It doesn't matter to Republicans if Barack Obama said it or not. They live in "What I Think " Land. Mitt Romney has a very bad habit of misunderstanding Barack Obama's positions ( See Sex Ed For Five Year Olds.....WHF? )I saw the debates . I laughed because they are all so cheesy and old. It looked like the 1980's. They are all outdated and so yesterday. The Democrats will win in 2008. Hands Down. The more I see Republicans debate, the more obvious that becomes.

I am so dismayed at the reaction to Senator Obama's speech last week.  I was finally able to watch his entire speech last night on CSpan and it was a truly great speech. You would never have thought that from listening to the reactions last week from Biden, Clinton, Romney.

Why do people have to lie so much and misinterpret everything their opponents are saying?  Who the hell wants them as our president at this point?

His speech contained a lot of candor, something people aren't used to. Shocking isn't it.  

Has there ever been such an empty, vapid, disengenious, self-righteous, arrogant, pompous, sanctimonious, etc. politican as Mitt Romney - I'll answer my own question  - No....

That's about the only thing Mitt "Flip" Romney can do is come out with the movie analogy blasts ("Dr. Strangelove"), while never saying anything of substance....

Mitt's positions change like the weather, & one needs computer tracking to keep up with his ever chagning viewpoints....

Romney is nothing but an empty suit who would say ANYTHING to get elected....

Romney lying?  AGAIN???

Maureen, because lying is what they have left to work with. After taking a good look at what all has been said in the last couple weeks, I'm starting to think Obama is the only candidate who knows anything about security policies and therefore is the only candidate ready for primetime.

Guiliani is supposedly the security candidate yet hasn't even bothered to learn why bin Laden says he launched the 9-11 attacks.

Clinton seemingly doesn't know that nuclear strikes against non-governmental organizations was never "on the table" under any U.S. administration.

Tancredo wants to maintain a nuclear deterrence against Mecca and Medina - the true Dr. Strangelove proposal.

I don't know - I'm looking for knowledge out there in the field of candidates and coming up blank, other than with Obama.

Romney is a cute little slimeball.

He went from Ted Kennedy to Ronald Reagan in 6 months.  

>>>A good follow-up question to Romney at the debate would have been: So you wouldn't pursue Al Qaeda in Pakistan if the government there isn't cooperating?<<<

Actually, Stephanopoulos did ask that question.  Both Giuliani and Romney said they would keep the option open but wouldn't be idiotic enough to talk about it on national television when running for president.  Those matters require just a little bit more discretion and secrecy to maintain the national security of our country.  If you haven't heard, Obama's remarks sparked an anti-American rally in Pakistan.

Obama is incredibly naive!  How can you launch an attack INSIDE Pakistan without permission from Pakistan?  You can not do that in an ally country.  Romney is right!

Note: The above comments have been approved (and written)by Keith Olbermann.

Flip Romney is not known for much else-so I can see why he is dumber by the day. Give him more airtime, and he will stand naked.

Maureen,

The media, including MSNBC, deserve most of the blame for a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of Senator Obama's comments.  In fact, Senator Clinton echoed the exact same words during an interview on a radio station the exact same day, but the media didn't widely report them because by doing so it would have undermined their headlines and slant.  They wanted to characterize Senator Obama as some sort of mad man threatening invasion of Pakistan.  For the life of me, I can NOT see how anyone could interpret, "we will act" to mean sending in troops and invading Pakistan!  Moreover, I'm shocked that more Americans do NOT want to know that the only thing standing between us and Al Qaeda is a quasi dictator, not our own president. It seems that we are just as ignorant of the danger that threatens us than pre-9/11.

How would I describe this kind of "opinion"? The bleating of an Osama sycophant? Pray you don't get what you deserve, Osama in the Whitehouse.

thats it i'm jumping ship. there is nobody in either party that's worth pulling from a burning building. let 'em burn.
join the Libertarian Party.  lp.org
Vote for personal responsibility
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote for small government
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote for the constitution
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote for freedom of expression
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote for America the Beautiful
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote for politics, not as usual
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote for the right to keep & bear arms
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote for border security
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote smart
Vote for Ron Paul

ronpaul2008.com
lp.org

This is a classic US political discussion. Nothing related to issues, just about who is on who's side. "Flip" Romney? Caring (or expending any energy) about who is running under what banner only feeds the frenzy of the two party system. They see us react emotionally and they play off of it thinking that is the way to a government seat. We allow them to turn presidential elections into popularity contests. It might as well be a soap opera.

