Thanks Democrats, But Obama's Got Bigger Plans

Denver's Pepsi Center is certainly big enough to hold a Democratic National Convention.

But it is not big enough for the Obama campaign.

In case anyone doubted that Barack Obama plans to use his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention to position himself with Americans who have never thought of themselves as Democrats -- and, perhaps, never thought of themselves as voters -- consider this move.

The candidate will not accept the nomination -- which he'll make on the symbolically significant 45th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have a Dream" address at the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom -- inside the Pepsi Center convention hall to the assembled delegates, alternates and party hangers-on.

Instead, the senator from Illinois will speak at the nearby Invesco Field sports stadium.

Invesco Field can accommodate a crowd of 75,000.

That's the point.

Obama will not exactly be accepting a nomination.

Indeed, accepting the party's designation, historic as it may be, will not be the central focus of his remarks.

Rather, Obama will be putting the convention -- and the Democratic party -- behind him as he launches what his campaign aides see as a mass-mobilization that will pour millions of dollars into outreach to Americans who don't usually vote (the young and targeted demographics within traditionally disenfranchised minority groups) and Americans who don't usually vote Democratic (young evangelicals, rural voters and women who thought they were conservatives).

Assuming that the Democratic Party will be united -- and counting on Hillary Clinton to use her convention speaking slot to tie up any loose ends -- the Obama camp will concentrate on connecting with Republicans and independents.

The evidence of the sharpness of that focus will come on August 28, when the candidate breaks with the convention of partying with the party on the last night of the convention and then beginning the fall campaign the next day.

Obama will give the Democrats their due. But he is not going to Denver to thank the delegates and alternates. He is going to grab the attention that lazy media afford to conventions -- which long ago became party pep rallies -- and harness for the purpose of reaching far beyond the confines of the Democratic party.

Comments (30)

1. '[T]he Obama camp will concentrate on connecting with Republicans and independents.'

   Yes, indeed. That's what Obama's Iraq War revisionism and FISA acquiescence are about, presumably.

   Wouldn't it be nice if the Obama camp occasionally tried to appeal to the Democrats' own base, as the Republicans have consistently done to their base for the past eight years?

   Of course, this wouldn't be prudent, and not because the Democratic Party base is tiny, apathetic, undemanding, or stupid. The fact is that Republicans are rewarded when they appeal to their base - since their base is rich and also provides most of their funding. The Democrats, in contrast, are punished when they appeal to their base, which, contrary to the corporate media myth, does not consist primarily of Hollywood celebrities who sip martinis in their limousines, but of ordinary folks without much extra money to spend on politicians.

   Barack Obama is presently building his campaign war chest. Let's hope his centrist tendencies are nothing more than a means to this end, and not an indication of how he will actually govern. It is possible that by governing competently, President Obama will be able to build himself a base like that of FDR, one that is big enough to be unassailable and that enables him on occasion to ignore the corporate lobbyists and to do what is truly right for the country. But to do this, he has to get himself elected first.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 07/07/2008 @ 08:37am

2. Another smart move. The other being his move to the "Red States" and force McCain to spend money where he supposedly shouldn't have to.

   By getting it out of the Pepsi Center, he sets himself outside of the DP, even "above it", and it doesn't look like the usual campaign move.

   Let Hillary take the stage...it "unifies the party", but also makes her look like the "politics of old"...useful, but out-dated. (PLus, when Obama wins, it'll give FRANKGRITS something to harp on...i.e. "If it wasn't for Hillary unifying the Party at Denver, he never would have won...he owes her big time...trust me!"...heheh)

   I'll bet Obama takes his post-Convention bump and runs with it...to the South. Hitting Hard Right states and using those poll numbers to get atleast withing the MoE in polls down there, to put a panic in ol' Maverick John and the RNC.

