Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Signs On to Three Debates

By Jonathan Weisman
ORLANDO -- Barack Obama today accepted the bare minimum number of presidential debates, three, along with one vice presidential debate, virtually closing the door on the possibility of a slew of appearances that John McCain had proposed.

"Due to the late date of the two parties' nominating conventions, and the relatively short period between the end of the conventions and the first proposed debate, it is likely that the four Commission debates will be the sole series of debates in the fall campaign," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in a letter to Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr. and Paul G. Kirk Jr., co-chairs of the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Early this summer, both McCain and Obama held out the possibility of a unique presidential campaign, when McCain suggested the candidates appear together at a series of town hall-style gatherings. Obama said he would entertain the idea, but after a cursory round of talks, the Obama campaign opted out.

In a statement, the McCain campaign said, "John McCain looks forward to debating Barack Obama as often as possible, but it's disappointing that Senator Obama has refused his offer to do joint town hall meetings."

By Washington Post Editors  |  August 2, 2008; 3:43 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama's Shift on Drilling
Next: Kerry Accuses GOP of 'Character Assassination'

Comments

I can't wait for those 3 debates :) See what obama got to say about his 20 years of pastor wright, anti-american wife, rezko, auchi and other radicals..

He doesn;t do well without a tele promoter
and a script :) ummm... ahhh... ummm... ahh.... its boring.. not sure how these obamabots bare this kind of moans

Posted by: Valeri | August 4, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait for the 3 debates, but I know their will only be one. After the first, John Mcsame will be hospitalized. OBAMA will trash him. His this town hall debate will not be rigged. Yes, that's what I said.The media trools refused to report this but HuffPost reported on it sometime back. Obama knew this and he knew Mcsame wanted media exposure, because Mcsame can only fill a tea cup @ his town hall meetings.Mcsame won't be able to turn people away who does not support him. He won't be able to have people thrown out. And his people he has travling around the country with him he plants in front of the stage will not be albe to rule this debate. Yes I can't wait.Mcsame has done an excellent job of making himself look like an old used car trying to make it home running on empty. On the same stage with OBAMA can you picture how he will look. Then to try and debate Obama will be the biggest laugh of the century. And old Joe-Boy can't wisper in his ear. I am going to love it.

Posted by: tygirl | August 4, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

I RECEIVED A MAILER FROM THE mcbrainless CAMPAIGN ASKING TO PLEDGE $50 IN AUGUST AND $50 IN SEPTEMBER.SEEMS HE NEEDS $$ TO RIGISTER NEW VOTERS IN ORDER TO BEAT OBAMA.
"THE OBAMA DEMOCRATS HAVE LAUNCHED A 50-STATE VOTER REGISTRATION DRIVE WHICH WILL RESULT DIRECTLY IN DRAMATICALLY INCREASING DEMOCRATS VOTER TURNOUT ON NOVEMBER 4."
"....WE FACE ENORMOUS ODDS....THIS INTENSE AND FULLY FUNDED DEMOCRAT REGISTRATION CAMPAIGN MAKES OUR JOB EVEN TOUGHER"
THEY EVEN MARKED THE ENVELOPES "AUGUST" AND "SEPTEMBER".

OBAMA DEMS HAVE BEEN REGISTERING VOTERS SINCE THE PRIMARIES. WE HAVE VOLUNTEERS AT ALL COMMUNITY EVENTS FROM NEIGHBORHOOD STREET FAIRS TO NEW CITIZENS ON THE DAY THEY BECAME CITZENS RIGHT AFTER THE CEREMONY.IT IS NOT "FULLY FUNDED" AS mcbrainless HAS CLAIMED. WE ARE VOLUNTEERS FOR THE MOST PART AND WHEN TRAVELLING TO OTHER STATES WE ARE SPONSERED BY OTHER DEMS. DONATIONS OF AIR MILES/GIFT CARDS/A PLACE TO STAY BY INDIVIDUAL DEMS NOT "BIG MONEY" AS mcbrainless ALSO CLAIMS.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama must have recalled how prior "debates" have turned into forums for another candidate to use silliness and self-publicization to his (or her) exclusive advantage while diverting the discussion from policy issues. That same dynamic obtains now even without a shared venue, aided tacitly by media that we might have hoped would perform otherwise.

Posted by: FirstMouse | August 4, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Mccain's skills have really deteriorated just over the course of this campaign. It has really taken a toll on him.

--------
The last video I saw of John McCain at one of his own "town hall meetings," I was impressed to see how he repeatedly referred back to his script to FINISH HIS SENTENCE. I'm not making this up and I wasn't seeing things. Conversely, Obama speaks spontaneously and clearly off-the-cuff in similar situations. To suggest he depends on a teleprompter is not only laughable, but a typical republican tactic of saying the opposite of what is clearly true. Yet another attack where the opponent is accused of raudulent nonsense, with a follow up of a second attack so as to divert the opponent from refuting the first while confusing those easily confused audience members. It is such an old and predictable play that it has become ineffective with all but the dumbest of voters. Clearly McCain is no match for Obama on any level: most importantly in the area of integrity and running a respectful campaign. The more I learn about McCain, the less respect I have for him.

Posted by: Paying Attention? | August 4, 2008 3:33 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

The last video I saw of John McCain at one of his own "town hall meetings," I was impressed to see how he repeatedly referred back to his script to FINISH HIS SENTENCE. I'm not making this up and I wasn't seeing things. Conversely, Obama speaks spontaneously and clearly off-the-cuff in similar situations. To suggest he depends on a teleprompter is not only laughable, but a typical republican tactic of saying the opposite of what is clearly true. Yet another attack where the opponent is accused of raudulent nonsense, with a follow up of a second attack so as to divert the opponent from refuting the first while confusing those easily confused audience members. It is such an old and predictable play that it has become ineffective with all but the dumbest of voters. Clearly McCain is no match for Obama on any level: most importantly in the area of integrity and running a respectful campaign. The more I learn about McCain, the less respect I have for him.

Posted by: Paying Attention? | August 4, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Bravo for Senator Obama for agreeing to just three debates with McCain. There is no reason for him to give McCain one bit more of public exposure since he already has victory in November sewed up. I wouldn't be surprised if McCain loses his volcanic temper during one of these debates and tries to physically attack Obama as he has done on the floor of the Senate on several occasions. No matter what happens, three debates will be more than sufficient to demonstrate that McCain is utterly unqualified for the Presidency.

Posted by: David S. Robins | August 4, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

There was over a dozen candidates. In most of the debates a candidate may have had less the 5 minutes of air time in some cases. Now it is just two and they will be debating to an estimated combined audience over the three nights of a quarter billion people. I think we will see enough. If you don't have an idea who you they are by now no number of debates will help.

---------
Wow, after months of great interest and high ratings for dozens of primary debates exploring minute differences between candidates from the same parties Obama only wants three debates to explore the wider differences between the candidates of different parties.

What the matter BaBawk, you chicken?

Posted by: Paul | August 4, 2008 3:17 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

My name is JakeD, HEAR MY ROOOOAAAARRRRR!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

To put it into perspective, the debates Mccain wanted to have every week for ten weeks in a different city, a logistical nightmare by the way for the secret service and everyone else involved would not have reached hardly anyone. All you would of had was talking points on the various news shows distorting and spinning what was said. The first upcoming debate is expected to draw an audience of 90,000,000. That is a lot better then talking to 200 people at a time. Mccains idea was just plain stupid. Again Obama shows the right judgment as to how it should be done. Mccain thinks it is the 1940's or something.

++++++++++
hree debates will be more than enough for Obama to show the world he is the right choice for President.

McCain will flounder, contradict himself, forget his platform, and most likely lose his temper. Hopefully the moderators won't have to repeat the questions too often - that will be ugly.

I can't wait.

Posted by: Susan | August 4, 2008 3:12 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Wow, after months of great interest and high ratings for dozens of primary debates exploring minute differences between candidates from the same parties Obama only wants three debates to explore the wider differences between the candidates of different parties.

What the matter BaBawk, you chicken?

Posted by: Paul | August 4, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Mccain has been talking about Obamas age since this has started. Although indelicate it may be time to talk about the elephant in the room. Mccains age and mental stability. If you look at clips of Mccain from 2000 he is hardly a shell in 2008 of that man back then. He sounds today almost demented and looks every year of his age. At some point it is going to have to be brought up. What are we going to do, elect a man that is obviously, (at least to some degree), losing his mind? John Mccain could not get a job with any major company in the country, yet we are expected to put him in charge of the most powerful nation in the free world? Are we crazy or what for even considering this?

=======
I love the discrimination shown by the Obama posters regarding McCain's age (referencing his physical appearance, memory, etc.)...the same people who are attempting to demonize McCain for racism while their own candidate is actually the one stoking the flames (see recent "Dollar Bill" comment by Obama for reference).

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Three debates will be more than enough for Obama to show the world he is the right choice for President.

McCain will flounder, contradict himself, forget his platform, and most likely lose his temper. Hopefully the moderators won't have to repeat the questions too often - that will be ugly.

I can't wait.

Posted by: Susan | August 4, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama signs up thousands of new voters every week, Mccain doesn't even have any offices yet. Don't fool yourself, Every vote Mccain has or is going to have he probably has right now, thats it. And some of them that are anti Obama votes may even go to Barr or Nader. Don't pay any attention to polls they don't mean much of anything. What do you think, from one week to the next voters are changing their minds by the tens of thousands one way or another then they next week they switch again? They poll like a few hundred people and depending on even what day or time of day the calls are made you get different voters an different answers. If they call in the day time they may get stay at home moms or older people and so on. They get no feed back from those with only cell phones and they make up a lot of voters now. Call at 8 p.m. and you get a completely different demographic then at noon. I did poll calling once and it is a farce, hardly worth what they pay for them. You would need a sampling of like 100,000 not 300 to feel like you learned anything. People are not flip flopping from one week to the next it is the polls they change based on how they are done. Let me ask you something, how many times in the last few months have you switched from Mccain to Obama and back again? Exactly, and neither does anyone else. The polls are BS.
=======


I love the discrimination shown by the Obama posters regarding McCain's age (referencing his physical appearance, memory, etc.)...the same people who are attempting to demonize McCain for racism while their own candidate is actually the one stoking the flames (see recent "Dollar Bill" comment by Obama for reference).

The fact of the matter is that this race is a statistical dead heat heading into August, and a new poll (Rasmussen) out this morning even has McCain slightly in the lead. Slowly but surely, the American public is beginning to recognize that Obama is a typical, Chicago schooled, say-anything-to-get-elected politician who has zero in the way of tangible experience (does anyone know what a "community organizer" is, by the way? The fact that McCain is either tied or leading in this type of economic environment leads me to believe he'll win by 5+ points come November. McCain's followers may not fill football stadiums swooning and "ahhing" as each word leaves his lips, but they're out there in larger numbers than most people on this board care to believe.
Posted by: John | August 4, 2008 1:56 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Well I guess I better leave my church. Some times my pastor says things I don't agree with or even believe in at all. but he's the closest to my believes. Not every sermon Wright gave was hate filled. a lot of those 40 second snips you heard was taken our of content. There as been many times this last eight years under Bush people damned America. They often mean damned Bush/Channey/mccains way of ruling these last eight years that destroyed us. But wright is from the 50's,60's,70's where there was a lot of pain given to the black people as they struggled for equal rights. We were trailer trash and we were white, so we weren't treated kindly either. We lived next to those black folk who were full of anger, and they excepted us white trash people better than you white peole excepted us. so I know how it is to get lost in those old hurt feelings of yesteryear! I grew out of it over the years, but I still can thread out those who talk down to the black folk and white's like us! They use words like uppity, and elist's, persumptiouse and a lot more comeing out of the Mccain campagne. I do not think he realize's he is racist! Not only to black, but he treats poor white people bad to. His voteing record is poor for women,minority and the poor. I don't think he even understands them. I think a lot of people on these post don't understand. I use to be angry and I learned to move on. Mccain still has anger in him. you can hear it. He's has a hot headed temper, and has aimed it at his wife and co workers in the senate. where does it show this man could keep his temper under stress of war, or under a attack of any kind? How can a hot head like this keep us safe,when he lose's his temper at a simple thing like a reporter asking him hard questions! Sense these two are your only choice's for president the chooseing isn't hard when you have a military man who graduated at the bottom of his class and can't keep his temper in check or even remember what he's saying, Compared to a lawyer who graduated at the top of his class, has a cool temper who has leader ship ability and knows the constitution inside and out.

Posted by: alberta treadway | August 4, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Why am I punking out of town hall meetings with McCain?

I could whup him anywhere and anytime, just one town hall with him and he would be done and the election clinched!

Call your Congressman and Senator and DEMAND for them to DEMAND the DNC to allow me to whup McCain in a town hall meeting!

Posted by: Barack Obama | August 4, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

The bare minimum number of presidential debates? This is the same number that every other presidential campaign has had for the last twenty years. Shame on you Jonathan Weisman!

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Posted by: The Franchise | August 4, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, John.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I love the discrimination shown by the Obama posters regarding McCain's age (referencing his physical appearance, memory, etc.)...the same people who are attempting to demonize McCain for racism while their own candidate is actually the one stoking the flames (see recent "Dollar Bill" comment by Obama for reference).