Good luck Obama and good luck Mit. I can only hope the best person wins...

Wow, I guess MSNBC wasn't realy paying attention.  To me this was a sloppy job of fact checking.  Stephanopoulos did ask a very similar follow up question, and Mitt Romney answered it.  Obama did say what Mitt Romney says he did, minus the tea part.  Barak might not have meant it the way it came out, and he may have backtracked and clarified his statements later, but he did say them.

Didn't Giuiliani say yesterday he agreed with Senator Obama? And when is the press going to go back in history and talk about how naive some of our past presidents were? JFK - Bay of Pigs for starters!

Senator Obama is not naive. He's extremely intelligent. More so than anyone who is running for president in 2008.

Alex, it is pretty cool how the whole world seems to be hanging on everything Obama says, while ignoring the other candidates. Wonder why that is.

I wonder why the Saudis and the rest of the Muslim world haven't said anything about Tancredo's proposal to maintain a nuclear deterrence against Mecca and Mecina?

Oh, and maybe the Pakistanis were responding to the way in which Obama's words were characterized, rather than his actual words. Just a thought. And, if we knew bin Laden's exact location and the Pakistanis didn't act on that knowledge, how much of an ally are they?

By the way, you do realize we've been violating sovereignty all over the place, right? We've launched drone-based missiles against targets in Yemen, we've launched naval gunfire attacks against targets in Somalia - all without the approval of the host nation.

I think the world knows if we have a shot at bin Laden, we're going to take it.

mitt...don't worry about him, he'll be saying something different tommorrow.  In case everyone has forgotten the Bush Admin. told Pakistan the exact same thing about a month ago.  The Sec. of Defense hedged on Sunday when ask on MTP.  He finally said we'll tell them.  Well OK... you'll tell them                                                    before you go ahead and do it.  BTW Hillary and Edwards both came out with the same response.  But of course it doesn't make for Naive soundbites.

MSM will you ever learn.  Obama was right  when he said in Atlanta on sat."There is no fool like an old fool".

And since the Republicans were able to "swift boat" John Kerry, why isn't anyone talking about another presidental candidate who bowed out of the Vietnam War? Romney was in France as a missionary is his reason during the War. Funny, he finished his "mission" in January 1969.

These guys voted for and still support the President's misguided war in Iraq 100%.  And have the gall to criticize Obama for telling it like it is on promoting diplomacy and fighting terrorism.  No wonder "undecided" is the first choice of Republicans, and Ron Paul got more donations from members of the military than any other candidate.

So it looks like Romney doesn't want to hunt down Bin-Laden in Pakistan since Mushareff is not cooperating. But he wants to stay bogged down in Iraq and fight a civil war. This guys brilliant.

HELLO... WHY THE ANTI-US rallies in PAKISTAN: becos you dont know them. They are such a buch of hooligans that whatever the mullah says, they will do. You have to be there to kinow these things. Some are ok but the they are overwhelmingly suppressed by these brain washed barbarians. Think how many times stpid thinhgs happen there and no one can do anything about it. A guy rapes a woman and then she is given 1000 whips in public. Where else can you see thistype of law. Its a pity that most americans dont know anything about other countries becos they are stpid enough to think the world revovles around them. The only way to get something is to put extreme pressure on them. All these years US needed them becos India had to go to Soviets for help. It was all strategic. We gave them F-16 and arms. Smartly enough, they got the nuclear techno from China who would sell that to anyone for money (in the 90's when they were not so rich). Now Pakistan is a key player since their chief Physicist was caught by US intelligence after he gave the nuclear technology to radicalists. You have to understand whta rides the mind of these people before you throw stones at your own such as Barack Obama. He was right on the money and spoke things loud which is usually hidden. In one sense it is good for the Pakistani's to know that cos it may act as a deterrent. I dont think Musharaaf has much time. He is even takin help from Benazir Bhutto, the same leader he sent away in exile to sort the country. DO YOU GET THE PICTURE NOW????.. Make a change in this country for a better and hopeful tomorrow. BO for 08. cheers

Kent, yes indeed, he is the ultimate plastoid nothing in this race. And yes, the more he speaks, the more America will recoil. His performance in the Iowa debate was a disgrace - give us facts, not cute one-liners that are not delivered by their authors.