   Posted by Mask at 07/07/2008 @ 08:45am

3. 'Speeches don't put food on the table' -- Barack Obama -- 19 February, 2008

   '...of course what he says, itsa, you know, baloney, but he says it so WELL!' -- Father Guido Sarducci ('Saturday Night Live', late 1970's)

   'I'm so hip I can hardly see over my pelvis. I'm so cool you could store a side of beef in me for a month' -- Zaphod Beeblebrox -- The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

   Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/07/2008 @ 09:07am

4. Would like to agree with almost all that you stated, JakobFabian. But the repub base is laced with pretenders, among the corporate & "small business" pillars. People in line for modest inheritances, religionists, cowboys, & the disaffected huddle together with their patrons at the base. Few of these people will vote democratic. although some may stay home this time. Barack is gambling with this all out thrust for the center & enlisting the hordes who make the US come in near the bottom in % of voting citizens in the developed world.

   Posted by Sorelish at 07/07/2008 @ 10:04am

5. A stadium?

   Shades of Nuremberg.

   Big hints of I got big crowds, so you better watch out.

   Dangerous play, especially when combined with his rightward (not center) march.

   Obama is no FDR, alas.

   And an FDR is what we sadly, desperately need.

   Posted by sloper at 07/07/2008 @ 10:18am

6. Posted by sloper at 07/07/2008 @ 10:18am

   "Shades of Nuremberg"?!!?!?

   Okay, so now sloper is pulling out "Godwin's Law" to attack Obama in the new "purist are pissed" campaign?!?!?

   Posted by Mask at 07/07/2008 @ 10:27am

7. I believe I owe you some explanation, "Sorelish," since you make some good points.

   The "base" of a party can be defined either numerically or ideologically, which can lead to some confusion, since in the Republican Party, the IDEOLOGICAL base consists of the selfish rich, never a very large group, whereas the NUMERICAL base, that is, the majority of Republican voters, consists of the hordes of dupes that you have so aptly described.

   In the Democratic Party, the ideological and numerical bases overlap much more neatly than they do in the Republican Party. One might guess that this would make the task of a Democratic politician easier than that of a Republican, who must constantly equivocate in order to succeed, but sadly, one would be wrong.

   There is a THIRD base in every party that must be mentioned: its FINANCIAL base, which consists of the donors who contribute the most money, even though they may be a numerical minority. In the Republican Party, the financial base is neatly congruent with the ideological base, but in the Democratic Party, the richest donors by no means belong to, or even generally agree with, the ideological base. This is why the highest fundraising Democrat is almost NEVER the one who is most faithful to the Democratic Party's ideological base, whereas the highest fundraising Republican is almost ALWAYS the one who is most faithful to the Republican Party's ideological base.

   As we know, it is generally the highest fundraiser who wins in our Presidential primaries, because money is often (though thankfully not always) an even stronger force than either ideology or democracy, since it can endow any candidate with the illusion of ideological correctness, and the patina of populism, by means of a few well-structured political ads. Just how easily a faker can defeat a genuine article was, I believe, demonstrated adequately enough in 2004, when a majority of US-American voters chose George W. Bush, the part-time pilot, over John Kerry, the decorated Vietnam veteran.

   The Internet, which makes unprecedented numbers of small campaign contributions possible, is clearly the reason why Senator Obama has edged out Senator Clinton, despite the latter's unsurpassable faithfulness to the Democratic Party's financial base. However, it remains to be seen whether Barack Obama's web-savvy micro-financiers, who are closer to the Democratic Party's ideological base, are really more powerful than the big spenders of its financial base.

   It seems that Barack Obama himself is hedging his bets.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 07/07/2008 @ 10:40am

8. "center"

   Posted by Sorelish at 07/07/2008 @ 10:45am

9. Posted by JakobFabian at 07/07/2008 @ 10:40am

   Thanks for the post. Duly noted.

   Posted by Sorelish at 07/07/2008 @ 10:53am

10. hey slopes,

    it seems to me that a lot of this machodrivel that mr. obama has been uttering of late isn't actually for local consumption.

    perhaps he's addressing a smaller audience of certain extra-natonals.....

    but whatever the case,

    yuck!

    let's HOPE it's all smoke and mirrors,

    because if not,

    we're going to be stuck with ANOTHER U.S. PRESIDENT.

    same ol'.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 11:14am

11. stadiums.

    wow.

    it'll be like the WWE or a fancy tractor pull.

