. Garrett wrote:

RoB,

Many of his tax increases will result in less revenue for the federal government, not more. His “fairness” approach to government is thinly veiled socialism.

As far as his celebrity status, well, many people would also rather take a pill to lose weight than eat better and work out.
Which approach has better results (and is better for your health)?

17. Logic wrote:

“A lot of Americans disagree with your opinion about the quality of Obama’s policy positions. The general election will show just how many. Not everyone that will vote against Obama is an ignorant racist, just like not everyone that will vote for Obama is a Rhodes scholar.”

That speaks to my point,a lot of Americans disagree because they are stupid, I didn’t say ignorant or racist, there’s a difference.

Might I ask, Garrett, who did you vote for in 2004?

18. Garrett wrote:

And those Americans you speak of would call YOU stupid, as would I.

There’s a great article in the WSJ today about the myth of Obama as non-partisan and an agent of change. All Obama suckers should read it. Not like they’d be smart enough to learn anything, though.

Yes, I did vote in 2004, despite the fact that my vote cast in New York state meant nothing, other than to me. I certainly didn’t vote for John Kerry.

19. R.oB. wrote:

Ever since Murdoch bought the formerly great Gray Lady and decided to put more “analysis” in the reporting I trust nothing that paper puts out at face value. The editorial page should stay there.

I never said Obsma was a nonpartisan, I said that his economic positions make sense over against your contention.

And Garret, I support Obama and I am far from stupid…

20. Garrett wrote:

The “Gray Lady” is the NY Times, RoB, not the Wall St. Journal.

Far from stupid?

21. Logic wrote:

“I certainly didn’t vote for John Kerry.”

That’s what I figured and I rest my case. I guess you’re pissed because your stupidty (and others) have us in the mess we’re in now. Don’t get mad at me because you lack the foresight and judgement to see what’s best (or at least better) for America.

Real quick, did you or did you not vote for GW in 2004?

22. R.oB. wrote:

garrett

What article were you reading? The only article I saw was Obama hitting back at McCain over patriotism

23. Garrett wrote:

WSJ, Wednesday, August 20th, page A19:

Obama Played by Chicago Rules, by David Freddoso

It punches plenty of holes into Obama’s contention that he represents change, let alone that he produces any worthwhile change.

24. R.oB. wrote:

Garrett

If you can’t be respectful the STFU. If you can be, then let’s talk. A wiseman may insult me but a fool never will.

factual error means one’s memory is not perfect. Stupidity is foolishness despite a command of tje facts. I remember the discomfort with the journal going to color and thought thye called it the Gray Lady. If the same happened to the NY Times, then I stand corrected, I never claimed to by a newspaper trivia buff. I won’t be on Jeopardy any time soon.

My challenge to you is to produce the great article (URLs preferred) and to show me how Obama’s economic policies are somehow pie-in-the-sky

25. R.oB. wrote:

You got JOKES, G! A19 is the Opinion page! I stopped reading it because the conservative bias was so pronounced I no longer trusted the articles to present any facts. Tons of spin, yes, but few facts that I could trust at face value. Freddoso wrote the anti-Obama book The Case Against Barack Obama! And like most political books, it is not to be trusted.

From http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gM7mJRqi2SSqU69XN_Jk4vf8t7TQD92IV1QO0

“The Case Against Barack Obama” argues [Obama is] an inexperienced “stealth liberal” who has done little to stand up against government corruption, not a different sort of politician.

Neither book alleges any major scandal in Obama’s record, but both books try to tar Obama for his associates — his former minister, a 1960s radical, a corrupt businessman, a friend of his grandfather who may have been a Communist…

Freddoso lists the misdeeds of Illinois politicians like Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and scolds Obama for not standing up to them. He minimizes an Illinois ethics law that Obama passed, although it was hailed at the time as a major step in changing the state’s “anything goes” attitude…

His book sometimes includes inaccurate or incomplete information to back that case.

Freddoso accuses Obama of voting to raise taxes on anyone with taxable income of more than $32,500. The independent watchdog group Factcheck.org notes that provision was part of a nonbinding budget resolution that had no actual impact on tax levels, and that Obama’s tax proposals do not include any such increase.