Also to note the fact that MMM always wants the candidate they write about to win. That gives credibility. It is far different from truth. People want shcoking news. Otherwise who pays attention. MAUREEN spoke rightly. If you listen to the speech, it is fantastic and well thought. But MMM picked on the few lines that makes headlines. They mostly write about CLINTOn cos they want her to win. But the better guy is BO. Yearly KOS wants EDWARDS and the general public wants BARRY BO. Now we will have to wait and see who wins. If there is strength to DEMOCRACY, BO must win. I can find that HRC is the best FLIP -FLOPPER i have seen in recent politics just as ROMNEY is. Then comes EDDY. He talks about caring for the poor,lobbyists. What a farce. EDDY knows he is far behind in polls and MONEY. He needs to knock down HRC and BO. His main money comes from TRIAL lawyers (to be read as LIARS). He has taken such high percentage of all cases he won. If he truly cared, he would hav taken a small percentage such as 5% (5% of 10 million is 200,000). All his wealth came just from trial cases. You get the picture. Now he talks about lobbying.. cos he did not get much. He even took some earlier and then he realized that was all he could, he wanted to make an issue and forgot that he took. When he was asked about it, he had to return. SO that game is being played on HRC. barack is the only one in THIS election who was claen from the start. I respect that he gave his lucrative career to serve at an early age when he had all the odds to start the family. That's commitment. I am sure he must have taken PAC or lobbying to get into senate. Which common man can win an election without that. But I am gald he did not go that way this time. Look more closely into the issues and deeper into the candidates. You will see the BO is the best bet. I am sure he will enough wisdom and judgement from a scholarly and pratical team to guide him COS HE LISTENS... LISTENS ALSO TO PEOPLE.  

Obama is not my candidate in 08, but attacking him over his Pakistan comments is rediculous.  Anyone who would not bomb Pakistan if we have credible evidence terrorists inside are about to launch attacks on US soil does not understand terrorism and does not care to defend our country.  Does Romney really believe defending Musharraf is worth thousands and thousands of American civilians dying from a terrorist attack?

Why anyone cares about Obama's words is wasteful since Hillary is the nominee already.  Obama will surely be her runningmate.  The remainder of the democratic primary is boring since their ticket is established already.  

Meanwhile the Republicans will be much more interesting to see who can emerge.  Whether or not whoever wins their nomination ultimately stands a chance or not is a matter that is secondary to party nomination process now.  It remains a unique cycle not only b/c the Deomcrats are favoring to categories of human beings to never before have been elected to the highest office, but also b/c there is no incumbent running from the outgoing Administration.  

So we have the Republicans trying to collect the broken bits of conservatism that Bush has damaged while not saying, If you liked Bush, then elect me.  Whoever can emerge her stands a good chance against Hillary for the same reason.  When 2008 arrives, we will have had 20 years of a duopolistic reign in Washington DC by the Bush & Clinton families.  Despite their differences, we could see a rejection of the american ruling monarchicalesque families as people get worn out on Bushes and Clintons.  

So, like Sarkozy successfully sprang out of Chirac's Party in France running on the candidate of change, stealing the wind of the out of power, opponent party, a Republican very well could do the same here in 2008.  Looking at the field honestly, I can see where either Rudy or Romney could make that case, successfully.  I do think Fred Thompson's too lazy and too on the fence and has been testing the waters far too long to extend his teased popularity numbers to a building base of support if/when he does finally think the water is warm enough for anything more than his toes.  I'll remain open towards him, but for the record I suspect he'll end up a fad and seeing him snuggling with Sean Hannity when all the other Republicans are displaying themselves in actual debates is just annoying and petty.  