The fact of the matter is that this race is a statistical dead heat heading into August, and a new poll (Rasmussen) out this morning even has McCain slightly in the lead. Slowly but surely, the American public is beginning to recognize that Obama is a typical, Chicago schooled, say-anything-to-get-elected politician who has zero in the way of tangible experience (does anyone know what a "community organizer" is, by the way? The fact that McCain is either tied or leading in this type of economic environment leads me to believe he'll win by 5+ points come November. McCain's followers may not fill football stadiums swooning and "ahhing" as each word leaves his lips, but they're out there in larger numbers than most people on this board care to believe.

Posted by: John | August 4, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe for you, but nothing that would make any difference in an election of this size and scope."

Not enough for others eh? Then add this:

Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years.
Wright, Obama''s mentor and "uncle" as he called him, is a staunch supporter of Farrahkan (gave him a lifetime achievement award).
Also...
Obama is a friend of Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist.

So why is Obama running for President?

Posted by: Billw | August 4, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Pro-life people can elect McCain becuase there's ZERO chance Roe v. Wade gets overturned if Obama wins.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I made an error, I thought you were the Mccain who has been posting that same post all over the net. I am sorry I didn't really read it.
=====
As long as you are going to keep copying and pasting this don't you think you should at least clean it up a little. Maybe starting with a spell check. If makes you seem not only lazy but illiterate.
--------
how in the hell can the people elect McCain. He is still a liar his spokes person Rove has said McCain is a liar but not a practicing one what ever that means.He has been a senator two hundred years up in washington and thinks he can run this country.McCain says if he is elected that he will nuke everything off the table.McCain is against everthing that comes up like a real energy plan.Now he has changed his mind,he is a flip flopper.McCain is against things but when he find out the people are for it he is for it.Called a flip flopper.We already have a dumb ass in the white house we don't need another one.There is still racism in this country.There will never be panamanian man running this country especialy one that the people don't even know him.One that talks but has no substance.He says he will not change Washington,hell it will take more than him to not change washington.

Posted by: Folores Dleming | August 4, 2008 1:31 PM

Posted by: | August 4, 2008 1:37 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

As long as you are going to keep copying and pasting this don't you think you should at least clean it up a little. Maybe starting with a spell check. If makes you seem not only lazy but illiterate.
--------
how in the hell can the people elect McCain. He is still a liar his spokes person Rove has said McCain is a liar but not a practicing one what ever that means.He has been a senator two hundred years up in washington and thinks he can run this country.McCain says if he is elected that he will nuke everything off the table.McCain is against everthing that comes up like a real energy plan.Now he has changed his mind,he is a flip flopper.McCain is against things but when he find out the people are for it he is for it.Called a flip flopper.We already have a dumb ass in the white house we don't need another one.There is still racism in this country.There will never be panamanian man running this country especialy one that the people don't even know him.One that talks but has no substance.He says he will not change Washington,hell it will take more than him to not change washington.

Posted by: Folores Dleming | August 4, 2008 1:31 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Out of curiosity, how many have taken the time to meet your candidate? I drove 250 miles to see Mccain and I have no intention of voting for him. I thought it was important to see him in person though and I was right. It removed any doubts if there was any. We just wanted to be sure. I met Obama more then a year ago we spent a half hour together. He is a friend of a friend and we were in a private setting at their house. He is the real deal I can tell you.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

how in the hell can the people elect McCain. He is still a liar his spokes person Rove has said McCain is a liar but not a practicing one what ever that means.He has been a senator two hundred years up in washington and thinks he can run this country.McCain says if he is elected that he will nuke everything off the table.McCain is against everthing that comes up like a real energy plan.Now he has changed his mind,he is a flip flopper.McCain is against things but when he find out the people are for it he is for it.Called a flip flopper.We already have a dumb ass in the white house we don't need another one.There is still racism in this country.There will never be panamanian man running this country especialy one that the people don't even know him.One that talks but has no substance.He says he will not change Washington,hell it will take more than him to not change washington.

Posted by: Folores Dleming | August 4, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

So you won't be voting for Obama, that is your right as an American, but I seriously it has much to do with the reasons you lay out in your post. Although I don't think you have a right to spread lies because the truth can't support your argument. It is no less then I would expect from a Mccain supporter and your post is exactly the reason so many of us are working so hard to be sure Obama is elected. What have you done to get your candidate elected? My guess is you probably won't even bother to vote if for some reason it's inconvenient. By the way, we are giving Obama another $1000.00 for his birthday. It is not really a gift though, it is an investment in the future.

========
how in the hell can the people elect Obama He is still a muslim his spokes person Gibbs has said Obama is a muslim but not a practicing one what ever that means.He has been a senator two years up in washington and thinks he can run this country.Obama says if he is elected that he will take nuclear off the table.Obama is against everthing that comes up like off shore drilling for oil.Now he has changed his mind,he is a flip flopper.Obama is against things but when he find out the people are for it he is for it.Called a flip flopper.We already have a dumb ass in the white house we don't need another one.There is still racism in this country.There will never be black man running this country especialy one that the people don't even know him.One that talks but has no substance.He says he will change Washington,hell it will take more than him to change washington.

Posted by: Dolores Fleming | August 4, 2008 12:52 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Delores Fleming you are STUPID, IGNORANT, AND RACIST. Go to fightthesmears.com and educate thyself.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

how in the hell can the people elect Obama He is still a muslim his spokes person Gibbs has said Obama is a muslim but not a practicing one what ever that means.He has been a senator two years up in washington and thinks he can run this country.Obama says if he is elected that he will take nuclear off the table.Obama is against everthing that comes up like off shore drilling for oil.Now he has changed his mind,he is a flip flopper.Obama is against things but when he find out the people are for it he is for it.Called a flip flopper.We already have a dumb ass in the white house we don't need another one.There is still racism in this country.There will never be black man running this country especialy one that the people don't even know him.One that talks but has no substance.He says he will change Washington,hell it will take more than him to change washington.

Posted by: Dolores Fleming | August 4, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

JP,

I've been reading your posts, and have been kinda disappointed. Not with your ability to think, because you are a very independent thinker, but with your assumptions. You really miss the whole point. My response (look below) was also intended to be a response to you.

I could address many of your perspectives on history, (specifically the Great Depression) such as that fact that the Federal Reserve act was passed in 1913 (that's before the Great Depression, BTW). But I believe that fully addressing this is far beyond the confines of this post. So I'll address the philosophy one more time. There are two areas that we disagree.

1) Collectivism

According to JP: "I think we've lost a sense of that collective responsibility, which is a reason that we're seeing a regression back to a time before the twin crises of the Great Depression and WWII."

According to me: I look at people as individuals rather than herds. The responsibility we have collectively is because of the responsibility we have individually; not the other way around.

2) Practicality

According to JP: "I'm also someone who likes to play the percentages, and who tends to view myself as a realist."

According to me: I don't value pragmatism as you do. Would you think it's ok to rob a bank just because you where just lost a lot of money in the stock market? That's very pragmatic, but completely not moral. I don't care how desperate you are. Now, if pragmatism isn't so high a value, how can you justify telling the government to rob from someone else in case you might have problems? That's not pragmatic; that's wrong.

See my previous post for more details. I'm a high schooler, so I obviously could be wrong. Still, please don't just dismiss this. Think about whether your conscience is truly fine with legal plunder.

I'll give you the last word, since I need to get to school, but, in case this comes up: the social contract theory does allow use to surrender rights to governmental authorities, but, once again, we can only surrender our own rights, not other's rights.

> Brian

Posted by: BrianFactor | August 4, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Not worth the time. You are talking to someone who can't even spell it. And if that is the worst they can say about him I hope they are smart enough to be voting for him.
=====

To educate an anonymous critic of Obama, calling him a "studder".
After some Google research I found this:
Famous stutters:
Marilyn Monroe, (1926-1962) actress
King George VI, (1895-1952), King of England, Queen Elizabeth II's father
Winston Churchill, (1874-1965), Prime Minister of Britain during World War II
Lewis Carroll, (1832-1898), author of Alice in Wonderland
Charles Darwin, (1809-1882), British naturalist, developed the theories of evolution
George Washington, (1732 -1799), first president of the USA
Isaac Newton, (1643-1727), scientist who developed the law of Gravity37
So, if Obama somehow stutters once in a while, he has good company!

Posted by: | August 4, 2008 12:40 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Maybe for you, but nothing that would make any difference in an election of this size and scope. It is petty at best, meaningless in general. Probably won't change one vote for the larger thinking person. The people talking about it were never voting for him anyway.

-------

"Thats it, thats all you have."

No, but it's enough.

Posted by: Billw | August 4, 2008 12:10 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

To educate an anonymous critic of Obama, calling him a "studder".
After some Google research I found this:
Famous stutters:
Marilyn Monroe, (1926-1962) actress
King George VI, (1895-1952), King of England, Queen Elizabeth II's father
Winston Churchill, (1874-1965), Prime Minister of Britain during World War II
Lewis Carroll, (1832-1898), author of Alice in Wonderland
Charles Darwin, (1809-1882), British naturalist, developed the theories of evolution
George Washington, (1732 -1799), first president of the USA
Isaac Newton, (1643-1727), scientist who developed the law of Gravity37
So, if Obama somehow stutters once in a while, he has good company!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

SEE?

Question please.

If Obama spent 20 years in Wright's hate-filled church, why is he running for President?

WHAT kind of nutjob asks a question like this?

Have you never been inside a bible-thumpin' church? they are the world's WORST haters, most all of them.

Which is why a pastor is a messiah only for some.

Most people have independent thought.

You, apparently, aren't one of them.

Posted by: MJones from TX | August 4, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

My Lord, the stupidity is starting to get scary.
ATTENTION McCain supporters (at least die-hard conservatives):
You are being PLAYED by your party.
They WANT you to stay IGNORANT and AFRAID for no real reason other than to use your vote to advance their personal, partisan, anti-American agendas. They are very good at pissing on your leg and convincing you it's raining.
All for their own personal, short-term gain or a big ego stroke. Read about strict-father ideology and its reign in the world.
Read the world press.
Or stay with Fox and the GrodyOldParty like they want you to.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This is a democracy. Look up that word and fight back against those you think are making sense but who are actually using you.
Obama will win because he understands how we can make the world better without bullets. As an EXAMPLE, perhaps? Hmm.
Next time you go off half-cocked after watching Fox, just remember: YOU ARE BEING PLAYED.

Posted by: MJones in TX | August 4, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

"Thats it, thats all you have."

No, but it's enough.

Posted by: Billw | August 4, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

"This proves it! Listen to how ma, ma, many times he studders!!!"
What language this McCain voter does he speak?
Typical ignorant fan of the KKK Republican. Go back to grammar school and learn how to speak and write.
Twice using "studders" is a show of crass ignorance.

Posted by: Jorge Moreno | August 4, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Thats it, thats all you have. Where are the off shore bank accounts, surveillance tapes of him taking bribes, illegitimate children? Lets face it, if Hillary;s henchmen could not find anything there is nothing to find. Obama is a pretty good candidate and when you look at the alternative a great candidate.

------
Question please.

If Obama spent 20 years in Wright's hate-filled church, why is he running for President?

Posted by: Billw | August 4, 2008 11:42 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

I really don't know if Bill Clinton is a racist or not. That's for him to decide.

I do know he is a self-centered hasbeen, who is simply unable to give up the spotlight. He has lost his magic touch with the public and he can't handle it. His actions during the primary were entirely unprofessional, and if he was unable to distance himself from his fervent desire to regain the national stage, that's his fault and he should be called on it.

His 'legacy' is one of poor behavior, rather than one of great governance. Sad.

Posted by: Susan | August 4, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Neil re Obama:
"Just like a girl"

He wouldn't debate Clinton. He's a Girley boy.

Posted by: Billw | August 4, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse


Question please.

If Obama spent 20 years in Wright's hate-filled church, why is he running for President?

Posted by: Billw | August 4, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

That short work week has been going on for a while. He is being so carefully managed so as to not have anything happen or him caught dozing or maybe even taking a fall, (remember that clip of Castro?) it is becoming ridiculous. I am beginning to think FDR is running again where they had to pretend he could walk. In this case they are pretending Mccain is a capable man when he obviously is not, both physically or mentally. 72 is not young, just ask and 72 year old. And Mccain is not even a good 72 he looks every year of his age. You see him in person and you will think you are looking at Joan Rivers he is so made up. His town hall meetings he looks like he is held together with glue and tape.

----------
He can't even manage his campaign much less the demands of the job of president. The funny part is, they way they are managing him. They have him on a 4 day work week with the campaign, he does none of his senatorial duties and he looks like it is still killing him. He seems like an old car you foolishly took on a trip and now are just babying along it trying to make it back home before it breaks down all together and you have to leave it on the side of the road. Mccain is so far from being up to the demands of the office he is running for it is a joke. I get up every morning and flip on the news to see what happened over night and half expect to see all the channels covering a massive stroke Mccain had.
----------

wow, theres actually a few things in this posting i havent heard before.
But seriously, do any of you really think a 72 year old man, even as "bright " as Mccain appears on TV, can keep up with a man 30 years younger??
McCain has trouble switching his own topic, lety alone someone else change it for him mid speech.
Obama stutters a bit, usually while searching for an answer, but my #1 complaint would be the "uhm's" he gets into, sounds a little dull in the middle of a serious Q&A session.
The real setting they need tis debate to be in:::: Johnny Carson as the great swami,questions popping out of his wrap,and Jay Leno Guffawing behind the whole scene.Lets see how Obama and McCain handle that, and stay on point.

Posted by: bill | August 4, 2008 3:48 AM

Posted by: | August 4, 2008 6:43 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Does Obama always talks so much? It's f*cking tiring listening to him lecture us on how he should live our lives. The guy talks and talks and talks, all the time. Just like a girl.