The book also plays down Obama’s work with Republicans and law enforcement groups that led to popular legislation reforming Illinois death penalty procedures and policy on racial profiling by police.

So much for the “great” article.

26. R.oB. wrote:

Logic,

Garret is right about one thing. Plenty of people like Obama for no good reason. There’s plenty of people that love McCain for the same.

The maxim “You get the government you deserve.” Holds true.

If you get a chance, check out Larry King’s interview of Bill Maher. Great convo on Obama’s challenges ahead.

And while I’m on this train of thought, Marc send me those URL’s of Obama playing it politician style. I really want to see that.

Peace all, even Garrett.

27. King Dede wrote:

we’ll have to wait and see about this. my whole feeling about this is that the Clintons don’t want Obama to win even if he gave them his wife’s head. killary wants obama to lose this year so she can run again in ‘12.

but she’s making a big mistake if she thinks that black folks (and other obama supporters) are just going to roll out the carpet for her, singing kumbaya along the line.

28. DCI74 wrote:

Lol come on Marc, you’re still believing that old ass Snapple urban legend??

29. Garrett wrote:

RoB,

Do your own work, man. I get the WSJ delivered, I’m sure you can buy your own copy of today’s edition or go to a library.
I would bet, though, that they’ve got it online.

As far as evidence about the folly of Obama’s policies, again, much is available online. Much has been written about how his efforts to make the tax code more “fair” will actually hurt the treasury. Yeah, that’s smart.

Sounds like you fit your own definition of stupid.

One more thing: bite me.

30. John wrote:

I never have any luck with links to articles in these comments … the posts never show up.

I understood the interest in Obama when he was first making his move early in the primaries. I don’t understand it now that we’ve had some digging into his past associations and his complete lack of credentials.

He may surprise me and turn out to be the best president ever, but no doubt he is the least qualified person to ever be considered in modern times.

31. DCI74 wrote:

John you honestly believe Obama is less qualified than Bush a man with a history of failed businesses and a recipient of nepotism damn near his entire life?

32. R.oB. wrote:

garret,

I did my work. I have been watching Obama long before people ever thought of him as a candidate. I asking you to do yours. Show me how his policies are pie in the sky, i.e. backup your statements. If you can’t stand the heat. Get out of the kitchen.

As for stupid, I’ll explain some facts that seem to have gotten past you. I asked you what article since as a WSJ subscriber I went to the Campaign section and found no “great” article that you described. Rather I mentioned another article on him. Then you mentioned page A19 which surprised me. I was looking for an article as in journalism not an opinion piece. Why did I know A19 was the Opinion page? Why did I know the “article” you described was not to be found? Because I had the paper in front of me.. So who’s stupid now?

You’ve now been bitten. Hope you enjoyed it.

33. Logic wrote:

LOL!

34. Garrett wrote:

So, then, RoB, based on your logic, the entire NY Times is an opinion journal, not journalism. If your contention is that the NY Times presents objective facts and that less liberal papers just offer subjective opinion, you’re an idiot.

Again, many people have shown that Obama’s numbers just don’t add up. Here’s another one written by some hack, the Dean of Columbia’s Business School:

We Can’t Tax Our Way Out of the Entitlement Crisis
By R. GLENN HUBBARD
August 21, 2008; Page A13

Given the hearty support Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama received in Europe last month, he must have noticed the surprise and skepticism among some Germans when he asked that Europeans contribute more for defense. Many Europeans argue they cannot afford such an additional expenditure.

They are right. And therein lies a cautionary tale for the United States, because continental Europe has been following something like Mr. Obama’s plans for spending and taxes.

Mr. Obama has revealed his plans in stages. First, on his campaign Web site, he indicated he would solve the long-run solvency of Social Security (a good thing). In a Sept. 21, 2007, op-ed in Iowa’s Quad-City Times, he ruled out benefit cuts to achieve solvency and looked first to payroll taxes (a bad thing). Last week, on this page, his economic advisers clarified his evolving tax proposals.