    MONSTER-ER-ER-E-R TRUCKS-S-S-S-S................

    GRAVE DIGGER! BIGFOOT! MCBAMA!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 11:17am

12. But to do this, he has to get himself elected first.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/07/2008 @ 08:37am

    Yes, I've heard that actually helps.

    Someone please explain this to B Kool 66.

    Posted by Benchrest at 07/07/2008 @ 11:31am

13. And yet McCave is being very consistent-- in helping Obama fill the stadium:

    AS AFGHANISTAN BOILS, MCCAIN KEEPS FOCUS ON IRAQ

    For voters, a resurgent Taliban may challenge McCain's view that Iraq is the center of the war on terror.

    By Ariel Sabar | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, July 7, 2008 edition

    WASHINGTON - John McCain has called Iraq the "central front" of the war on terror, a crucible of America's ability to defeat violent Islamic extremists the world over.

    But with record US casualties in Afghanistan in June, a resurgent Taliban, and new reports of Al Qaeda regrouping in northwest Pakistan, Senator McCain is likely to face new questions about his judgment on the one issue – national security – where voters consistently give him higher marks than they do his Democratic rival.

    McCain has resisted calls for more troops in Afghanistan and has rejected criticism that the Iraq war is detracting from efforts to secure Afghanistan. He labeled Barack Obama "naive" for saying he'd strike terrorist targets in Pakistan with or without the cooperation of President Pervez Musharraf.

    And while McCain vowed more than a year ago to follow Osama bin Laden "to the gates of hell," he has offered few details about how his approach to Al Qaeda might differ from that of the Bush administration.

    "I will not describe what I will do in order to get bin Laden, except to say that I'll get him," he said in Iowa last September.

    Aides to the Arizona senator said Wednesday that he continued to view success in Iraq as the best chance for victory in the global war on terror.

    "As on many things, Senator Obama is not listening to our commanders, and Senator McCain is," says Kori Schake, a senior policy adviser to McCain. "General David Petraeus believes Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Al Qaeda has even said it is."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/07/2008 @ 12:04pm

14. This stuff just keeps coming! You on the left won't stop, so I won't either.

    Rese says "The Bush Regime and its totalitarians have openly violated US law against spying on Americans without warrants"

    Hey, Rese - check the following article out and you will find that according to the Constitution (U.S. constitution, not Algore's living breathing version) the President does have the authority to do what is necessary to protect the country, and that the FISA "requirement" is an incursion on the President's authority to begin with, and thus is not even valid:

    http://article.nationalreview.com/print / ?q=NWFmYTZmNzYyNDhlN2ZjMD VlZGFjODdlYzRiOWZjNzY=

    JakobFabian chimes in with "the IDEOLOGICAL base consists of the selfish rich"

    JakobFabian, that remark gets you an "A" in the Class Warfare 101 symposium taught at The Nation University!

    Then Rese lets fly with "The four Supreme Court justices (Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas) who voted for tyranny in America are all Republicans"

    Hey Rese - tyranny in America? These are the four justices who UNDERSTAND the role of the judiciary according to the CONSTITUTION (U.S. version, not Algore's Living Breathing) is NOT to make law from the bench or use the judiciary to advance their personal political beliefs. How is people doing their Constitutional job tyranny?

    Then there is another beaut by Rese: "All Israel needs to do in order to be safe and to live in peace is to stop stealing the West Bank and to drop its designs on southern Lebanon"

    Hey Rese - You are joking, aren't you? Whenever Israel does as you proclaim (most recently in giving up Gaza) what results is Israeli citizens being killed. This is what always happens, never what you say would happen. Speak for yourself, Rese - the Israelis have the right to decide for themselves how to inusre the continuation of the state of Israel, and since Israel is a free country, Israelis are free to speak out against the policies of their current PM, Ehud Olmert, who is an appeasement kind of guy.

    JakobFabian then offers up another one: "The Democrats, in contrast, are punished when they appeal to their base, which, contrary to the corporate media myth, does not consist primarily of Hollywood celebrities who sip martinis in their limousines, but of ordinary folks without much extra money to spend on politicians. "

    Well, JakobFabian, even though money is tight right now it seems George Soros does manage to find some extra money to spend on politicians. Along with massive union contributions, it seems ordinary folks don't have to spend their extra money on Democrats.