Posted by: Neil | August 4, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

After 3 debates John McCain will be thanking Lincoln that he was only embarassed 3 times.

Until then he will continue to embarass himself.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

He can't even manage his campaign much less the demands of the job of president. The funny part is, they way they are managing him. They have him on a 4 day work week with the campaign, he does none of his senatorial duties and he looks like it is still killing him. He seems like an old car you foolishly took on a trip and now are just babying along it trying to make it back home before it breaks down all together and you have to leave it on the side of the road. Mccain is so far from being up to the demands of the office he is running for it is a joke. I get up every morning and flip on the news to see what happened over night and half expect to see all the channels covering a massive stroke Mccain had.
----------

wow, theres actually a few things in this posting i havent heard before.
But seriously, do any of you really think a 72 year old man, even as "bright " as Mccain appears on TV, can keep up with a man 30 years younger??
McCain has trouble switching his own topic, lety alone someone else change it for him mid speech.
Obama stutters a bit, usually while searching for an answer, but my #1 complaint would be the "uhm's" he gets into, sounds a little dull in the middle of a serious Q&A session.
The real setting they need tis debate to be in:::: Johnny Carson as the great swami,questions popping out of his wrap,and Jay Leno Guffawing behind the whole scene.Lets see how Obama and McCain handle that, and stay on point.

Posted by: bill | August 4, 2008 3:48 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 6:43 AM | Report abuse

wow, theres actually a few things in this posting i havent heard before.
But seriously, do any of you really think a 72 year old man, even as "bright " as Mccain appears on TV, can keep up with a man 30 years younger??
McCain has trouble switching his own topic, lety alone someone else change it for him mid speech.
Obama stutters a bit, usually while searching for an answer, but my #1 complaint would be the "uhm's" he gets into, sounds a little dull in the middle of a serious Q&A session.
The real setting they need tis debate to be in:::: Johnny Carson as the great swami,questions popping out of his wrap,and Jay Leno Guffawing behind the whole scene.Lets see how Obama and McCain handle that, and stay on point.

Posted by: bill | August 4, 2008 3:48 AM | Report abuse

Obviously you have never been to one of Mccains town hall meetings. I have been to three and the guy is a buffoon. These debates are going to be brutal. There is no way they can even prepare him. He can't stay on his own talking point for five minutes. He is repeating himself and you can tell it is not for effect or to make a point, he has complete forgotten he said it just a few minutes earlier He repeat the memorized talking point like it is the first time he is saying it.

These debates are going to be a train wreck for Mccain. His handlers must really be sweating it. He pretends to want them and I believe him. I don't think he realizes how bad he is and no one around him probably tells him the truth. What can they say, it would zap his confidence. What you are going to see is a 72 year old man and he looks every day of it, just lost trying to stay on message most likely losing his temper. I saw him do it twice and it seems to be something he has no control of.


Yea, I know, Ive attended one of Mccains town hall meetings too. You forgot how he mispronounces words and pauses for 3 minutes before he walks back over to his talking points sheet. Now I see why he's attacking Obama about his large crowds. Mccain is the most boring speaker you'll ever listen too. I was asleep, most of the town Hall meeting. Mccain is the worst.

Posted by: Maria | August 4, 2008 2:29 AM | Report abuse

If Mccain really wants to debate Obama, why does it have to be at town hall meetings. Mccain sucks at his own town hall meetings because he repeats himself repeatedly. The surge, surge, surge, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, he's a nut case.

Posted by: Barry | August 4, 2008 2:24 AM | Report abuse

Please... Mccain can't even tell the truth about what he said during an interview on Monday during a interview on Wensday without the reporter reminding him of his previous statement. I wish Obama would debate Mccain sooner but not at town hall meetings so Mccain can feel alittle comfort, even though most of his gaffes were at town hall meetings. I would have like to see Mccain fall flat on his face.

Posted by: Jake | August 4, 2008 2:22 AM | Report abuse

Obviously you have never been to one of Mccains town hall meetings. I have been to three and the guy is a buffoon. These debates are going to be brutal. There is no way they can even prepare him. He can't stay on his own talking point for five minutes. He is repeating himself and you can tell it is not for effect or to make a point, he has complete forgotten he said it just a few minutes earlier He repeat the memorized talking point like it is the first time he is saying it.

These debates are going to be a train wreck for Mccain. His handlers must really be sweating it. He pretends to want them and I believe him. I don't think he realizes how bad he is and no one around him probably tells him the truth. What can they say, it would zap his confidence. What you are going to see is a 72 year old man and he looks every day of it, just lost trying to stay on message most likely losing his temper. I saw him do it twice and it seems to be something he has no control of.

==========
Only 3 Debates! WTF?!?!

This is why! Obama Sucks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_K-rC1AmCQ&feature=related

He can NOT handle speaking to America, he can only stare at the back wall while he speaks in the microphone. This proves it! Listen to how ma, ma, many times he studders!!!!! It's the worst in history!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pod1Kr-q6us&feature=related

These 3 debates will be, what Labor Day, 9/11, and Halloween, I'm sure...

McCain 08' "A President who doesn't studder while talking to Americans!"

Posted by: Not a Pawn to ObamaCon! | August 3, 2008 9:45 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Hey "Not a pawn to Obama" the word is STUTTER not "studder"

Posted by: Mayimba | August 3, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

I have seen numerous town hall meetings where Obama has done extremely well - including when interrupted by hecklers in one case. He was calm, poised and respectful and asked them to stay and ask questions as soon as he finished his opening comments. All candidates have their zombie moments - even pros like Hillary had her gaffes. The campaign trail is harrowing; no time for sleep. (I can relate having been on the road as a musician playing creative, demanding music under similar conditions).

In Obama's earlier days he WAS his own speech writer, something literally impossible once a major campaign kicks in. He is an excellent author - and certainly very far from being an empty shell - the man is brillian. Anyone who has read his books knows that. All you folks that support McCain and criticize Obama's sometimes lack of fluidity in public speaking - you guys voted for George Bush TWICE!! Rest case...... Thanks a lot for bringing disaster to our great country!!

Posted by: Mayimba | August 3, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Only 3 Debates! WTF?!?!

This is why! Obama Sucks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_K-rC1AmCQ&feature=related

He can NOT handle speaking to America, he can only stare at the back wall while he speaks in the microphone. This proves it! Listen to how ma, ma, many times he studders!!!!! It's the worst in history!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pod1Kr-q6us&feature=related

These 3 debates will be, what Labor Day, 9/11, and Halloween, I'm sure...

McCain 08' "A President who doesn't studder while talking to Americans!"

Posted by: Not a Pawn to ObamaCon! | August 3, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Dissappointed Again needs to get over the the NYT refusal to publish McCain's op-ed piece. NYT said if he wanted to rewrite it they would take it. Perhaps it was more beneficial to play the blame game?

Posted by: Obamacon | August 3, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

"He's taken the initiative to propose legislative actions with those of the opposite party."

Not very impressive, especially since McCain has done just that, during his long career.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

visit

realdemocratsusa.org

Posted by: Q | August 3, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

This presidential election is one of the most important in recent memory. We, as a nation, are facing issues that cannot be undertaken by one country alone. We need someone in the White House who "plays well with others." Someone who is not afraid to cross party lines to get the job done. Someone who is not afraid to talk to other nations, as opposed to shoveling out more superpower ultimatums as the Bush Administration did.

We, as voters, have a chance to affect the policies, not just of our own nation, but also of the world. We can't afford to be sidetracked by smear campaigns and empty promises.

Look at the actions of the candidates.

McCain served his country in his youth. He was a brave and courageous man, there is no doubting that. But, he's also not above running a smear campaign after he promised to keep his campaign clean.

Obama is new to the scene, relatively anyway. He doesn't have the record of foreign service that McCain does, and he hasn't been on the national political scene for as long. But, Obama is willing to work with those he disagrees with. He's taken the initiative to propose legislative actions with those of the opposite party. He's stated he will utilize America's diplomatic power.

In this very important election we as voters need to pay careful attention. We need to listen to what we are promised, sure, but then we need to look at the follow through of the candidates.

Posted by: Riah | August 3, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Dianne - read Mo Dowd today. She's having a lot of fun at the expense of you "Hillary dead-enders" as she calls ya.

;)

Posted by: Chuckamok | August 3, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

It's surprising that Obama signed on for even three debates, since he loses every debate that he participates in. Look for drops in his polling numbers after each debate with McCain. But, I suppose that he could rely upon his "I agree with Hillary" responses and pick up a few points in the polls for acknowledging that she is smarter, more experienced and better qualified.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

"Besides, the NYT is far too smart ..."

Ah ... yeah ...

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Its laughable to see folks here providing references to Most biased left wing yellow media such as NYT and Huffington post... When we see the report link is from these media outlets. .we just ignore as we know its just not news but their opinion.. who care;s about their openions

Posted by: Grace | August 3, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Character is a problem. His supporters are living in dream world and are in denial.. :) Regardless of what they say.. truth is as it is and he will not get vote in fall

Posted by: Tim | August 3, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

http://www.girlinshortshorts.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-mccain-and-mob.html

McCain sold his soul to the mob in exchange for power.

Can you handle the truth?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

If you read the articles about the NYT's refusal to print McCain's response, there is nothing about it "not being fit to print" or looking "like a child wrote it." They rejected it in its then-present form and told him to rewrite it in a way that shows how McCain defines victory in Iraq. Maybe not the most odious request I've ever heard, but McCain probably correctly thought that he should not have his policies dictated by the NYT. But that request most certainly goes to the content of the piece, not its quality.

Besides, the NYT is far too smart to simply deny McCain's submission, because it would quite rightly be ridiculed as blatant partisanship. Perhaps you expected them to put out a statement saying, "We reject Senator McCain's op-ed because we want Obama to win, and we'll do anything in our power to make that happen"? Of course not. Instead, they asked him to change it knowing that he would probably not comply, and Presto! The NYT has an ostensibly non-partisan reason for denying his submission. The NYT is populated with very smart people, folks. They're playing chess, not checkers.

I recognize that many will simply accept the NYT's explanation as though they had no hidden agenda. I suppose that's the nice part about being an ideologue - all you have to do is cling to your beliefs like a pitbull with a piece of meat in its jaws and never reexamine them in light of facts, logic, and rational argument. It makes life much simpler, because it lets you go to sleep every night with the warm, comfortable feeling of knowing you're absolutely right. It frees you from the discomfort of having to listen to and consider the thoughts of others, and from having to examine and test your beliefs. Perhaps most importantly, it frees you from the uncomfortable prospect of having to question how your beliefs ever became your beliefs in the first place. (Notice how accurately this paragraph describes our current president. Then ask yourself if you have more in common with him than you may have thought.)

Anyway you can read McCain's piece at http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm You may be surprised to find that it is not written in crayon, and unlike many of the people who have been commenting here McCain actually seems to understand the difference between "their" and "they're," "its" and "it's," and it's a fair guess that he knows the difference between a traitor and a trader. (I still can't get over that one. Who knew McCain was a stock trader?)

Before anyone has a seizure, yes, I've linked to the Drudge Report, but only for the reprint of McCain's piece, not because it's an unbiased news source. And yes, that's a reference to whoever cited the Huffington Post earlier.

(Incidentally this is not directed at any one person. If I were from the south I would probably be saying "y'all" instead of "you.")

--------
"Wasn't it the quality and not the content of what he wrote. Either way instead of submitting another draft he goes into another childish rant. Didn't they say his original was not even fit to print, it looked like a child wrote it?."

---------
"Actually, the NY Times printed an op-ed on Iraq from Obama a week or two back and then refused to publish a reply op-ed from McCain a few days later. Examples of media bias don't get much more blatant than that. McCain's got a legitimate gripe with the NYT, as does anyone who was hoping the NYT would be a facilitator of a fair and open debate instead of a cheerleader that has abandoned any pretense of objectivity."

Posted by: Disappointed, Again | August 3, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

John McCain wants to dictate to Obama how the campaign will be ran and what they will talk about. How PRESUMPTUOUS of him! He is so ODD!

Posted by: majorteddy | August 3, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama say he speak Spanish on all debates and make sure they broadcast in Mexico on national Univision TV. We need no debate. Obama win already. Si, Cue Puedo.

Posted by: Hector | August 3, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

No, that is exactly why he doesn't. A stammering, stuttering Mccain appearing to be confused on even his own talking points is the perfect image you want the voter to have in their minds if they have any doubts about him. It will leave the republicans not time to spin it or rehabilitate him. It is the right move to land the final knock out punch if it is going to happen. I have seen Mccain three times in the last 6 month in person and I am going to tell you, it is going to be brutal. You are going to see a Mccain on life support after people get to see him in a setting he can't completely control. From what I have personally seen, I think he may decline even more just over the next few month, he looks and acts like death warmed over now. We will have a 72 year old stumble bum in front of an estimated audience of 90,000,000. A man who is more comfortable talking to 200 at a time. The old man may actually have a stroke.

===========
If McCain is so old and demented, you would think Obama would be rushing to a side by side comparison. He's not so stunning when he doesn't have the teleprompter and groupies.

Posted by: jaywpat | August 3, 2008 11:03 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

RE: Ron Paul website.

Yes, that's what we need during a disappointingly petty and low-roadesque weeks of presidential campaigning: a little Ron-Paul-For-God zealotry.

Yeah, that should really clear things up.

Posted by: Tom M | August 3, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Al in FL,

I don't have too much to add to what you've said. We see eye to eye on this one.

At this stage most of the super-rich in this country are in fact the working rich -- not the idle rich (except perhaps in the world of politics).