The spending shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare are large. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security and Medicare spending left unchecked would, after a generation, consume about 10 percentage points more of GDP than it does today.

Simple arithmetic suggests that with this much more of GDP eaten up by the two programs, all federal taxes on average would have to be raised by more than 50% to make up the shortfall. Research by economists Eric Engen of the Federal Reserve Board and Jonathan Skinner of Dartmouth suggests that such a tax increase would reduce long-term GDP growth by about a full percentage point. This is no small matter: Think of it as reversing all of the gains in our long-term growth rate from the productivity boom of the past 15 years.

Now it is easy to understand European concerns about higher defense spending. Large entitlement budgets almost certainly cannot be financed with growth-chilling taxes alone. Spending on other areas, including defense but also education, research, etc., must also be adversely affected.

In their op-ed on this page, Obama economic advisers Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee noted that taxpayers whose incomes exceeded $250,000 would face an additional Social Security payroll tax increase of four percentage points (in addition to a five-percentage-point increase in the top marginal income tax rate). This new payroll tax plan would affect the top 3% of earners.

The new payroll tax hike is more modest than the one Mr. Obama hinted at last fall, which might have uncapped the payroll tax entirely. But it would also do very little to shore up Social Security, since it means that no more than 15% of Social Security’s long-term funding gap would be closed. Thus, if Mr. Obama is indeed opposed to reductions in Social Security spending growth, he is necessarily committed to large future payroll-tax or general income-tax increases.

And what of those other tax increases? In May 2007, candidate Obama proposed to offset costs of his health-care plan in part by allowing the Bush tax cuts on Americans earning over $250,000 to expire. But Mr. Furman and Mr. Goolsbee suggested that dividend and capital gains tax rates would be raised to 20%, but well below levels (for dividends) prior to the 2003 tax cut. While kudos are due to this tempering of a tax increase, one can infer from the candidate’s earlier statements that the senator had counted on these revenues to offset health-care spending and to pay for middle-class tax cuts.

In short, Mr. Obama has articulated a plan for higher federal spending, leaving open the question of what tax increases are next.

If Mr. Obama is going to increase spending, will he raise the money by higher business taxes instead? He has already distanced himself from John McCain’s call to reduce America’s corporate tax rate, and he is committed to raising tax rates on successful small business owners who pay individual as opposed to corporate income taxes. Does this mean he will raise tax burdens on individuals with annual incomes less than $250,000?

In a June 26 interview on the Fox Business channel, Mr. Obama said he wanted to roll back the Bush tax cuts for those in the top 5% of incomes — that is, about $145,000 per year. He also voted for the Democrats’ fiscal year 2009 Budget Resolution, which would raise taxes on individuals earning $42,000 or more.

There is another fiscal way. Balancing the federal budget without a tax increase is possible, but will require strong fiscal restraint. To achieve full-employment budget balance by the end of the next president’s term in office, federal nondefense spending growth needs to be restrained to 2% per year instead of the currently projected 4.5%. And modest defense spending increases to fund costs of needed improvements in national security are possible.

We can also secure a firm financial footing for Social Security (and Medicare) without choking off economic growth or curtailing our flexibility to pursue other spending priorities. Three actions are essential: (1) reduce entitlement spending growth through some form of means testing; (2) eliminate all nonessential spending in the rest of the budget; and (3) adopt policies that promote economic growth. This 180-degree difference from Mr. Obama’s fiscal plan forms the basis of Sen. McCain’s priorities for spending, taxes and health care.

The problem with Mr. Obama’s fiscal plans is not that that they lack vision. On the contrary, the vision is plain enough: a larger welfare state paid for by higher taxes. The problem is not even that they imply change. The problem is that his plans are statist.

While the candidate is sending a fiscal “Ich bin ein Berliner” message to Americans, European critics of his call for greater spending on defense are the canary in the coal mine for what lies ahead with his vision for the United States.

————————————————————–

The facts don’t lie, RoB. Obama can’t pay for his policies.

So, you had the paper in front of you, but couldn’t find the article? I guess you need the braille edition . . .