    This "thread" is chock full of standard leftist stuff, it is not possible to comment on it all - but it all has been refuted over time in the public domain, including by Conservatives posting in here on The Nation.

    I figured I would comment on some of it just to try to restore some amount of sanity to this blog.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2008 @ 12:16pm

15. Hello Maskbeta,

    Are you trying to argue that the things I quoted Rese on are not representative of what most leftists believe?

    I have seen, over and over again, the same sentiments expressed by others, here on The Nation, on The Progressive and by other venues where libs have commented on issues of the day (such as sacbee.com - The Sacramento Bee newspaper's website, and in the local papers in my area)

    It just happened to be Rese making those comments, those comments caught my attention amongst the miles long litany of gobbledygook Rese posts.

    But plenty of other libs say them too - are you trying to say they don't? Note- I am not claiming you do or do not agree with Rese on these, but I am asking if you recognize or not that these are basic core lib beliefs.

    Normally there would be no point to posting back to Rese and encouraging more lengthy nonsense. I commented to Rese only because these remarks I cited of Rese's are standard lib stuff.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2008 @ 12:50pm

16. And yes, Maskbeta, you want me to be fair so I will be fair. No, Rese is not representative of the Left (here on The Nation or elsewhere) and LIBZUk is not representative of the Right (here on the Nation or elsewhere).

    And yes, LIBZUK should not capitalize everything posted.

    Okay?

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2008 @ 12:54pm

17. Posted by sjchermak

    "lib lob lub lab leb."

    •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    CEO Of Firm That Signed Controversial Iraq Oil Deal Longtime Bush, Cheney Adviser

    Ray Hunt, the Texas oil man who landed a controversial oil production deal with Iraq's Kurdistan regional government, has enjoyed close political and business ties with Vice President Dick Cheney dating back a decade – and to the Bush family since the 1970s.

    Despite those longstanding connections – and Hunt's work for George W. Bush as a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board – the Bush administration expressed surprise when Hunt Oil signed the agreement last September.

    At that time, administration officials said Hunt Oil's deal with the Kurds jeopardized delicate negotiations among competing Iraqi sects and regions for sharing oil revenues, talks seen as vital for achieving national reconciliation.

    "I know nothing about the deal," President Bush said. "To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously if it undermines it I'm concerned." However, on July 2, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released documents showing that senior administration officials were aware that Hunt was negotiating with the Kurdistan government and even offered him encouragement.

    Hunt also personally alerted Bush's PFIAB about his oil company's confidential contacts with Kurdish representatives.

    In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, committee chairman, complained that the administration's comments last year were "misleading."

    "Documents obtained by the Committee indicate that contrary to the denials of Administration officials, advisors to the President and officials in the State and Commerce Departments knew about Hunt Oil's interest in the Kurdish region months before the contract was executed," Waxman wrote.

    Waxman said the Hunt-Kurdish case also raised questions about the veracity of similar administration denials about its role in arranging more recent contracts between Iraq and major U.S. and multinational oil companies, including Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and Chevron.

    Plus, there's the longstanding suspicion that oil was a principal, though unstated, motive behind the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq, which sits on the world's second-largest oil reserves.

    Administration officials – and much of the mainstream U.S. media – have ridiculed the oil motive charge as a conspiracy theory.

    Oil Deals

    But many of the oil companies now stepping forward to benefit from Iraqi oil were instrumental in both supporting Bush's political career and giving advice to Cheney's secretive energy task force in 2001.

    For instance, Ray Hunt's personal relationship with the Bush family dates back to the 1970s as Hunt, the chief of Dallas-based Hunt Oil, helped build the Texas Republican Party as it served as a power base for the Bushes rise to national prominence.

    The Hunt family donated more than $500,000 to Republican campaigns in Texas, while Hunt Oil employees and their spouses gave more than $1 million to Republican causes since 1995, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

    Ray Hunt also had strong ties to Dick Cheney during his years at the helm of Halliburton, the Houston-based oil-services giant. In 1998, Cheney tapped Hunt to serve on Halliburton's board of directors, where Hunt became a compensation committee member setting Cheney's salary and stock options.