I also think Fred's procrastination is partly to blame for the drastic difference in money raised by the two parties candidates.  His water-testing kit, I think, has kept a lot of money on the sidelines that would otherwise be committed to some other candidate by now.  (Along with McCain's stupid bill which tipped the fundraising edge in favor of Democrats in general--which he's being punished for, alongside his inexplicable pro-illegal alien stance for that matter).

In any event, the Republicans have two nontypical candidates in Rudy and Romney who each were popular, successful elected officials in notably liberal states whereas the Democrats are favoring Hillary, a lady with very high unfavorables who will likely energize those with vote-against objectives, aiding whoever the Republican nominee might be, possibly botching an election year that the Democrats should easily win.  

'Has there ever been such an empty, vapid, disengenious, self-righteous, arrogant, pompous, sanctimonious, etc. politican as Mitt Romney' ......
Actually, Ken there has been.

Her name is Hillary Clinton !!
But, you left out deceitful, dishonest and vindictive

Clinton/Coulter '08
the Blonde ambition tour

Mitt Romney is trying to score cheap political points.  I think Americans are tired of this and would like to see candidates ocassionally admit when another one is right on an issue or recognize that they agree with the substance of what someone else outside of their party is saying.

Obama got it right once again and he will prove the foreign policy establishment wrong when he takes office in Jan of 09.

So what exactly, did Romney get wrong or lie aboout?  According to this article, Obama did say he would meet with our enemies without preconditions.  And he did say he would go after Al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan.  The authors of this article say a good questions for Romney is if he would not do the same in Pakistan.  But what did he lie about or misrepresent regarding Obama's statements?  

If the facts aren't on your side you must lie. Romney is just proving to his base that he can lie with the best of them -- it is actually considered to be an asset in the Republican party. As Stephen Colbert has said, the facts have a liberal bias.

I don't even understand this guy called Romney anymore. He like to speak from both side of his mouth - when is he going stop fli-floping?

I have never seen anybody score cheap political point than Romney. I still don't understand where he stand on the issues.

My question to Romney is this, what would you do if you have an actionable intelligent regarding Osama Bin Laden hideout in Pakistan and the government of Moshraf fail to act in all circumstances?

Romney, i'll be expecting my answer in the next few days.

TRUTH repubs don't need no stinkin truth..

I love how everyone on this message board is calling, by far the most successful person running for President, an idiot.  Don't let his Harvard MBA or his half a billion dollars fool you.  I guess you are smarter than he is.  The truth is that Romney is a brilliant person who has fixed problems and excelled everywhere he has gone.  This mess we call the current state of the government would be well served to have someone with his mind running things.

Well, talk about mass deception ... where did obama say , he is going to bomb the parliament in pak ?

Ron Paul destroyed that field.  Too bad the George Stephanolopolopplolis didn't ask Dr.Paul(a Tax Payers best fried) any relevant questions pertaining to Health Care.

Andrew, Obama never said he was going to bomb U.S. allies, and the "tea" characterization certainly wasn't an accurate reflection of Obama's answer on meeting with heads of state.

Its a non-serious characterization, presumably from a non-serious candidate - and it only serves to further turn voters off. Its no more accurate than saying, "Romney, while trying to figure out what he believes about abortion, seemingly hasn't had time to even think about who actually was responsible for the 9-11 attacks."

Mitt Romney is a mean-spirited political opportunist.  He actually admitted he LIED during a previous political campaign when he said he supported abortion-rights in liberal MA when he "really" felt the position wrong.  So, come again?  He ADMITTED he'll say ANYTHING to get elected.  Americans, beware!!!

Frankly, all this dustup over Obama's foreign policy statements is making me MUCH MORE interested in him as candidate.  Finally, a politician saying what needs to be said!  Let the yahoos in Pakistan riot, they riot at the very name of America.  

How clear can it be, Obama is a neophyte with an ego. Members of his own party are shuttering with antipation of yet another Obama mis-step, except for his presidential opponents, they are having a ball.  