The pre-Great Depression tax code that Dubya has into place with an assist from Republican congresses is likely to eliminate even that distinction.

Posted by: JP2 | August 3, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

To chuckamok - don't hold your breath. Formerly, when the League of Women Voters was the sponsor of the presidential debates, the events were actual debates. What we are forced to watch now are not actually debates - they are show business. filled with glitz and controlled by the same media who select, in actuality, the candidates from both parties. Oh for the good old days when a debate was a debate......

Posted by: nana1ellen | August 3, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

visit

Realdemocratsusa.org

Posted by: Y | August 3, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Jerry's link is excellent. It should be used as a campaign ad nationwide.

Posted by: Kathy | August 3, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Maybe in the debates McCain can answer for why he married into the mob...

http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=4061

What a scum.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

In recent testimony before the Democratic controlled House Armed Services Committee, Dr. William Graham testified that Iran has been planning an "EMP STRIKE" against the US. Dr Graham chairs a Blue Ribbon Committee established by Conress in 2001 to assess the effects and risks of just such an attack. According to Dr Graham, even a crude EMP attack "would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a US city". According to Dr. Graham, 70 to 90% of the entire population of the US would die as a result of even a crud EMP attack. New York, New Jersey, and the Washington DC/Virginia area would bear the brunt on the Eastern seaboard. Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco would fare just as poorly on the West Coast. Hundreds of millions would die in the weeks following such an attack.
Read more about this frightening topic here: http://www.harvybing.com

Posted by: Jerry | August 3, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

I'm looking forward to seeing Obama and McCain duke it out face to face.

Unlike many here, I have no preconceived notions as to how it all will play out.

I just hope the debates are put on by The League of Women Voters - and not by MSNBC morons.

Posted by: Chuckamok | August 3, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

David, get thee to an editor.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8t4PKGc2Fw

A MUST SEE-TEASER FROM DOCUMENTARY BEING MADE. PAID FOR BY PUMAS. WATCH OUT BO.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Three debates will be more than enough to show McCain is unable to compete. I can't wait.

Posted by: Susan | August 3, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Dems are sure to loose this golden opportunity because of there flawed candidate. His judgement and radical associations has come to light and Polls indicate that clearly. He is loosing ground faster than we thought he would.

This week shows that he is volnarable because of his wife, pastor wright all other buddy's he keep hanging with.

Posted by: David | August 3, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

If McCain is so old and demented, you would think Obama would be rushing to a side by side comparison. He's not so stunning when he doesn't have the teleprompter and groupies.

Posted by: jaywpat | August 3, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

That is exactly why Mccain can't win. Every vote Mccain has he has right now. Notihing he can do will get him one Obama vote. On the other hand Mccain votes are peeling away everyday. Maybe to Barr or Nader
-------
It doesn't matter to Obama's supporters whether or not there's a one on one debate. No matter what he does or says, they will pull the lever for him simply because he's cool and trendy.

Posted by: Kathy | August 3, 2008 10:07 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

This is just spin. The "bare minimum" number of debates is the same number that has been done in all the recent Presidential elections.

I wish the debates were being planned by the League of Women Voters rather than by the media coalition. The moderators and questions at the last several debates have just been terrible. We can expect countless questions about McCain's negative spin and then a rapid fire True/False section about national issues.

Posted by: fletc3her | August 3, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter to Obama's supporters whether or not there's a one on one debate. No matter what he does or says, they will pull the lever for him simply because he's cool and trendy.

Posted by: Kathy | August 3, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

------------------------------------------
Rezko is no where near as bad as the Keating Five and McLame's now-deceased Mobbed-up father in law.
-----------------------------------------
Either you are a fool or just kidding in the blog.

Rezko is a convicted criminal and Obama friends with him :-) you got to get your facts right!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

-----------------
Actually when I wake up tomorrow I will still be me living on Fort Lauderdale beach and you will still be poor white trailer trash.
-----------------
You are sure a democrate! Aren't you? Why didn;t you name yourself?
What does it takes to post such incendiary and class less boasting message? nothing... I have seen several of folks like you and realized that the reality is all these folks are just empty pockets... they just "trash talk" just like your post. And Interestingly they all support Obama :)

I did not want to waste my time posting a message for folks like you but cound't stop responding to your arrogance.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Obama seems to be scared of Debates!
coz there will not be any script and tele promoter :)

We have seen his poor articulation and Rookie behavior in several of Democratic debates.

Needless to talk about his judgement of 20 years pastor wright, Iraq Troops surge. This is sure "empty rehtoric" and flip flop on anything for political convenience.

His Anti-american wife is back again with looking down upon America, the world's greatest country.

Its insane to see her painting "Savior" message :)

Posted by: Nat Radford | August 3, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

JP2,

I agree.

We have two systems at work here. Democracy, which is a social system; and Capitalism, which is an economic system. The two work very well together as long as they are kept independent. A weakness of Capitalism is that if capital becomes overly concentrated in the hands of a few, the system itself freezes and defeats itself. This is partially prevented by graduated income tax. For Capitalism to work well, capital must circulate freely and the economy itself will direct it to it's optimal use.

A far more dangerous problem is when capital becomes concentrated, and is then used to dominate the social system, democracy, and rig the ground rules in favor of the status quo.

Here is where substantive Estate Taxes become important. As the benefactors of concentrated wealth attempt to pass on their advantage to their heirs, who have done nothing to deserve this windfall, and have not had to compete for it; we move away from the Capitalist/Democracy model and become a Feudal/Aristocratic state. This is what happened in the Gilded age of the robber barons and what the New Deal was designed to prevent.

Just note how many of our elected officials descend from political families of inhereted wealth. G Bush is a good example of what can happen when the country is run by the idiot offspring of rich people

Posted by: Al in Fl | August 3, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Why doesn't McCain select a younger conservative Hispanic as his running mate? This would neutralize Obama's advantage with African-Americans. The problem, of course, might be finding a younger conservative Hispanic.

Posted by: scottyp44 | August 3, 2008 5:06 AM | Report abuse

Q. What's small, wrinkled and dried-up, and running in the race for the White House?
A. "Raisin" McCain

Posted by: Elvis | August 3, 2008 2:50 AM | Report abuse

Truthseeker,

In reference to the world-view question, I'd say that my own view is that people aren't inherently good or evil.

I think most people are just plain self-interested.

The key difference between people is in how they define their own self-interest.

Some people have a very narrow, short-term view; others take a long-view and define self-interest more broadly.

The difference in views comes from a combination of life experience, education, genetics, and all sorts of other accidents of birth.

As far as these ideas work at a policy level I see this as a question of creating incentives for ordinary citizens "to buy into the program".

People tend to buy into a program when there is some assurance that -- if they play by the rules -- the system can work for them.

So in terms of the role of the government -- especially as it relates to economic policy -- what can government do to create a climate where hard work and the long-view are rewarded, and where there are strong disincentives for cheaters?

The past 100 years seem to show to me that a progressive tax system is a system which helps to provide strong incentives for people to climb the economic ladder -- and to play by the rules.

It may serve as a short-term check on economic growth at the top, but it provides a better long-term return across the income scale (including ultimately at the top as well).

What happened in the period before the Great Depression, and which I see happening now is that a narrow cadre at the top -- a subset of a subset (some people within the top circle of the ultra-rich) -- are literally fixing the game to ensure a favorable outcome for themselves in the short-term.

I don't think that these folks necessarily are out to get anyone -- some are genuinely malicious -- but in all likelihood for many it's a question of simple ignorance. They can fend for themselves because they are insulated from some of life's harsh realities, so they assume that everyone else is in the same boat.

It's easy to be indifferent to the suffering of others -- especially when that suffering is too abstract or distant.

Perhaps some believe that nothing was given to them, so they don't owe anything to anyone.

In reality, as far as the economic growth of the last 30 years is concerned -- it strikes me that the current dividends that those at the very top enjoy are a by-product of the willingness of previous generations to make a commitment to interests larger then themselves.

In terms of our history we might look at this issue in terms of just those willing to die for country, but I'd also say that people -- including one grandparent of mine who paid over 50 percent of his income in tax -- were making sacrifices designed to benefit the nation. The commitment at the top that my grandfather once made is no longer being made at the top. It's part of the great disconnect that we've seen blossom in full during the Bush years.

I think we've lost a sense of that collective responsibility, which is a reason that we're seeing a regression back to a time before the twin crises of the Great Depression and WWII.

Over time, my sense is that we are creating conditions for a return to those past crises, which will force people to relearn those hard-fought lessons all over again. This would be unfortunate -- to say the least -- for the overwhelming majority of people.

I'm also someone who likes to play the percentages, and who tends to view myself as a realist.

Realistically, I think the odds are that I'm more likely to endure the misfortune of the overwhelming majority than the converse, so I'd rather make some present sacrifices to avoid that outcome. I see political involvement as part of that price. I see education and study as part of that price. I see the prospect of higher taxes if I do very well as part of that price.

As far as this relates to political parties, one of the disasters of the Bush era is that we have really lost a credible second party.

I think the net result of a degraded and corrupt Republican party is a Democratic party that is more likely to succumb to excesses and corruption in the near-term.

Notwithstanding those concern, at the present time, and in this election I will be voting a straight Democratic ticket. In the future I may very well vote as I have done in the past, less rigidly along party lines.

Posted by: JP2 | August 3, 2008 2:35 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 2:34 AM | Report abuse

Actually to put it in a better perspective. Obama will still be worth Millions of dollars and so will Mccain. People like me will be as I said in my other post and the Mccain suckers like you will still be poor white trailer trash. Barefoot and stupid just like the Republicans like you.
--------
All you Obama supporters, tomorrow morning when you wake up, look in the mirror & say ... Why am i so stupid !!

Posted by: SadAmerican | August 3, 2008 2:24 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse


Actually when I wake up tomorrow I will still be me living on Fort Lauderdale beach and you will still be poor white trailer trash.
--------

All you Obama supporters, tomorrow morning when you wake up, look in the mirror & say ... Why am i so stupid !!

Posted by: SadAmerican | August 3, 2008 2:24 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 2:27 AM | Report abuse

All you Obama supporters, tomorrow morning when you wake up, look in the mirror & say ... Why am i so stupid !!

Posted by: SadAmerican | August 3, 2008 2:24 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 2:09 AM | Report abuse

Wasn't it the quality and not the content of what he wrote. Either way instead of submitting another draft he goes into another childish rant. Didn't they say his original was not even fit to print, it looked like a child wrote it?.

---------
Actually, the NY Times printed an op-ed on Iraq from Obama a week or two back and then refused to publish a reply op-ed from McCain a few days later. Examples of media bias don't get much more blatant than that. McCain's got a legitimate gripe with the NYT, as does anyone who was hoping the NYT would be a facilitator of a fair and open debate instead of a cheerleader that has abandoned any pretense of objectivity.

Posted by: NY Times = Joke | August 3, 2008 1:18 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 2:05 AM | Report abuse

A pirate walks into a bar. The top of a steering wheel is sticking out from the front of his pants.

Bartender: "Sir, no offense, but you seem to have a steering wheel in your pants."

Pirate: "Aye, it's drivin' me nuts."

Posted by: Lighten Up | August 3, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

☺

Posted by: pubichaironmycokecan | August 3, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

might have something there, the push-up bra HRC wore in the early primaries REALLY brought out the basement at mom's juevies like Rat. I heard Rodham Clinton also did some private fundraiser's in the 4 wheeler belt that featured her self in Daisy Dukes. Rat might know about that.

Posted by: jakeD's shadow | August 3, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Actually, the NY Times printed an op-ed on Iraq from Obama a week or two back and then refused to publish a reply op-ed from McCain a few days later. Examples of media bias don't get much more blatant than that. McCain's got a legitimate gripe with the NYT, as does anyone who was hoping the NYT would be a facilitator of a fair and open debate instead of a cheerleader that has abandoned any pretense of objectivity.

Posted by: NY Times = Joke | August 3, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

RAT still cannot imagine the next four (sob!) years (whimper) without his beloved Hillary.

Cut him some slack. Maybe a twelve-step program ...

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: jakeD's shadow | August 3, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Just watch Mccains great skills handling the pressures and the hate he has exhibited in his campaign. Now imagine him negating with someone like Iran. Then imagine ten thousand dead american soldiers. Dead over the ego and lack of self control of a president who is out of him mind.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse

I'd pay a quarter to see that (Rat) as hose recepticle.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 3, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

A MUST SEE. A TEASER FROM THE DOCUMENTARY BEING MADE BY THE PUMA MOVEMENT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8t4PKGc2Fw&eurl=http://blog.pumapac.org/2008/08/02/the-audacity-of-democracy/

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 12:53 AM | Report abuse

Mccain came out and attacked the NY Times today, it is not just Obama the man is out of control. He said it is no wonder the paper is going broke or something to that effect. Mccain is making enemies out of the very people he needs most. He is hated in the senate and it is no wonder. He has enough months to make himself hated by just about everyone who observes him with any objectivity. Mccain is a fuc&in train wreck.

----------
Smart tactic on Obama's part. The best thing Obama can do is ignore McCain. McCain will likely get angry and say something stupid. He is running the worst campaign I've ever seen. The press is beginning to take notice of what a stupid campaign he's running.

Posted by: Scott F. | August 2, 2008 11:46 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

Truth Seeker wrote...

If "individual responsibility" is a fairy tale, then please explain how our country was started? Please explain how a group of men, who we call the Founding Fathers, started this country based on limited government, personal liberties, and this myth of "individual responsibility" created a country that has survived 232 years? Please explain how we were able to survive as a for 150 years without massive government regulations, welfare and socialism?