    In 1999, when Texas Gov. George W. Bush was running for the Republican presidential nomination, Bush turned to Hunt to help fund his presidential campaign efforts in Iowa, according to Robert Bryce's book, Cronies: Oil, The Bushes, And The Rise Of Texas, America's Superstate.

    "By the summer of 1999, Bush had already raised $37 million but he wanted to conserve his campaign cash so he turned to a Texas crony, Ray Hunt, to help fund the Iowa effort," Bryce wrote. "In July of 1999, Hunt was among a handful of Bush supporters who each donated $10,000 to the Iowa Republican party."

    In May 2000, Bush appointed Hunt finance chairman of the Republican National Committee. Hunt also donated $5,000 to the Florida recount battle and spent $100,000 on Bush's inaugural party.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 12:56pm

18. Posted by sjchermak

    here's one for you:

    check out "iraq, order 81, monsanto".

    seeds of freedom.......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 1:10pm

19. Hey Frosty Zoom,

    "lib lob lub lab leb." to you too!!

    Ever notice how people like George Soros are "supporters" of Democrats, whereas anybody with wealth supporting Republicans are "cronies"

    Is Henry Waxman just an independent person conducting an investigation? Or is there an agenda here? Answer: most likely an agenda.

    Here on The Nation, we "learn" that America is an empire and that the only reason we rotten imperialists went into Iraq was for oil.

    If that was the case, then how come we don't just take it altogether? Why is there any effort at all for the Iraqis to manage their own resources?

    Answer: Because America is not an empire and we did not go into Iraq for oil.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2008 @ 1:12pm

20. does what all candidates do during elections...ignore the fringes, kooks and loons of the party(that's those here on the Nation types) . . .

    The real winner in Denver will be ... most of all, KOOL AID concessions..

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/07/2008 @ 11:54am

    Gezz, MAASCH. Sometimes, you can't even bother to be consistent within the SAME post.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/07/2008 @ 1:13pm

21. Here on The Nation, we "learn" that America is an empire and that the only reason we rotten imperialists went into Iraq was for oil.

    If that was the case, then how come we don't just take it altogether? Why is there any effort at all for the Iraqis to manage their own resources?

    Answer: Because America is not an empire and we did not go into Iraq for oil.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2008 @ 1:12pm

    SJ - you obviously haven't been reading the news lately:

    "After years of backroom arm-twisting, Iraq is officially flinging open six of its major oilfields, accounting for half of its known reserves, to foreign investors. According to Iraq's oil minister, the long-term contracts will be signed within a year. While ostensibly under the control of the Iraq National Oil Company, foreign corporations will keep 75% of the value of the contracts, leaving just 25% for their Iraqi partners.

    That kind of ratio is unheard of in oil-rich Arab and Persian states, where achieving majority national control over oil was the defining victory of anti-colonial struggles. According to Greg Muttitt, a London-based oil expert, the assumption up until now was that foreign multinationals would be brought in to develop new fields in Iraq - not to take over those which are already in production and therefore require minimal technical support. "The policy was always to allocate these fields to the Iraq National Oil Company," he told me. "This is a total reversal of that policy, giving the Iraq National Oil Company a mere 25% instead of the planned 100%."

    …

    On US National Public Radio's To the Point, Fadhil Chalabi, one of the primary Iraqi advisers to the Bush administration in the lead-up to the invasion, recently described the war as 'a strategic move on the part of the United States of America and the UK to have a military presence in the Gulf in order to secure [oil] supplies in the future'. Chalabi, who served as Iraq's oil undersecretary of state and met with the oil majors before the invasion, described this as 'a primary objective'."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/04/oil.oilandgascompani es

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/07/2008 @ 1:20pm

22. Hey Frosty Zoom,

    Your advice led to link after link of leftist websites carping about this. So we do not know what really happened, do we?

    Different subject, but as long as we are suggesting links, how about YOU go to the link I posted earlier on this thread, to learn why you leftists are wrong about FISA?

