Closing Bell: Sixpoint Puts Obama on Tap

Haven't tried the Obama, but their "Sweet Action" and "Bengali Tiger" are world-class. And my favorite Sixpoint brew? "Brownstone!"

Posted by: guest at March 12, 2008 4:08 PM

Can Muslims drink?

Posted by: guest at March 12, 2008 4:15 PM

why not a Sixpoint Spitzer brew???

Posted by: guest at March 12, 2008 4:22 PM

If you like a creamy head, try Sixpoint Spitzer, the top john's choice.

Posted by: guest at March 12, 2008 4:26 PM

Muslims are not supposed to drink.

Obama is not, and has never been, a Muslim, if that's the inference. Since when are we defined by our names?

Posted by: guest at March 12, 2008 4:26 PM

4:26, I think that 4:15 comment was a bad joke.

Posted by: guest at March 12, 2008 4:28 PM

Try McCain Microbrew!

It tastes like really, really, really old beer that's had a bamboo pole shoved up its ass.

Posted by: guest at March 12, 2008 4:30 PM

If I buy it with a five, do I get any change?

Posted by: guest at March 12, 2008 4:49 PM

you people are idiots

Posted by: guest at March 12, 2008 5:08 PM

It probably tastes great at first, but the more you drink it, the more you realize it's kind of flat & tasteles.

Posted by: guest at March 12, 2008 5:09 PM

Try Hillary's Belgian Whitbear.

Yes, it's white and bland but it comes with a 5 oz. VP-sized can of Hop Obama Ale.

Posted by: guest at March 12, 2008 5:19 PM

What is sad is that religion matters in politics. How hypocritical are we when we want other countries not to choose leaders based on religion, yet we do it. When Leiberman ran with Gore people wondered if his religious observance would get in the way, Romney was put through the ringer for being Morman and now Obama for having a Muslim name.

Posted by: guest at March 12, 2008 8:07 PM

Try Sphincter's Ale.
it's the easy come, easy go kinda beer.

Posted by: guest at March 12, 2008 8:37 PM

can i get a soul clap for our new Governor?

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 12:05 AM

With a middle name like Hussein I don't care what he is I don't want him as President. How stupid to think he will topple the American cause single handedly.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 8:10 AM

Lets here if for brownstoner. With the Fugetabout it Ad he took "reasons to Leave brooklyn". Pull your advertising here, no one believes in leaving Brooklyn you are waisting your money spending it here on this bull crap blog. No advertisements here please.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 8:12 AM

Ferraro was correct. If Obama were white, he would never been invited to address the Dem National Convetion in 2004. Had he not addressed the DNC, he would not and could not have become a candidate.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 8:23 AM

I know the city is excited about this guy, but he will not be the president. IF he does overcome the Hillary Machine, he wont win the general election.

The Republicans will Pound him and he is a soft target. Beleive it or not, the country is not nearly as "Progressive" as NYC.

Polls may say one thing, but when people are in the voting booth its a whole different world.

And no, i am not a Republican, or a Democrat.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 8:49 AM

he'll lose in NYC too - although many high-earning people in the city are liberal on the surface, take away the social security cap (like he has suggested) and the massive tax increase those people will suffer will be too much for them when they actually get to the ballot box. Honestly - how many people will actually vote for a tax increase for themselves?

he needs to make it clear right now that he won't go down that path.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 9:07 AM

He lost NY because of the Jewish love for Clinton and the fear that Obama would see the Israel lobby for what it is.
Clinton sees nothing, says nothing, just follows the status quo.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 9:16 AM

the red states only vote when it counts.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 10:08 AM

Actually, Hillary is the more progressive candidate (policy-wise), and Obama has huge (and to me, somewhat mysterious) support outside of NYC. I think the people of NYC actually give Clinton more time and consideration because they know how hard she has worked for this state. Whereas outside of NY, most dems I have spoken to feel she is so loathed by the right that she is unelectable. In other words, I don't feel "the city" is excited about him as much as some folks out in the sticks.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 11:00 AM

Obama should have at least served one term as Senator before he ran for President.

He has no record in high office so it's impossible to have any idea of what type of President he'll be without guessing. It's easy for him to go after Hillary since she HAS A RECORD.

If Hillary had ran during her first term, she would have been laughed off the stage.

Since Barrack is half black, he's given special treatment by blacks and some liberal whites who love the idea of a smart black man running the country, even though his experience in high office is non exisitent.

The day after Barrack was elected Senator, he signed a book deal for nearly 2 million bucks and wrote The Audacity of Hope during his first year as a Senator. He's just as corrupt as the rest of them -- no different.

I'm a Clinton supporter who will definitely vote for McCain if Clinton loses.

Gearge Bush ran the same bullshit "Change" and "Unity" campaign that Obama is running and look where we are now.

There's no way in hell that an extreme liberal like Obama will be a uniter. He's divided the Democratic party like never before and if elected this great melting pot country will be more divided than ever before.

Not to mention that Barrack knows nothing about economics or business. He claims his lack of investment experience is what got him into the Rezko deal just three years ago.