---

Um, if the French do not intervene in the War for Independence, it's game over and we go back to being an extended colony of England until sometime later in history.

You clearly have an idealized and narrow understanding of history.

Posted by: heatmiser | August 3, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

RAT - word has it that Bill could probably meet your, er, terms.

Can you fit within a desk's kneespace?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

ANON-11:51

YOU Could not afford MY Services!

Can't go much further with any explains!


Suffice it to say, The "Order",WOULD have been "Filled"! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | August 3, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

TruthSeeker,

In reference to your statement:

" . . .What do we call needing to "tax the rich in order to have social programs to the middle class." Socialism. Marxism. Or more correctly, legal robbery."

I'd side with Oliver Wendell Holmes -- "taxation is the price of civilization".

I'd also make a distinction between spending on social programs and investing in infrastructure or establishing national priorities (like putting a man on the moon).

Our space program for example was extremely expensive, but it was also the kind of national investment that only a government could make, and which created whole new industries and technologies. The space program was a smart investment, a smart national priorities, and a beneficial big government economic program.

God bless Richard Bransom, but, to the extent his private venture space program is successful it will be due in no small part to the massive sums of public R&D money that went into laying the ground work for even conceiving of such a venture.

The Federal Highway system provided similar benefits for the economy. The internet itself was the product of tax-payer money via the DARPA program.

Even in terms of health care, Obama may talk about making health care more affordable and providing more subsidies, but he stops well short of a national health care system.

His approach applies market incentives, and cost controls -- but not price controls as I understand the plan. The health insurance industry still would have a nice stake in the system and would earn some pretty nice profits. But his proposal is much closer to our current system than the systems that you'd find in most developed countries.

Posted by: JP2 | August 3, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

This is the moment we've all been waiting for. Lets have it! People are ready.

Let the REAL comparison and contrasting begin.

Posted by: Obama2008 | August 3, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

TruthSeeker,

I've seen the Ike v. Obama comparison made on some tax blogs -- Alternet has a story making this citation by Sam Pizzigati. Although he's not the only one who I've heard making the comparison.

If you take the time to read up on Eisenhower's taxation policy -- and even his domestic spending programs, including his approach towards massive government programs like the Interstate Highway Act -- you might very well come to this conclusion on your own.

Obama's tax and spending plans are certainly closer to Ike's than any of the socialist economic models that you'd find in European (including those places where, ironically, you'll find the highest median incomes in the world -- even with high rates of taxation. e.g. places like Norway, Denmark, Sweden).

Of course people should have a strong incentive to make and earn a good living. But a favorable economic climate for that kind of growth doesn't simply produce itself.

I think there's something to be said too for taxing generational wealth.

This country is stronger when each generation has an incentive to earn its way.

That's one feature historically that has distinguished this country from Europe (and by "Europe" I really mean the Europe that existed before the two World Wars last century e.g. a place where class was much less fluid, and where family lineage predetermined most economic outcomes).

Posted by: JP2 | August 3, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Tee hee | August 3, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

This is an indication that the Barack Obama is going to use a play it safe strategy and it is probably a smart thing politically. He will probably stumble through the debates well enough to get by them without too much damage but he will not be that impressive.

But the play it safe strategy has its hazards. The classic case of losing by playing in safe is Thomas E. Dewey in 1948 but Richard M. Nixon almost lost the 1968 election because he started coasting too soon.

The perception among many after Obama's overseas trip is that Obama is taking the presidency for granted. I am sure his consultants are working with him on that problem and that he will try to be less cocky and conceited. But that may be his real personality so it may be hard to cover up.

Obama's problem is similar to that of former candidate John Edwards (when he is not hiding in the bathroom) in that the more exposure he gets the less favorable the public perception of him is.

Posted by: danielhancock | August 3, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

RAT - maybe you could supplement your income as a male prostitute?

Just a thought.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Smart tactic on Obama's part. The best thing Obama can do is ignore McCain. McCain will likely get angry and say something stupid. He is running the worst campaign I've ever seen. The press is beginning to take notice of what a stupid campaign he's running.

Posted by: Scott F. | August 2, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

ANON 11:28- Actually, it was the male half of Billary that DESTROYED my life!

Slick's Scam with Timothy Guithner and the Wall Street banks, and the Flip this insanely over priced house market they created,

was the near-death of me!

DAMN Bill Clinton, George Bush, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary, O'Bomba-Nation, and even McClown;

For t6he living hell I am facing trying to earn a living as a BLUE-COLLAR Worker, Competing against illegal Workers, in an Environment Favorable for Criminal Employment.

$10. an Hour, with NO Overtime, does not just "Su*K", it Libbies! :-(

Posted by: RAT-The | August 2, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

anonymous - I haven't seen the latest polls.

I AM looking ahead to the debates. I hope they'll be about the issues, and not about preening "moderators" grinding their axes.

Posted by: Chuckamok | August 2, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Chuckamok, Obama is tied with McCain (44%) in the polls today. Obama is a wimp. He stopped debating Hillary after his poor showing and now he's afraid of town hall meetings. In town hall meetings he won't have CNN or MSNBC media fawning all over him. He'd have to answer real questions by real people, with no prepared speech or teleprompter. So Obama wimped out.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

You're pure class, RAT.

Must be a Hillary-head.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Michael4,

Yes, I do admit. I make some assumptions. But the basic arguments still remains.
Unfortunately, half of your arguments have been taken out of context or do not apply to the given situation. The phrase "for whom much is given much is required" was specifically referring to our ability to take care of what was given to us. It just followed a passage about watching and waiting for Jesus' return. The passage had nothing to do with taxes. The point of the passage was to wait and be good stewards of what we have been given, not let the government steal our money through "legal" robbery and socialism

Yes, I admit that someday I will probably need help. But whose job is it to provide for those in need? Since you seem to know enough about the Bible to know a phrase or two from it, you also might know that the job of caring for the poor, the orphan, the widow, the homeless, and destitute belongs to the Church. But that job has been usurped by the government and it's forced charity. See the post by BrianFactor for more info on this.
The government needs to stop doing the roll of the Church and the Church needs to step up to the plate!

Posted by: TruthSeeker | August 2, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

I had a Barack Obomba just this Morning;


Then;

I FLUSHED it AWAY!! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | August 2, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

yo fool, Obama's involvement with Rezko has been going on for almost 20 years. Everything hasn't come out in the wash yet. The Feds are still handing down indictments. Obama had a "note-taker" in court everyday during Rezko's trial. For Three Months!!! Strange, isn't it? I'm no McCain fan either, but McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

The upcoming hearings against Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens is timely news for the DNC - perhaps a gift from heaven.

There's a Senate seat that's going Dem fer sure.

;)

Posted by: Chuckamok | August 2, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama's ahead in the polls, so he let's McCain clamor for debates, thereby looking somewhat desperate.

Ain't this just traditional politics?

Posted by: Chuckamok | August 2, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

See who the first wife of John McCain is working for now and who she contributed to

http://webofdeception.com/#carolsheppmccain

Posted by: Rober Lewis | August 2, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Why is HIS ARROGANCE so afraid of the common folk? Why does HE refuse to do town hall style debates and take questions from those lesser than HIM? What is HE so afraid of??

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

James,

Ah, my name. Truth Seeker. Yes, I'll admit that sometimes I get caught up in my own bias, but on the whole I try to find the truth of the matter.

Fine. I'll concede the point. ONCE. JUST THIS ONCE is the media finally taking more shots at Obama than at McLame. Maybe it's because McLame is already starting to crumble.

But, as you seem to be seeking truth along with me, remember to also call out the media when it has a pro-Obama bias. If you don't you have no right to be condemning me for arguing with you and you have no right to be lambasting the media for it's slight switch.

The truth remains. The media has a liberal bias. Even UCLA admits it. And UCLA is in California, probably the most liberal state in the Nation.

Posted by: Truth Seeker | August 2, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

The debates will give us a great chance to size up Obama and McCain.

But only if they're done right. No pathetic duds, like the ones in the spring.

Posted by: Chuckamok | August 2, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

The JakeD comment is obviously a fake, and was probably made by a BHO supporter.

As for BHO wimping out on debates, he should consider how lucky he is to have a news media that consistently fails to do their duty.

A debate like this would show everyone just how unqualified both BHO and McCain are:

http://nomoreblather.com/policy-debates

BHO would probably flee the country if he were required to attend debates like that.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | August 2, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

James,

While the media might switch sides from time to time, the media, on the whole leans to the left, according to UCLA,

By Meg Sullivan, http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

"While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar."

Posted by: Truth Seeker | August 2, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

notice to anonymous posters:

It's hard to reply to you if there is no one to address it to! Have some courtesy and use a name of some sort...

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

James McDouglas,

I want to make a quick response to your post, because you are correct, about all but the means you use for your policies.

If you (for some reason) believe that when an end is justified, the means are automatically justified, then I could see how you could logically deduct your position. You don't truly believe this, do you?

Here's the point: the good end must be weighed against the bad brought about by the means.

So, what are the means used for your policies of regulation, taxation, and "charity" (which, as I will explain, isn't really charitable)?

At the core, all your policies use what Frederick Bastiat called "legal plunder." (Read his book The Law; it's well worth it: http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm) When money comes from someone else's pocket, it's not charity, it's robbery! You would never approve of me pointing a gun at your and robbing you even if I was going to fund some poor people's health care. If the government does it, it doesn't make it any less plunder, it just makes it legal plunder.

So, here's my final point: If we can't steal and call it "charity," we can't tell the government to do so!

"It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately." ~Thomas Jefferson, http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0200.htm

We need charity; we don't need mandatory charity. We need sharing; we don't need to force it on people. We need restraint; we don't need bureaucracy. And, for these reasons, we certainly don't need Mr. O-Bomb-A.

> Brian
http://brianfactor.blogspot.com

Posted by: BrianFactor | August 2, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Don't be so hard on me, guys.

I HAVE to post this racist rant. How else can I get any attention?

If you only knew what it's like in my "life." If you only knew.

Posted by: JakeD | August 2, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Excuses...excuses..excuses as to why he can only do 3 (yes 3) debates. Come on. We all know that without a teleprompter and a written speech in hand, Obama flunks. Listen to any of his uhs..uhs..ums...in his interviews.
And this is why there will be no Town Hall meetings and no more than 3 or 4 debates. He cannot spew a bunch of lyrical words together...like "this is your moment"! He borrowed this from Kodak Cameras.
He has to actually ANSWER in a debate.

OBAMA IS A LOSER! HIS "MOMENT" IS UP!

Posted by: DEM now IND | August 2, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

James,

If "individual responsibility" is a fairy tale, then please explain how our country was started? Please explain how a group of men, who we call the Founding Fathers, started this country based on limited government, personal liberties, and this myth of "individual responsibility" created a country that has survived 232 years? Please explain how we were able to survive as a for 150 years without massive government regulations, welfare and socialism?

Also, along with your "stark realities," I have some questions and some additional information.

1. "We need to control the people who have no ethics." To do this we use the government, right? But the government is also composed of people who have no ethics. Who controls them? Please don't tell me the government, because that involves "individual responsibility"
But I actually agree with you on this one. We are corrupt people and need to regulate ourselves, through "personal ethics" or governmental laws. But this means you aren't a liberal. Liberals don't believe in using the government to enforce ethics. Conservatives and Statists do.

2. I've already had my vocabulary quiz with JP2, but I need to repeat it here. What do we call needing to "tax the rich in order to have social programs to the middle class." Socialism. Marxism. Or more correctly, legal robbery.
But just to make sure that I'm hearing you right, let me rephrase your statements for clarity. Basically, we need to steal from those who can provide for themselves to help care for those who can't (or more like won't) provide for themselves. (because a disproportionate tax is theft. 2 people getting the same benefits from a government but one paying 3 times as much as the other person is theft.)
Also, why do people "need" a safety net? Americans survived well for 150 years without one. Don't play the 'Great Depression' card on me either. No amount of safety nets would have prevented the Great Depression.
Also, please explain why income disparity continued to drastically increase since 1964 when the "Great Society" aka welfare began.
3. Same as above. Why do the poor continue to get poorer and the rich richer even WITH our increased subsidies and welfare?

So, considering you view of politics, you are more of a Statist, or "big government" advocate than a Liberal.

Posted by: TruthSeeker | August 2, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

will be back for comment....

Posted by: Obama2008 | August 2, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

James,

I'm not saying it wasn't a researcher who did the study. It's just a simple syllogism: you quoted a Los Angeles Times article. The Los Angeles Times is part of the media. Hence, you quoted the media. I was just having a chuckle at the irony, James. Life's too short to take yourself so seriously.

Besides, you cite one study as though it were gospel while ignoring the UCLA study that someone else posted. Fact is, something as hazy as liberal or conservative bias in the media is too hard to pin down, which is why people argue over it. There's a reason why nobody argues over whether the sky is blue.

And incidentally, I do research for a living, and I'm quite good at it. But you seem more interested in simply throwing around irrelevant facts than any sort of reasoned debate:

"He wears $520 shoes and has a $1000/bet craps gambling habit." So? I have expensive shoes - they look better and last longer. What's your point? Besides, there's a difference between having a gambling habit and enjoying the occasional foray into the casino, just like there's a difference between being an alcoholic and enjoying a few glasses of wine with dinner.

"He flies around in his wife's jet. He gets the benefit of her 11 houses." So? What's he supposed to do, sleep on the curb? Besides, two words: John Kerry.