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2008 @ 1:21pm

23. thanks, h(e)man23!

    saved me some googlin'

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 1:24pm

24. iraq is round-up ready!

    hey, maybe they can grow some corn to power your hummer.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 1:25pm

25. Hello Hman23,

    So the current Iraqis have decided to do things differently, different than in the past but consistent with how much economic activity is conducted these days.

    You and other leftists, of course, see this as an evil conspiracy by "Bushco" to take over Iraq's oil, because you see anything connected with corporations as wrong, and anything connected with George W. Bush as wrong.

    You see all this "wrong" and comment on it continually (which you have a right to do in a free society), but you have no productive solution to current problems of the day. Easier to carp on all the "wrong" you think is occurring than to do something that would actually help people- instead you always advocate the impostion of socialist utopia and the removal of any power from the United States as the optimum solutions, solutions that would make things worse for the very people you claim you are fighting for.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2008 @ 1:29pm

26. SJ -

    Don't go off on a tangent involving a request that I come up with some sort of solution. You are the one who brought up oil as a an impetus for going into Iraq. And I think what I posted pretty much proves you wrong. 75% and the words of Iraq's own oil chief. How about something a little stronger in response than it is "different?" It's different only if you believe that oil was NOT the reason we invaded Iraq.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/07/2008 @ 1:43pm

27. Hello Hman23,

    You didn't prove me wrong. When I said it was "different" it was because you were posting in with your "proof" saying it was typical in the Arab world for majority national control. If foreign interests control the oil in Iraq, that is different than before - but - it is a way of life these days, in most economies, for a lot of foreign investment/ownership in corporations.

    Foreign ownership in Iraqi oil now when there was little before in no way "proves" that we went to Iraq for oil.

    Of course, many of you libs are fixated on hatred for business, corporate America, wealthy people, etc, so you automatically think all kinds of wrong and conspiracy are at play in situations like this.

    Don't forget- Saddam was running his people through shredders and he was going to be making WMD again once let off of the hook. Gee, that is probably why we went into Iraq.

    Hello Maskbeta,

    I am not playing any games here. You have mentioned some bloggers that don't fit the typical mold.

    Fantastic. However, the comments from Rese that I cited (and only those) are typical of most (not all but most) liberal thought these days in the public domain (not only here on The Nation).

    I am not stating you believe those concepts. I am not stating every last liberal on earth believes those concepts. But a majority of libs do believe and agree with those concepts, and you know it.

    I was responding to comments made by Rese and JakobFabian, not to respond to them personally or make assessment of their entire belief system, but to respond to those comments, because those comments are fairly standard stuff that you don't have to look very far in liberal cyberspace to see repeated many times. AND YOU KNOW IT. So whose playing games here, you or me?

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2008 @ 7:21pm

28. There are too many essays (books?) in here! People should get their own website, consolidate it and provide a link! Obama is more disappointing every day. I sure hope he's right about Dixie--cause I sure dont think he's getting the Dem base. The things my neighbors in Ohio are talking about are NOT what BO is talking about. And, frankly, I dont have any answers for them , from his speeches , nor his website.

    Posted by kdelphi95 at 07/08/2008 @ 04:43am

29. Don't forget- Saddam was running his people through shredders and he was going to be making WMD again once let off of the hook. Gee, that is probably why we went into Iraq.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2008 @ 7:21pm

    "GOING TO BE MAKING WMD ?????" Wait a minute! I thought he HAD an arsenal of WMDs. And the only reason we didn't find any was that they trucked them over to Syria.

    And you are a reason or two behind. WMD was the first reason - because it was the scariest. THEN it was that he COULD have had plans for WMD related programs. THEN it was that he violated the UN cease fire and the no-fly zones. THEN it was to establish democracy in the Middle East. THEN it was . . . oh, I forget where we left off.

    In your boilerplate, you also forgot to mention the rape rooms. And that he gassed the Kurds.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 10:44am

30. The question is, is Invesco really big enough to hold Obama's hugely and recently inflated Ego??

    Posted by sjduskin at 07/10/2008 @ 12:26am