35. Logic wrote:

Garrett, for the umpteenth time, did you vote for Bush? Also, do you make more than $250,000 a year? If not, then be quiet about tax hikes because they won’t affect you.

36. R.oB. wrote:

jokes again garrett. I subscribe to the WSJ not the NY Times. Could give a damn about that paper. YOU were the one who called the OPINION page piece an article which I would assume would be written in the capacity AS A REPORTER. None of this was true. “Stupid” me I looked in the POLITICAL page of the A section for said “article.”. I don’t look for facts in opinion pieces asyou do. Way too much bias. In fact it’s all bias really. As for the (I hope) ARTICLE, I’ll read later when I’m not working and respond accordingly.

I love how you try to put your logic screw ups on me. And calling wisdom stupidity on top of that. Classic.

37. Tanya wrote:

“I guess you need the braille edition”

LMAO!!!

38. econwhat wrote:

Garrett,

You know what I dis-like more than anything? A f****** unbalanced argument! LOL-LOL

You present an article from a Columbia Uni. dean of their business school without also offering how McCains’ “numbers DO add up” in contrast to those of Obama’s. That “180″ sentence doesn’t offer any evidence IMO.

Your incessant darts toward Obama just screams Limbaugh-ism to me…I feel sorry for you though, cause all indications point to your sincerity in thinking Obama just isn’t, nor could ever be your choice for the next POTUS. And that’s okay cause cynics are expected in every political race…even for middle school class president.

My question to you is this…what makes you believe McCain will be a better president than Obama?

Hey, it’s a truism that cynics, optimists and realists all have a part to play in this world of ours.

My song for the past two weeks…Jason Mraz – Bella Luna

Take a listen!

39. R.oB. wrote:

Real quick:

So, then, RoB, based on your logic, the entire NY Times is an opinion journal, not journalism. If your contention is that the NY Times presents objective facts and that less liberal papers just offer subjective opinion, you’re an idiot.

My point is that you presented an op-ed piece as an article from a reporter. That’s not kosher. Don’t pass go; don’t collect $200. That is all. As for the rest of it, I said I couldn’t give a damn about the NY Times one way or the other. Please don’t put words in my mouth. My wife tells me I have too many of my own.

As for the Dean, he’s more than likely a Republican and certainly a fiscal conservative with certain budget priorities. Taxes bad. Military spending good. Entitlements bad. Etc.,etc. There is little I can say to that. Just like religion you can believe anything you like. It’s not for me or anyone else short of God to judge you on it. Having said that, I do have issues with this op-ed piece.

1) Neither McCain nor Obama address the aging population problem. They’ve got 8 years. They can start something but by no means finish it. Period. Anything can happen afterwards. Obama’s fiscal points are short term as are McCain’s. The best I can find on McCain’s site is cutting Medicare to rich folks. He’s not proposing reducing benefits to the vast majority of seniors who vote. McCain’s no dummy and messing with the third rail of US politics would be. Putting Obama on blast, in that light, is disingenuous at best.
2) Modest tax increases on top wage earners is not anti-growth. Unless all that lost income is invested in the working capital of business that pay good wages to an employment base primarily in the US via private equity, debt financing, or public offerings, that money is in savings, e.g. secondary stock market, not growing the economy much. That’s a pretty specific kind of investment. From Barack Obama’s plan for small business:

Barack Obama will also eliminate all capital gains taxes on start-up businesses to encourage innovation and job creation.

Tax cuts precisely where they are needed.
3) Get your facts straight. The McCain campaign has been pumping a lot of disinformation about Obama. From an article on FactCheck.org:

McCain released three new ads with multiple false and misleading claims about Obama’s tax proposals.

A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase “on people making just $42,000 a year.” That’s true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway…

Update, Aug. 12: The tax falsehoods continued with the release of a McCain Web ad Aug. 11 claiming that the “perks” of joining the Obama “fan club” include “a tax incease for everyone earning more than $42,000 a year.”

So much for “the facts.”

40. R.oB. wrote:

Not to cast aspersions on The Dean but this quote from Mark Twain I thought was apropos:

Figures don’t lie, but liars figure. – Samuel Clemens (alias Mark Twain)