Most politically motivated liberal partisans don't have to explain themselves when they charge a republican as a liar, b/c they just believe it by virtue of hearing it elsewhere.  I don't think you can legitimately say Romney either lied or flip-flopped on his view on abortion, which is the topic they're trying to make the case that he cannot be trusted.  

Romney simply states that he changed his mind, as Reagan and GHWB did.  He ran for the Gov of Mass by stating he would not try to undo the law of the land, and he didn't try to.  That doesn't mean he would sign into legislation things that would promote abortion, bills that would extend the application of that law for other means.  He never said he would work to amplify the reach of pro-abortionists.  Since he made no attempt to turn back the woman's "right to privacy" to abort her unborn child, he didn't lie.  (I think the right to privacy allows me to commit murder in the privacy of my own home, not to mention other felonies as well, since that's my private property, mind you.)

Wow! An anti-American rally in Pakistan! That is as rare as finding a cupcake in a bakery!

I honestly don't think Obama meant it in that way, yes nobody is infallible and neither are Romney, McCain, Guilianni nor the other contenders.
I think Obama will have to rethink his foreign policy goals however they're not as infirm not erroneous as any of the other republican candidates. Obama is the expedient alternative to "conventional wisdom" and to the rather disappointing politics of the current administration. Lets be realistic and elect a man who is articulate, gender friendly, gay friendly, globally friendly and someone who will not make his country seem like a global police.
Go Obama!!!

"'Has there ever been such an empty, vapid, disengenious, self-righteous, arrogant, pompous, sanctimonious, etc. politican as Mitt Romney' ......
Actually, Ken there has been."

I was really thinking the same thing, Ken. ESPECIALLY when you add:


"But, you left out deceitful, dishonest and vindictive"


He's still ambling around the White House wearing Neil Armstrong's helmet while shooting at Kennedy sculptures with Davy Crocket's gun drinking from Grants' flask.

Ron Paul won the debate according to ABC’s own poll and Drudge Report’s poll.

Ron Paul places 1st or 2nd in every straw poll, debate, and active participation survey. Including this ABC debate!

Ron Paul is 1st on YouTube, Meetup, MySpace, Technorati, Alexa, Clickz, Google, etc. The old media is just too slow to realize what is happening.

Dr. Ron Paul has the most contributions from U.S. military personnel and  veterans above all other candidates. So support the troops and vote Ron Paul!

A big problem with our electoral processes is that the media generally supports the candidates with the most money. Those are the worst candidates because they are owned by special interest and lobbyists.

Ron Paul is the only major candidate not owned by military-industrial-complex, corporations, special interest, lobbyists, etc. Fix the system and vote Ron Paul. And tell everyone you know. Now is the time to set ourselves free.

Dr. Ron Paul is the man of integrity and courage that America needs at this time.

Visit YouTube and search Ron Paul to learn more...

Join the Revolution -- Vote Ron Paul!

I know our foreign relationships with other countries can somtimes be complex, BUT is a country really an ally if we even have to discuss them not cooperating with us with getting Al Queda?  

Also, Peter a Harvard MBA and a billion dollars doesn't necessarily mean you have the best ideas to run the country.  It also doesn't mean you're the sharpest tool in the shed.  I believe George W. Bush has a Harvard MBA and is a millionaire.  

Romney's wealth makes him the best candidate?  I'm not sure the skill sets transfer nearly as well as Peter Jones thinks.  Next, you'll be trying to convince me the Redskins really DID win several Super Bowls under Dan Snyder's ownership.  There's another example of wealth not equating with competence.

I think this reveals why no one else has laid down a comprehensive foreign policy.  No matter what you say, it can be criticized in one way or another (correct or not).

Obama is the new John Kerry.

If Obama is Dr. Strangelove then there is no doubt he'll win.

It's one of Kubrick's masterpieces.

Romney has also lied about the episode in which he supposedly strapped the family dog to the roof of the van during vacation trip. The pooch got to ride in the back. It was one of Patriarch Mitt's wives that got strapped to the roof.  

BH - I think the issue is more the timing of his mind changing, i.e. to coincide with elections.  Go liberal to win in MA, go conservative to win nationally.  That's suspect.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):