The comments to this article are a microcosm of what's wrong with this country. We're not interested in reasoned debate, like the ones Lincoln and Douglas had. We're only interested in ad hominem attacks (I particularly love "JOHN MCCAIN IS A TRADER," maybe because I was once a stock trader myself), racist drivel, and irrelevant half-truths. It's like an adult version of "My daddy can beat up your daddy." Even at the highest levels, our politicians are more interested in scoring points on the other party and playing the "gotcha" game than they are in solving the extremely serious problems that face the world in general and our country in particular. This is seriously distressing.

They say that every country gets the leader it deserves. If that's the case, then America is truly and completely screwed.

Posted by: Disappointed, Again | August 2, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

JakeD is the best thing that could happen to Obama's campaign. Reading his racist rantings makes everyone shudder to think that this man represents John McLame.

Posted by: Big Daddy | August 2, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Lol LOL!

Posted by: The REAL Real JakeD | August 2, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Also, what is your response to my argument that we shouldn't redistribute wealth because on the whole, diligent, hard working people who are better at managing their own money should be allowed to keep it rather than allowing the government to take it from them and give it to someone who would waste it on a get-rich quick scam, the lottery, or would just generally mismanage it?

Posted by: Truth Seeker | August 2, 2008 9:13 PM
----------------------------
Good question. However you assume facts not in evidence, that is, that everyone who needs money is necessarily a spendthrift and never-do-well. You also assume it's "wealth redistribution" rather than just progressive taxation, based on an ability to pay; for whom much is given much is required... You also seem to assume that the wealth will be taken from you and redistributed to someone else, who doesn't need it if they'd really try! That may not be the case...it may be you who needs help some day. Never heard the phrase "there, but for the grace of god, goes I"?

Or you can take the opposite view. Is there honor in that? It really is your choice, isn't it?

Posted by: michael4 | August 2, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Lol

Posted by: The Real JakeD | August 2, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

After reading the numerous blogs on the Washington Post, I never came across a JakeD post that was so riddled with hatred and ignorance.

If it was the true JakeD posting that racist and hateful crap, it just goes to show that the Republican Party is going to lose big in November (in presidential and congressional elections)!

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | August 2, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Rezko is no where near as bad as the Keating Five and McLame's now-deceased Mobbed-up father in law.

Posted by: Yo, fool | August 2, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

JakeD as "Hillary's jockstrap" LMAO! Now I know why she always wears trousers...and I thought it was because of her tree-stump legs. So JakeD, you ever get any of that ugly, nasty?

Posted by: Little Joe from Kokomo | August 2, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Fake ... fake ... fake, fake!

Posted by: ElaineBennis | August 2, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Uh-uh...you're fake!

Posted by: Cass Kunst | August 2, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

JP2: It may be to you a few thousand dollars, it's more like a quarter of a million Rezko raised, but whether it's a dollar or a trillion it still matters. As far as the Rezko investigation, US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is still handing down indictments. Even after that interview with the Chicago Tribune, there are still unanswered questions. As far as the realestate deal Obama had with Rezko, (almost 2 million dollars), Obama bought the mansion and Rezko (in his wife's name)bought the lot next door. The mansion and lot closing was on the same day with the same mortgage company. Rezko receive a $5 million dollar loan from the former Iraqi Electricity Minister a month before closing. Obama wanted a fence around Rezko's lot, so Rezko pays for it and the only way Rezko has access to his lot is through Obama's property because the gate is inside Obama's yard. Oh, by the way, Obama pays for the mowing of Rezko's lot. This all happened while Rezko was under indictment by the FEDS. Also, Obama had a note-taker in court every day for three months during Rezko's trial. Strange, isn't it? As far as McCain, I read about the Keating 5 and McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing. In fact, he severed ties with Keating and McCain's wife and her father did not invest millions in a real estate deal, it was $325,000 in a shopping center. Obama as a Director of the Woods Fund cast the deciding vote to grant his boss Alison Davis $1 million for his company. Another Director abstained for conflict-of- interest, which Obama should have done. There are other instances in Chicago that haven't been fully investigated. Ties to Iraqi Auchi, Ali Atta and Alsammarae.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Fake

Posted by: JakeD | August 2, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Looks to me as though the message of the day is not as cohesive as it once was.
Jake D used to be Hillary's biggest jockstrap! Wow JakeD!

Truthseeker used to be NObama!
Wow!

It makes me giddy.

Change gonna come and you've been in the way too long. Look forward to a long time in the wilderness...I should think another 40 years in the minority could humble you enough for a NEWT like formation to develop and say "its so unfair!" We should live in a democracy where what racist old timey people on life support get to have THEIR say...good riddance..a case for planned obsolescence has never been better made.
BuhBye.

Posted by: Cass Kunst | August 2, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Looks like JakeD and his BS machine are really putting out the right wing racist bigot s**t tonight.

Posted by: Little Joe from Kokomo | August 2, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

truthseeker,

I don't think that anyone can stand up to the media bias... no matter how amazing they are.

That's the point.

Maybe he'll win, but there's no reason he should just squeak through.

McCain is an inadequate candidate. The media is fair and balancing out the playing field for this inadequate candidate, just like they did with Bush Jr.

It's ruined our country.

It could devastate it if McCain wins.

That's the point.

We shouldn't put up with media bias, we should call it out.

If you have no interest in the truth, then that's just your own deal. But I'll continue to call the media out on the facts of their pro-McCain bias.

Repost this UCLA study. I've been gone for a few hours and didn't see it.

But nevertheless... that wasn't the discussion. The discussion was about McCain and Obama and which one was receiving the media bias.

You can continue to change the subject if you want, but it doesn't mask the fact that I had the facts on the current election and you didn't.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

What happened to "anyplace, anytime" (or however it was phrased)? More talk.

Posted by: Kevin | August 2, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

....and JakeD

Posted by: Little Joe from Kokomo | August 2, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

The only people more disingenuous than John "Sleazebag" McCain are Hillary "I wuz robbed by a black man" Clinton, and her husband Bill "I didn't have sex with that woman" Clinton.

Posted by: Little Joe from Kokomo | August 2, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

JakeD -

You are hurting the Republican Party immeasurably.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | August 2, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

James,

What's your point? So what, the media might be taking a few more potshots at Obama instead of McCain right now. Get over it.

If Obama is really the amazing candidate that you claim he is he will be able to stand up under such attacks and refute them so well that the media will loose all credibility for launching such stupid and worthless attacks.

Unless..... you are concerned that Obama can't hold up under pressure..... If he can't hold up under a little media pressure, do we really want him as President of the United States, THE most stressful and difficult job in the WORLD. If he can't hold up now, he will CRUMBLE under the weight of the job. But who's to worry. Obama can handle it, right?

By the way, you still haven't responded to my UCLA study about the media overall. So quit complaining if your normally left-leaning media is hitting Obama a little harder than usual.

Posted by: Truth Seeker | August 2, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Oooooo, this is going to be ugly...McCain doesn't stand much of a chance particularly in delivery and accuracy - Obama's not going to let "gaffes" or "misspeaks" slide like the media does. We'll see. I just hope he doesn't blow a gasket in front of 90 million people, but I think the potential is there. He has a smimmering seething anger to him. What's up with that?

Posted by: Fisher | August 2, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

truthseeker,

You're correct that deep down, the average person isn't good.

Maybe 3 in 10 are. That's my experience. About 3 in 10.

But that leads us to some stark realities.

1. We need regulations. Put simply, we need laws to control people who have no ethics.

2. We need to tax the rich in order to have social programs to the middle class. We can't rely on corporate industry or individual charities to cover the people who need a safety net.

3. We need to tax the rich in order to generate charity relief. Individuals can't be relied on to do the work that we need to do to relieve poverty on our planet. They simply aren't good enough, and they don't have the skills to be particularly useful if they are.

Liberals have been trying to tell people this for generations...

but Conservatives kept pushing the line about "individual responsibility."

They did this because they knew (as you and I know) that individuals are not responsible, can't be relied on to be responsible, and in the end... with their system... the rich are the ones who make out while everyone else's quality of life remains stagnant or even declines.

That's politics in a nutshell.

Unfortunately, a lot of Americans have been fooled into thinking "individual responsibility" is the way to fix our problems...

but it's a fairy tale.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

As a (currently dissatisfied) member of the Republican Party I am ashamed that you post such inflammatory and hateful comments. Not only are people like you a blight to the party but your give people such as James another opportunity to stereotype the entire Republican Party. Please take your racial hatred and go back to the early 1800's.

Posted by: Truth Seeker | August 2, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

JP2,

I agree with you. Bush spending taxpayer dollars so him and his friends could get rich is wrong. Plain wrong.

I also agree that we shouldn't stick with the status quo. It's messed up and needs fixing. The current energy crisis, mortgage crisis, flood crisis, etc. is getting out of hand. We need to change something.
But you and I disagree on how to change. And that disagreement takes us far beyond politics, parties, or positions. It takes us to a deeper level, to a worldview level.

After debating you for several hours I can conclude several things. One, that you are incredibly well versed in politics, history, economics, etc. You have a very sharp wit and you are a great debater. You don't engage in Ad Hominem attacks but stick to the facts and argue policies.
No, I'm not trying to flatter you, I'm just reporting what I've gathered.
But I've also been gathering other information, information that points to a possible worldview that you hold.
My guess is that you believe that people down deep are pretty good. It is our environment, other people, and our environments that corrupt us, right?
And this view leads you to adopt your political and economic positions.
Now, obviously I'm not going to be able to change your political views and I don't think you are going to be able to change mine unless our foundations, or worldviews first change.
While I don't think that I'll be able to come close to changing your worldview, I can give you some insight into mine after analyzing what I perceive to be yours.

Since you probably think that people are generally good deep down, all we have to do is allow that inner goodness to work it's way out. If we give good, honest, hard working American citizens some extra money from our friendly neighborhood government they will be able to fix the trouble that they are currently facing.

See, the trouble is that mankind isn't basically good. A good look around will confirm that. As we have "improved our standards of living and improved society as a whole" over the past 100 years, we have also improved our methods of killing. 2 world wars and multiple mass genocides later, we have killed hundreds of millions of people. Look at all the starvation, famine, disease, death, suffering, affliction, and pain that the world is experiencing.
Unchecked by a strong set of morals and ethics people are greedy, selfish, and power-hungry. This view explains why we have experienced so much corruption and we are in the mess we are in now. We have lost that moral and ethical foundation. Until we somehow find a way to restore that ethical foundation to America, our political parties: Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc. will not be able to offer real solutions.
This is why we are facing the current mortgage crisis. Not because of a lack of regulation, but because of a lack of ethics. If you combine greedy, selfish, profit-seeking bankers with a instant-gratification, no self-control and lack of money management skills American public, you get the current problems we are in. And no amount of money or increased regulation can change basic human nature.

Posted by: Truth Seeker | August 2, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Disappointed Again,

I'm not quoting the media in saying the media is biased. If you were a responsible researcher (antithetical to being Republican in my opinion, facts and Republican ideology simply can't coexist), you'd have read what I linked to and would have known that the Pro-McCain media bias was proven by George Mason University, by a director of research that Conservatives have celebrated in the past for his studies.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

JakeD is pretty representative of Republican voters.

His brand of racist ugliness is the definition of what's wrong with our country.

Republicans should be ashamed to have such trash on their side of the aisle.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

I believe John Mccain would say " I am John Mccain and I approve this message"
Just check the hiring practices of his wife's company?

=========
We, the REAL american people, gonna lynch that uppity black traitor (N)Obama on November, and John McCain, the REAL american hero, gonna bring the rope himself.

Posted by: JakeD | August 2, 2008 9:27 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Gerald. Do you think Iran would have a little problem with something like this. http://www.haarp.net/haarpoverview.htm I don't think their EMP attack will do any good when it's time for payback.

Posted by: HemiHead | August 2, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

We, the REAL american people, gonna lynch that uppity black traitor (N)Obama on November, and John McCain, the REAL american hero, gonna bring the rope himself.

Posted by: JakeD | August 2, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Mccain is used to talking to 200 people at a time. I guess he doesn't realize the audience for the first debate is estimated to be 90 million. What the fu&k does he think they are going to say in ten debates all over the country they can't say to the whole country in three debates? It keeps becoming more and more clear he thinks this is the 1940's of something. Can you imagine ten debates saying the same thing over and over it would become ridiculous. You would have 20 hours of talking points you can see any night on hardball.

I honestly think Mccain must be demented,. He says something one day and the next something different and when confronted by a tape of what he said the day before looks completely dumbfounded like, "My God where did they get that". I am beginning to think he is not even lying anymore. He truly has no idea what the hell is coming out of his own mouth. How in the world are they going to prepare this guy for a debate. He can't have his buddy Joe L. there whispering in his ear, he will be on his own. This is going to be brutal.

We may actually see Mccain's candidacy end right in front of us as he melts down. I don't think Obama is going to have to do much other then push a few of Mccains buttons and sit back and watch. You see how Mccain went off today on the NY Times? This guy can't control himself for five minutes. get your popcorn ready as Mccain implodes, it will be can't miss TV.

-------------------

The Democrats had 22 debates during the primary season. I did not find the debates to have much meaning after the first few. Toward the end the media had to dig deep to find new questions to ask. The ABC sponsored debates were terrible and a total waste of time. So, four debates sounds fine. I am not too impressed with the town hall format. Again, the media will be involved and they will be obsessed with finding something "interesting" (to them) to make the process entertaining rather than meaningful.

