The observations were that the polish and confidence seemed to go away without the teleprompter. This was a topic of conversation during the primary, but seems to have lessened as a topic of interest recently. Guess we need to pay a little closer attention to the videos?

“Obama is like the other demagogues, of the well-spoken variety.”

Pedat asks:

In what way is Senator Obama a demagogue? What what is a “well-spoken” demagogue? Is not one of the fundamental characteristics of ANY demagogue their persuasiveness?

As a “translator” and “English teacher”, you would know those nuances, correct?

His “mama” being white…..His “Dada” is Black. I’ve seen him talk about his black heritage….I’ve yet to hear him speak of his white heritage.

He’s identifying himself with his Black Half (which is ok….thanks). He’s associating himself as a black. Should I classify him as anything but?

He self-identifies as “black”, functions as “black”, and is regarded as “black” by those who classify themselves as “white”.

Neither of them give glory to the Almighty.

Monikers that say: “I’m important” are fairly uncommon. If you peruse the commenters above, almost all use their name or something related to their name. Marvin even tells us his origins.

I hide behind my moniker. I work is the heart of political correctness where your spoken thoughts can be your worst nightmare if the political correctness police have targeted you. Here, I have to write what I “say” and so I do so “anonymously.”

Your question is one of natural curiosity that has probably occurred to most readers. But, no matter what the answer is, it has no bearing whatsoever on the question LaShawn (who happens to be a lawyer) has asked.

Doctor, lawyers, ambassadors, senators, chattering movie stars, talk show hosts, etc. all have to make common sense. Otherwise, they just look like Obama with a phony presidential seal “talking the talk.” They depend on a certain number of people swooning just because of they were in the presence of “greatness.”

Since you use so many legal-type situations and illustrations I would guess you are a lawyer.

I’ll be back Tuesday.

Oh……my……goodness! In #49 you wrote: My point is that he has gotten this far because of the contempt many have for Bush and his party. A party that wrote the book on “stirring up fear”

I asked you in #61: If the Republican party is “the party that wrote the book on fear” I will ask you for just three examples of the “fear” that the Republicans have set loose upon the land. Three.

In #65 you respond: 1) Remarks by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, indicating a belief that al-Qaida operatives would prefer John Kerry in the White House, sparked a firestorm of protest Sunday from Democrats who labeled the Illinois Republican’s comments as “fear mongering” and “un-American. 2) Speaking to supporters in Des Moines, Cheney called it “absolutely essential” that on Election Day voters “make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating.” ….. That’s two and I am searching for one by Kristol…I have it in mind but I have to find it on the Net, don’t worry I’ll get it……But in the meantime, after Boumediene came down, mischaracterize the case as giving “access to U.S. courts to terrorists”. Wrong, only Habeas. Big difference……

OK, you haul out some obscure mumblings by Dennis Hastert saying al-Qaeda operatives would prefer John Kerry in the White House. THAT is a chapter in the book on Republicans “stirring up fear”? Holy cow, Dr. Lawyer, do you really believe that if you were to stand on Main street and “stoppeth one in three” that you would find anyone within 2,000,000 hours who would cite that pitiful example of “stirring up fear”? To misquote the bard: Fear should be made of scarier stuff.

Then you quote Cheney saying that if Bush/Cheney are not reelected, “we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating.” THAT is a chapter in the book on Republicans “stirring up fear”? Holy cow, Dr. Lawyer, do you really believe that if you were to stand on Main street and “stoppeth one in three” that you would find anyone within 2,000,000 hours who would cite that pitiful example of “stirring up fear”? To misquote the bard: Fear should be made of scarier stuff. It sounds like Obama wailing about the Bush depression and doom and gloom.

Then you say there is some Kristol quote you will find and then, TA DA, jump to “Boumediene” (only days old) as part of evil unleashed by “the party that wrote the book on fear.”

Sorry, Dr. Lawyer, you struck out. Nothing here is close to being in the league with Murtha’s cold blooded murderers or Durbin’s comparisons with Pol Pot and Hitler, or the hyper-ventilating from the left over Abu ghraib and Gitmo. (To name a scant few.)

I asked you in #61: You say: “……if you really want to understand the Obama effect you have to start by looking at the policies of the past 8 years.” OK, give me three specific policies of the past 8 years that have caused the Obama effect. Three.

You respond in #65: I might be able to get you 10 of these but here are a quick 5.

1) Torture. You don’t think we torture / waterboard. I travel a lot too, and it has given us a black eye. Hitchen’s, and a host of others disagree with Bush on this. McCain to his credit is against it too.

Dr. Lawyer, I said nothing about “waterboarding.” In fact, I asked you to provide your definition of torture. But, guess what? The Geneva accords say nothing about non-uniformed enemy combatants. So, in the world of la-la land, I suppose that giving a non-uniformed enemy combatant a manicure could be considered torture. After all, the lie of flushing a Koran down the crapper made the cover of Newsweek. Why should I play the game of “torture” with you when you won’t reveal what torture means in your brief. Please remember your words: “…you have to start by looking at the policies of the past 8 years.” POLICIES is your word. You are straight out accusing the Bush administration of torture. Prove it.

2) Attempt to get Harriet Myers on SCOTUS. Blocked by conservatives but it pissed them off. Illustrates cronyism and tone-deafness of Bush and the policy of friends over competence.(FEMA director)

Whew! How are you saying that this stumble-fumble nomination (suggested by Harry Reid) is part of “…you have to start by looking at the policies of the past 8 years”? Bush appointed Alito and Roberts, after he got creamed right and left on the Myers nomination, but how do YOU tie this into the policies of the past 8 years.?

3) Expansion of Federal Discretionary (non-military) spending. prior to 06, Rebublican congress / no veto by Bush on pork bills.

Are you serious? Obama supporters and Democrats are furious because of federal (non-military) discretionary spending!!! Wow!!! Recall that this is in to response to: “……if you really want to understand the Obama effect you have to start by looking at the policies of the past 8 years.”

4) Terri Schiavo. Violated principles of Federalism…many Libertarians upset.

“……if you really want to understand the Obama effect you have to start by looking at the policies of the past 8 years.” Terri Schiavo was a POLICY? If you were to stand on Main street and “stoppeth one in three” would you find anyone within 2,000,000 hours who would cite that pitiful example as a POLICY of the past 8 years?

5) Immigration reform. Base up in arms about “path to citizenship”. McCain still haunted.

Good golly, Miss Molly Dr. Lawyer, —– oh, heck, see #4 above.

One of the first rules of trial law is that you never ask a witness a question to which you do not already know the answer. Frankly, Dr. Lawyer, I knew and know that you can not answer my two sets of questions.

I appreciate your efforts to try to talk softly about the liberal non-platform, but at some point, you can not help but come off as trying to patronize rubes.

Clearly, Democrats hate the impeachment charges in Clinton’s embarrassing Lewinski affair. But he flat out lied to a judge and not matter how thick or thin you slice it, calling it a private matter is still bologna. Al Gore challenged Florida in 2000 and tried to throw out the absentee military ballots and limit the recount to certain counties. After the Supreme Court ruled, even the Washington Post and the New York Times couldn’t find a wedge to drive into the recount.

So, the Democrats decided to peddle the lie of graft and corruption to the willing believers. After all, as HITLER said, a lie repeated often enough becomes truth.

In fairness, my two sets of three questions still stand. Take your time. I have meetings, you have meetings, but the truth can wait. Give me your best shot.