Comments on: Sacre Bleu! Le Monde Publishes Never-Before-Seen 1996 Interview With Obamas About Their Marriage

By: raymond

raymond — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 22:07:13 +0000

More garbage from the left..You people are so far to the left you can’t stop going in circles..Wake up and realize that all AMERICANS are not stupid enough to believe you because you say its true..This guy is a disaster for AMERICA and the world but your noses are so far up his butt you can’t understans that..GOD BLESS AMERICA !!

By: Am

Am — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:04:09 +0000

Ya know what Ratt?
Get your facts straight — Obama only voted “present” in the Illinois Senate. That doesn’t just mean “hey, I’m here” — it means that he either had a conflict of interest, or thought that the bill was a good idea but had major reservations about voting “yes” for it because there was a flaw.

By: Maria Houser Conzemius

Maria Houser Conzemius — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:51:13 +0000

“‘Winning’ his 1996 race is a euphemism for ‘getting all his opponents knocked off the ballot so he could ‘run’ unopposed.’” Ditto. I agree with fsteele.
Locally, I’ve uncovered evidence of possible caucus fraud by Obama supporters in Iowa. If more people would talk, it would be easier to prove, but I know that caucus fraud by the Obama campaign in Texas has been documented.
No more caucuses!! Too easy to defraud the voters. Undemocratic, too. How many people can show up for three or four hours on a particular night to represent their candidate? It’s harder for the poor and working classes.

By: kjj

kjj — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:30:11 +0000

I think this is a genuine article, but I have to wonder: Why would a FRENCH magazine do an article on AMERICAN marriages?

By: Honora

Honora — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:46:24 +0000

Obama was famous for being famous even before he was famous. We have been set up by Brazile, Dean, the DNC and the media. God help the world.

By: POTP

POTP — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:26:04 +0000

tsk tsk. what we could have know prior to voting for him IF he’d only been vetted to any extent.

By: fsteele

fsteele — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:49:48 +0000

‘Winning’ his 1996 race is a euphemism for ‘getting all his opponents knocked off the ballot so he could ‘run’ unopposed.’ He could not have won a vote against the incumbent “beloved elder stateswoman” Alice Palmer, so he made a vote impossible. Just as he could not win a vote against Hillary Clinton, so he maneuvered in the back rooms of Florida and Michigan and Denver to prevent her votes from being counted. (And Hillary still ‘won’ the exit polls; 9.5 million of McCain’s voters preferred Hillary.)
Ref “Showing his bare knuckles” in a Chicago Tribune profile.

By: Dorothea Nauls

Dorothea Nauls — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:38:24 +0000

If the Obamas need a babysitter/nanny I’m available.

By: Dorothea Nauls

Dorothea Nauls — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:35:46 +0000

Let’s hope that life in the White House doesn’t adversely affect what appears to be a beautiful relationship. Common sense tells us that their marriage has been and will be tested by the campaign and the victory.

By: jim

jim — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:28:21 +0000

And GDP is a poor measure of a nation’s health. Especially as the sole measure.
As a metaphor, consider a very village with a yearly GDP of $110,000. One villager makes $100,000, and the ten other villagers make $1000 each.
Now let’s say the one wealthy villager doubles his income one year, from $100,000 to $200,000. And in the same year, the 10 other villagers only make half their previous income, for $500 each.
The village’s GDP went from $110,000 to $205,000! So what are the other ten villagers complaining about?
You see what I’m saying?
If you even want to look at using GDP as a useful sole measure of an economy’s health for the whole nation, you have to at least use it as a mean. And not just as a lump sum.