Posted by: CDgainesville | August 2, 2008 9:13 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

TruthSeeker, that 800 billion on failures you talk about is the American people. In case you haven't noticed, the republicans are a dying breed. Democrats aren't perfect, but at least with them in control they'll take better care of the middle and lower income people. Ya know, I don't get you. Would you rather keep taking on debt buying foreign oil or spend the money now to free us from it. Would you rather have people living in their cars or help them get back into their home. Would you rather leave flood victims homeless or help them rebuild. You know what I mean. The only thing Bush spent our money on is war. He used taxpayer dollars so him and his friends can get rich on oil and building contracts. It makes me sick thinking about it.

Posted by: HemiHead | August 2, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

The Financial Times

"Mr McCain's tax and spending proposals would add an estimated $3,400bn to the US deficit over the next decade compared with an estimated $700bn deficit reduction from Mr Obama's plans, according to the Tax Policy Center, an independent think-tank."

Obama holds bipartisan economy talks
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e23cc97c-5cfa-11dd-8d38-000077b07658.html

Or:

McCain's Small-Business Bunk

He claims 23 million small-business owners would pay higher tax rates under Obama. He's wrong. The vast majority would see no change, and many would get a cut.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/146210

Posted by: getcentered | August 2, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats had 22 debates during the primary season. I did not find the debates to have much meaning after the first few. Toward the end the media had to dig deep to find new questions to ask. The ABC sponsored debates were terrible and a total waste of time. So, four debates sounds fine. I am not too impressed with the town hall format. Again, the media will be involved and they will be obsessed with finding something "interesting" (to them) to make the process entertaining rather than meaningful.

Posted by: CDgainesville | August 2, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats had 22 debates during the primary season. I did not find the debates to have much meaning after the first few. Toward the end the media had to dig deep to find new questions to ask. The ABC sponsored debates were terrible and a total waste of time. So, four debates sounds fine. I am not too impressed with the town hall format. Again, the media will be involved and they will be obsessed with finding something "interesting" (to them) to make the process entertaining rather than meaningful.

Posted by: CDgainesville | August 2, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

JP2,

Where do you get your information about Obama and Eisenhower? Once I can see a little more specific data there I can respond. I'm of a younger generation so I wasn't around when Ike was
President.

Also, what is your response to my argument that we shouldn't redistribute wealth because on the whole, diligent, hard working people who are better at managing their own money should be allowed to keep it rather than allowing the government to take it from them and give it to someone who would waste it on a get-rich quick scam, the lottery, or would just generally mismanage it?

Posted by: Truth Seeker | August 2, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Will the Real Tax-and-Spender Please 'Fess Up?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/politics/13check.html

"McCain is picking the areas where rates go up and ignoring the areas where Obama is trying to rebalance the tax code so that taxpayers would save," said John Irons, research and policy director at the Economic Policy Institute, which is generally viewed as sympathetic to working families. Mr. Irons said that "the important thing is to look at overall impact on people" and that on this score, "the vast majority of the population, almost the entirety of the middle class, would see more from Obama than McCain."

Economists have also criticized the methodology behind Mr. McCain's assertion that Americans from all kinds of backgrounds could end up paying thousands of dollars more in taxes if Mr. Obama got his way. Several criticized him as apparently basing his claim on an average figure in which, as Mr. Irons said, "Bill Gates is mixed with you and me, and everything gets skewed."

Posted by: getcentered | August 2, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Dear James:

"McCain is the phoniest character in politics since Nixon. That's just a fact."

If that's a fact then I trust you will have no problem finding some sort of objective factual basis to support your assertion. I look forward to seeing it. In the meantime, many of us in the NYC area would opine that Hillary Clinton - who suddenly became a Yankees fan when she decided she wanted to be a Senator from NY - is officially the phoniest person in politics. (It's tempting to list Dubya as a close runner up, but I honestly think he's too dumb to figure out how to be phony. Then again, his rediscovery of Jesus at around the same time he entered politics was awfully convenient.)

And as far as the CORPORATE media goes (I find the all-caps qualifier somewhat amusing), I have two responses to that. First, as dubious as I am of anything that is put out by either candidate's campaign, the following tongue-in-cheek video, replete with some downright embarrassing moments from some prominent media personalities (especially Chris Matthews), is a must-see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6CSix3Dy04

Second, am I the only one who appreciates the irony in someone citing the media as proof that the media is biased? Please figure out that particular ouroboros (look it up) before you question what anyone else has learned.

Posted by: Disappointed, Again | August 2, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

News has surfaced that Iran has planned an EMP attack on the US. The report says we are NOT prepared to defend against such an attack nor are we as a people capable of dealing with such an attack. A National Intelligence review says over 200 million could die as a result. REad more about it here:
http://www.harvybing.com

Posted by: Gerald | August 2, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Truthseeker,

What do I call income redistribution?

I call it the difference between a progressive tax system versus a regressive tax system.

For a Republican that's the difference between Eisenhower and George W. Bush.

In this election cycle I would say that Obama's priorities are closer to Eisenhower; while McCain's are closer to George W. Bush.

In my estimation, Eisenhower was not a socialist (I think most economists, historians, and voters would agree). Neither is Obama.

Posted by: JP2 | August 2, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama is smartly campaigning to the American voters. By keeping the debates to a minimum, he forces mainstream media to stay on the topics important to most Americans, i.e. the economy, energy prices, the Iraq War, healthcare and others.

One thing the Obama campaign learned from the 26 debates Obama participated in nearly a year was that the more debates you have the less relevant topics are debated.

One needs only to do a quick search and review of the 26 debates to find this out. The mainstream media and political pundits became bored with the issues Americans cared about during the Democratic primary debates which reached the now infamous ABC debate in Philadelphia with hosts Stephanopolous and Gibson.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | August 2, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

James,

While the media might switch sides from time to time, the media, on the whole leans to the left, according to UCLA, the University from the home of your precious newspaper article itself!!

By Meg Sullivan, http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

"While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar."

Posted by: Truth Seeker | August 2, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Do you think John McCain has a little problem with women?

John McCain made this odious joke about Chelsea Clinton back in 98.

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."
-Sen. John McCain, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998.

I managed to dig up this gem from his 1986 race for US Senate, as quoted in the Tucson Citizen:

"Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, 'Where is that marvelous ape?'"

I find rape jokes are always a sign of class, don't you?

Posted by: getcentered | August 2, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Anon 8:29 PM -- If the last few years have taught me anything it's that voters have an obligation to do their own due diligence, so yes, I've done a lot of reading and thinking about the candidate's this election cycle.

As far as the Rezko versus Keating comparison goes we're talking about a difference of a few thousand dollars versus a cost to taxpayers of billions. That's an order of magnitude that I take into consideration.

As far as Rezko goes, I see this as a troubling aspect of Obama's history. Rezko was pretty much a typical political hanger-on -- the kind of guy who a clean politician would want to keep his distance from. In terms of Obama's association I think the Chicago Trib has done some excellent work. It's worth checking out the editorial that it ran this past Spring about its interview with Obama. The editorial reprimands him for taking too long to fully discuss the details of his relationship, but the paper, which has done some heavy digging, also exonerated him of an major ethical lapses. It stated that there was no evidence of a quid pro quo. This is significant in my view.

Obama is no saint, but by the standard of a politician at the federal level, he's cleaner than most. For a guy who comes from the Chicago political scene that's quite a statement.

In terms of his personal wealth too, there is little evidence that he's made out like a bandit through his political associations. His biggest source of income has come from royalties from two best-selling books.

More power to him.

With his Harvard J.D. and the law review editor position he's a guy who could have even more wealth than he currently has if he'd committed himself to that particular career course.

McCain's association with Keating is another story. Not only was Keating a political financier of McCain's campaigns, he was a business partner of Cindy McCain -- the two had at least one real estate deal that I'm aware of that was a couple million dollars.

That I see as a questionable lapse, a little dirty, but not necessarily damning.

On the other hand, McCain's complicity in the Savings and Loan scandal -- his protection of Keating -- ended up costing tax-payers billions of dollars. Not exactly chump change (the total tab connected to the crisis was in excess of $200 billion -- Keating's S&L was a little over a billion -- All paid for by taxpayers). Fool me once, as the saying goes . . .

The problem with McCain is that he continues to cut deals for close political associates (e.g. in terms of federal land deals in Arizona for some of his underwriters).

The deals that he's cut for the communications lobby may not be illegal, but they aren't exactly in the public interest either. I worry about McCain's priorities if he's elected. I have no doubt that he views himself as an honorable man who would never succumb to temptation; however, I think his track record suggests a different story. I don't share the confidence that he apparently has in himself.

Politicians at the pro level are subject to all kinds of temptations -- especially related to financial propriety (see Stevens, Ted).

Given the environment in Washington, I don't doubt that Obama could succumb to those temptations. In McCain's case, I don't see this as a question of what could happen, but what has happened. That's a key difference in my view.

Posted by: JP2 | August 2, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama would destroy McCain in any debate in my opinion.

We should talk about McCain and the Republicans failures.

McCain and Republicans were so wrong about our terrorist enemies they went to the wrong country.

Then McCain was wrong just on Iraq so many times......like:

"There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along." [MSNBC, 4/23/03]

......uh what?......or this precious one:

"I'm confident we're on the right course." [ABC News, 3/7/04]

.................or how about the VETO proof GI bill that McCain was against?.......many Democrats and many Republicans supported that bill. CAN''T DENY THAT RIGHT?

........Why, when Congress finally comes together to agree on something, McCain stood with the Neo-con Republican tragedians of our country to stop the bill? I don't get it...........

McCain has lost his way. He supports bringing the troops home, in body bags for a hundred years...............

He wasn't tortured in Viet Nam, according to his own republican standards; he received advanced interrogation techniques, of which he approves of nowadays.

Where are the REAL Republicans?

Posted by: ApostasyUSA | August 2, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse


James,

Unfortunately, the fairness doctrine won't save you this time because it was aimed at another target: talk radio. While the TV news outlets will shift back and forth between their alliances (as YOUR OWN PRECIOUS ARTICLE ADMITS!!!) talk radio has been more traditionally Republican. See, our wonderful Democrats in Congress decided they wanted to level the playing field and decided to try and tell what talk radio hosts could and couldn't say. But the bill failed, mainly because there are still Americans out there who still believe the Constitution when it says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Posted by: Truth Seeker | August 2, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Obamabots are whining about how unfair the networks are with Obama and that they're Corporate networks and favor the Republicans and McCain. All I can say is if that were the Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, etc. they all would have said "Bring 'em on!" They would have welcomed the town hall meetings against McCain and wouldn't have wimped out the way your candidate Obama wimped out! Obama is a wimp.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

JP2,

Let's have a little vocabulary quiz. What is it called when you redistribute wealth from higher income brackets to lower income brackets? No, it's not called benefits, or welfare, it's called socialism. How do you spell Socialism? F A I L U R E Let's look to our good friends, the European Union.

By Nicholas Christian, 2005, http://news.scotsman.com/europeanunion/CIA-gives-grim-warning-on.2595505.jp

"THE CIA has predicted that the European Union will break-up within 15 years unless it radically reforms its ailing welfare systems"

"In a devastating indictment of EU economic prospects, the report warns: "The current EU welfare state is unsustainable and the lack of any economic revitalisation could lead to the splintering or, at worst, disintegration of the EU, undermining its ambitions to play a heavyweight international role."

The CIA might not be the most credible source on earth, but it is DEFINITELY more credible than you and me. Period.

Posted by: TruthSeeker | August 2, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Let's also look at what welfare and social redistribution did to America. We used to be the economic powerhouse that defeated Japan AND Germany in WWII because of the industriousness, hard work, creativity and diligence of the American people. Now look at us today. A ridiculously high percentage number of our engineers are foreign born. In Electrical Engineering, my technical area, 54% of EE graduates in AMERICAN universities are foreign students. We Americans are too dumb and lazy to enter into the creative, innovative, design related fields totay!! On the average, defense companies lack about 1,200- 1,500 skilled workers in Science, Technology and Engineering. We have killed our own initiative! Over taxation, over regulation and an overly large government has SQUASHED our initiative.

You might complain "oh, the recent deregulation of the stock market and the mortgage industry brought this crisis on us." It wasn't the lack of regulation, but the lack of integrity. Even a 7th grader (A 7th grader!!!!) who I tutor realizes this!! It's basic human greed!

A major study of the richest people in America showed that there weren't many common traits among our wealthy elite except one thing. Integrity. Juts about every self-made millionaire or richer had high levels of integrity. (there are of course, some exceptions. One of them happens to be running for president)

You ever wonder how our wealthy fellow Americans became so wealthy? They worked hard for that money. They invested. They saved. They managed well. Please, please, PLEASE, tell me why, in the name of Barak Hussein Obama, do we want to take money from people who know HOW to manage their money well and give it to people who don't know how to freakin' manage their own money!!! It's not the rich people that get scammed, because they know better. It's the poorer people. It's not the richer people that blow their hard earned money on lottery tickets, it's the poorer people. Ever wonder why they are poor to begin with?

Posted by: TruthSeeker | August 2, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

JP2: You sound like you enjoy going into the backgrounds of the candidates, i.e., McCain and Keating5. How about going into the dealings of Obama and Rezko. Sources: The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun Times (search Rezko Trial) and a lot of articles about Rezko and Obama will show up. Also, grab the popcorn and watch the video on youtube of Obama and why he opposes off-shore oil drilling. The funniest line is when Obama infers that McCain is for it because he watches the polls and Obama said he doesn't watch the polls for which position on an issue he should take. It's funny because Obama announces he favors off-shore drilling on the very day McCain ties him in the polls (44%). The youtube video was taped on June 20,2008, in Jacksonville, FL. www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8fkbEuCQss Enjoy.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are smacking down attacks (ie what Republicans call being "defensive"), because the corporate media is biased for McCain. That's just a fact. They attack and attack, and McCain attacks and attacks.