If the guy doesn't understand normal business procedure in buying a house, how the hell can he effectively run this country?

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 11:03 AM

"if elected this great melting pot country will be more divided than ever before"

Yep we all agree on Iraq.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 11:12 AM

Obama and Clinton are very close policy wise, but there's no way that Clinton ranks as the more progressive of the two. She voted for the Iraq war, and she did it at a time when it was *obviously* the wrong vote. This isn't about hindsight either. Even at the time, no one in their right minds thought that Bush should be given the authority to do what he's done. Hillary voted with Bush. She *blew* it. This vote alone disqualifies her to hold the office of President, in my view.

She later voted with Bush again to have Iran named a terrorist state or whatever, I guess because a war in Iraq and a war in Afghanistan aren't enough. Third war's the charm?

Her campaign tactics have also been oddly stupid. Her constant complaints about Obama's lack of experience aren't going to get her anywhere. Hell, Bush was serving his second term as Governor of Texas when he was elected president (and he was the son of a former president, which should count as 'experience' if being a former first lady does). Look where all of Bush's experience got us? I'd rather have someone who's smart with little or no experience.

Besides, think a minute. We live in a country of *300 million* or so citizens that constantly touts itself as a democracy and proponent of democratic values. Yet, for the last 20 years, the executive branch of our government has been dominated by *two families*! Am I the only one who finds this disturbing? For Christ's sake, we need someone in office whose last name is neither Bush nor Clinton.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 12:19 PM

The (since you like them so much, I'll use them) *dynasty* argument against Clinton is a nonsense. The Bushes are a super rich/ruling class/elite family... the Clinton's offspring of alcoholic nobodies. Nobody is asking for a vote for Chelsea Clinton. I find progressiveness in the candidate who is working towards universal healthcare, is not supporting liquid coal (an environmental nightmare), and has worked incredibly hard for children and women her whole life. Not the person who gave lip service to stuff when it made no difference to his ability to work with people.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 1:14 PM

Yeah, it's just a coincidence that a second Clinton is vying for the White House. A one in 300 million shot, but that can happen, right?

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 1:25 PM

Yeah, well, she hasn't done much for the women and children of Iraq. I can tell you that much. Ever looked up how many Iraqi civilians have been killed by this Clinton-supported invasion? Saddam could have remained in power for 500 years without killing so many.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 1:28 PM

Obama would have voted to got to war with Iraq too if he'd been a Senator at the time.

Sure he gave a couple speeches against the war at the time, but he was running for office at the time and trying to get attention.

Once in office, Obama voted to keep funding the war in Iraq. He claims he voted to keep funding to "support the troops," which is complete and utter bullshit and everybody knows it.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 1:47 PM

Ah, but there were some senators who DID NOT sell out by supporting Bush in that vote. But maybe you're right. Maybe Obama would have sold out too. I don't know, but I'm prepared to entertain the idea. But I know Clinton would have sold out BECAUSE SHE DID.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 1:54 PM

FEAR! FEAR! FEAR is really coming out from all of you whites. That is INSECURITY spelt all over you people.
Give another race a chance... Go home and think about it in your own quiet time.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:02 PM

Obama has a tow-the-line voting record. He votes along with the rest of his party almost 100% of the time.

He DEFINITELY would have voted to go to war if he had been in office.

Obama doesn't really about the war. Remember, his own foreign policy advisor was recently forced to resign after telling a foreign newspaper that Obama's Iraq withdrawl plan would NOT TAKE PLACE once he's in office.

Obama needs to be a high profile public figure for longer than three years before running for office so Americans can have a record to judge instead of just slick lawyerly arguments.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:24 PM

Clinton did IN FACT vote for war. And that settles that.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:44 PM

3:44pm,

Clinton didn't vote "for war."

She voted to authorize the use of force if the President saw fit to use it.

Bush and Cheney are at fault, not Clinton, or the rest of the Senators who were hoodwinked into going along with it.

Why do you believe anything Obama says? What has he done that's so great? I've read a lot about him and I haven't come across a single big achievement.

It's not what a person says, but what they do that matters.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:56 PM

What does this have to do with "an unhealthy obsession with brownstones". Oh forgot it gives Brownstoner more hits, more hits = more $. Farce assholes.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:58 PM

A good President will lead the economy to greatness and real estate prices will continue to rise.

Life is a circle.

I sure do love donuts.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:26 PM

3.02 - fear of gender. Give another gender a chance. Go home and think about it, assuming you have the cerebral capacity.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:51 PM

Clinton voted to authorize the use of force if *Shrub* saw fit to use it at a time when Shrub was obviously looking hard for an *excuse* to use it.

Clinton voted for war. No senators were 'hoodwinked'. Even the Brits could tell that the Bush administration was trumping up phony justifications for war. The proffered justifications for war were utterly pathetic, relying upon criteria that, if applied consistently, would have had us at war with half the world.

Stop playing dumb.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 11:38 PM

Thanks for the linkback to my stream on the Obama photo. -Cecily

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 11:09 PM