And Obama talks about issues.

So we defend him by smacking down ridiculous attacks. That's just how politics in America works. The corporate media and Republican politicians attack, and Democratic politicians like Obama talk about issues while his supporters smack down the attacks.

The corporate media bias against Obama has already been proven by facts. That argument is over.

The point now is that the media can't be trusted to have fair debates...

so quite correctly, Obama is saying that they won't get any more chance than usual to kneecap the Democratic candidate.

When the corporate media quits with their pro-Republican propaganda, maybe then we can have debates in America.

Democrats need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine legislation before that's going to happen though.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story?page=1

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

HemiHead, you just killed your own argument. The United States government led by Bush the younger, the ignorant, spent 3 TRILLION dollars and only screwed up the economy and worked over the population. Bush is only ONE person in the MASSIVE United States Government. How can you expect that same government to do ANY better, especially one of our presidential candidates plans on blowing $800 billion MORE on failures. Bush is definitely no Einstein, but at least he as a lot more wisdom, experience, and knowledge than Mr. Obama does.

Posted by: TruthSeeker | August 2, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Obamabots: Excuses, excuses, excuses. Obama's put you Obamabots on the defensive tonight. Have fun defending.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

TruthSeeker,

The difference between McCain and Obama's tax plans is that Obama directs the lionshare of benefits to taxpayers below the 90 percent income range.

The median family benefit will be over $1,000 per family.

The lionshare of benefit from McCain's plan will go to the top of the income scale. The median benefit will be closer to $500 with those in the bottom half receiving a benefit of only about $20.

To top it off, McCain's tax plan will add close to $4 trillion of new debt while Obama's will add about $2 trillion over the course of the next decade.

The key difference here in how that debt is allocated.

During an economic downturn when consumer spending slows down the best remedy is to free up capital at the bottom and in the middle of the economy. Put that money in the hands of those who will spend it and the net result is economic growth.

McCain's plan puts the lionshare of resources into the "investor class".

The markets are already "over-invested" domestically. Without an increase in consumer demand an investor is just as likely -- and perhaps even more likely -- to get a return putting money into overseas markets as putting money back into the domestic economy.

So McCain's plan is likely to not only increase our indebtness, but it will do nothing to drive economic growth.

War spending is another area of concern here. The economic benefit of putting money into Iraq provides only marginal benefit for the U.S. economy -- the net effective is a negative one. On the other hand, domestic investment in new energy technology and infrastructure along the lines that Obama is proposing will creating wealth within the domestic economy.

Both politicians will run up deficits -- with McCain's being about twice the size of Obama's. The key difference is that Obama is re-investing that money into the U.S., which is more likely to produce growth in the domestic economy. Whereas McCain is allocating the money overseas in a way where ordinary Americans are unlikely to see any benefit.

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has a very good comparison of the two plans which it posted on June 20, 2008. It's a long read, but it's worth checking out.

Posted by: JP2 | August 2, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Millie,

Why doesn't WAPO post some of my anti-McCain comments?

See how easy it is to claim that?

Nobody believes you. Anything that's not racist or a death threat is basically going to stay up on this blog.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

P'cuuck!

Cluck-Cluck-cluck!

P'CuUuck!


Now THAT;

is ENOUGH Said! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | August 2, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

seenthat,

So long as you respond to my posts, I'll respond to yours. Stop quoting the Traitor Bill O'Reilly with your 'nuff said' arrogance.

McCain graduated 5th from the bottom of his class. Fact.

McCain gave the Chinese propaganda. Fact.

McCain's bombs blew up his own aircraft carrier after he'd been ordered to remove them for being oversized and inappropriate for his plane. Fact.

More than 100 US soldiers burned to death because his bombs fell off and created a blazing inferno on the deck. Fact.

His admiral father transferred him to another aircraft carrier shortly afterwards. Fact.

His fellow soldiers never fragged him for his incompetence. Fact.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Why does the Trail post almost all proObama comments and not the antiObama or proMcCain ones ??? What about being fair and not partial. The press is losing all their credibilty with the American people.

Posted by: Millie | August 2, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

James, 'nuff said means lets not talk. Blogs are rough, sure they are, but some things are too low for even a blog. Suggest you engage others here.

Posted by: seen that | August 2, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

James,

Even IF i'm going to concede to your point, which I'm not, I would first like to read a little quote from YOUR OWN SOURCE.

"That was a reversal of the trend during the primaries, when the same researchers found that 64% of statements about Obama -- new to the political spotlight -- were positive, but just 43% of statements about McCain were positive."
"Such reversals are nothing new in national politics, as reporters tend to warm up to newcomers, then turn increasingly critical when such candidates emerge as front-runners"

Well, James, sounds like someone's just grouchy when the media decides to balance the scales back out a bit. It's just politics. Quit whining.

Posted by: Truthseeker | August 2, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Hey TruthSeeker. Bush has burned through more than 3 trillion dollars while not spending piss on anything for this country. Our schools are either falling apart or closed. Floods all around the country have destroyed peoples lives. After taking all the regulation out of the stock market, taxpayers have the pleasure of bailing out Fannie and Freddy. On top of that, people get to live in their cars and pay 4 dollars a gallon for gas. Our roads and bridges are to the point of collapse, which I think another bridge just collapsed last week. Even the Brooklyn Bridge is up for sale because our country's so broke. Now add a few hundred billion in debt we keep taking on to buy foreign oil, HOW CAN WE NOT SPEND! Yeah John McCain will reel in spending, but at who's expense? I don't think I have to answer that question.

Posted by: HemiHead | August 2, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Of course it was. They just finished the final touches on the deal. They make it sound like Obama had to have his feet held to some kind of fire or something when this has been the deal all along. If Mccain wants to waste his time talking to 200 people at a time let him. Obama was not wasting his time. He will be happy with debates with an estimated audiences of 90 million.

=========
From what I see at the Commission on Presidential Debates the plan always was to do three debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004. Obama probably doesn't want to do anything outside the commission. Here is the schedule of debates: http://www.debates.org/pages/news_111907.html

Posted by: shankarwolf | August 2, 2008 7:57 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

The corporate media bias against Obama has already been proven by facts. That argument is over.

The point now is that the media can't be trusted to have fair debates...

so quite correctly, Obama is saying that they won't get any more chance than usual to kneecap the Democratic candidate.

When the corporate media quits with their pro-Republican propaganda, maybe then we can have debates in America.

Democrats need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine legislation before that's going to happen though.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story?page=1

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Truthseeker,

Way to change the subject.

Since you can't argue against the media bias for McCain anymore...

now you want to talk about how much you aren't for him.

Well, that wasn't the topic at hand. So you've lost your previous argument. That's just what it is.

As per your new argument...

what America needs is someone who's not batsh-t crazy. And John McCain is.

He'll continue the same policies as Bush.

If you want to vote for the Libertarian or for Nader... or some write in candidate, you can go ahead.

But if Obama takes us back to the tax policies of the 1950's, where we taxed the rich and spent to money on public infrastructure...

that's great.

After all, the 1950's are what the Conservatives point to as the hay day for America... and the reason it was is because we taxed the rich and paid for the public institutions that made it great.

But you still lost your first argument.

You got used. I wiped the floor with you.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Nice move, Obama.

Just give McCain and the Republicans more ammo that you're insulated and unwilling to engage outside of your comfort zone. I'm almost certain they will be gentlemanly enough not to use it.

Do you really think that resting on your laurels will get you the presidency? Before you answer that, look at what complacency got Hillary.

Looks like I'm voting my conscience this year.

Go Ralph!!!

Posted by: jahlen | August 2, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

From what I see at the Commission on Presidential Debates the plan always was to do three debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004. Obama probably doesn't want to do anything outside the commission. Here is the schedule of debates: http://www.debates.org/pages/news_111907.html

Posted by: shankarwolf | August 2, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Well, the man with the big mounth can talk the talk but he can't walk the walk; Obama is afraid to have town hall meetings with McCain because he will not have a script and he will be asked tough questions which he would not be able to answer. He's arrogant, egotistical, a hugh liar, flows with the wind changing his position on issues depending on what the voters want and not what he believes. He will not listen to our generals of Chiefs of Staff because he believes he is smartr than they are even though he has had zip military experience. He refurbished his campaign airplane and took the U.S. flag off and instead put his logo on it; he has his own presidential seal; he and his staff have started planning their move into the White House because "those things take a lot of time"; guess he does not even know we have a presidential election in Nov. He's a piece of c===

Posted by: John Osama | August 2, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

seen that,

A lot of vets hate John McCain... particularly for how he denied the existence of MIA's in Vietnam when he got back.

Just depends on which vets you ask... ones who put politics above country... or those who are honest enough to criticize Republicans.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Mccain is used to talking to 200 people at a time. I guess he doesn't realize the audience for the first debate is estimated to be 90 million. What the fu&k does he think they are going to say in ten debates all over the country they can't say to the whole country in three debates? It keeps becoming more and more clear he thinks this is the 1940's of something. Can you imagine ten debates saying the same thing over and over it would become ridiculous. You would have 20 hours of talking points you can see any night on hardball.

I honestly think Mccain must be demented,. He says something one day and the next something different and when confronted by a tape of what he said the day before looks completely dumbfounded like, "My God where did they get that". I am beginning to think he is not even lying anymore. He truly has no idea what the hell is coming out of his own mouth. How in the world are they going to prepare this guy for a debate. He can't have his buddy Joe L. there whispering in his ear, he will be on his own. This is going to be brutal.

We may actually see Mccain's candidacy end right in front of us as he melts down. I don't think Obama is going to have to do much other then push a few of Mccains buttons and sit back and watch. You see how Mccain went off today on the NY Times? This guy can't control himself for five minutes. get your popcorn ready as Mccain implodes, it will be can't miss TV.

========
It's amazing how the McCain camp has already managed to spin Obama agreeing to the "bare minimum" of 3 debates with McCain as Obama being "afraid" to debate him. This ingenious maneuver distracts people from the real question: Why does McCain assume he needs more than 3 debates to convince the nation that he is the superior candidate?

Posted by: Media Takes Debate | August 2, 2008 7:36 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

James,

You can stop wasting your time and energy attacking McLame because I'm not defending him at all.... I don't like him either! What I AM asking for is some defense of Obama.

Oh, and FYI, if you have been reading my posts, you will notice that I haven't defended McLame once. He's just a forgetful, dumb face, flip-flopping, lying disgrace to the American People.

But what American DOESN'T need is another sensational tax and spend president who will lead America to strangle herself to death with her own over regulating, overtaxing, overblown government.

What we need is a REAL change, not George W. Obama who wants to raise spending even more that the evil Bush the younger, the ignorant, or supports the same troop withdrawal timeline as the old George W. himself.

Posted by: Truth Seeker | August 2, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

James, this is a blog in the virtual world, which is lucky for you. If justice exists, you'll run that opinion past some vets. 'nuff said.

Posted by: seen that | August 2, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

truthseeker,

If ABC, CBS, and NBC were all biased towards McCain, then that tells us quite a bit.

If you can find a study that includes every single media source out there, please do link to it as I have done with my information.

Oh wait... you don't have any facts do you?

The media bias proves one essential fact:

Obama gets more coverage, but as anyone who has a brain in their heads knows, most media coverage is negative.

"But the center's director, RobertLichter, who has won conservative hearts with several of his previous studies, told me the facts were the facts.

"This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage," he said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story?page=1

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

It's worth noting that McCain was also disowned by the father of modern conservatism Senator Barry Goldwater following his involvement in the Keating 5 Savings & Loan scandal.

McCain was fortunate that his activities were investigated by a friendly Senate Ethics committee and not by federal prosecutors.

John McCain the politician returned the favor a little over a decade later when he sat on a mountain of documents connected the Abramoff scandal. He settled some political scores in the House, but did his best to keep scrutiny away from the Senate and the White House.

Source: The Washington Spectator Feb. 1, 2008.

Posted by: JP2 | August 2, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

So the bare minimum debates. He doesn't give press conferences, he doesn't take hostile questions, and he won't meet John McCain except in the most controlled circumstances.

Slick Willy has done met his match. Reagan is no longer the most teflon of campaigners.

If Obama pulls this off he will have 1) gotten the nomination of his party after reversing or seriously modifying his positions on all the main issues he ran on 2) never authoring a major piece of legislation, 3) never working in the lead on a bipartisan piece of legislation, and 4) never facing an adult life crisis more acute than having his credit card bounce.

It would be a great movie, but the genre would be comedy.

Posted by: ssen that | August 2, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

James,

Quick question. Since when did ABC, NBC and CBS constitute the ENTIRE media?? Or even the majority of the media? Saying that the media IN GENERAL has a massive bias for Obama based off the actions of three television channels makes as much sense as me saying that Fox News, the Houston Chronicle, and NPR have a Republican slant, so therefore the media has a Republican slant.

Posted by: TruthSeeker | August 2, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

seen that,

Yeah, OK...

You want to talk about McCain's military service.

OK, he did his POW time. He also did make propaganda tapes for the Chinese Communists.

He also did graduate 5th from the bottom of his class of about 1,000.

He also did help blow up his own aircraft carrier, the USS Forrestal, by refusing to remove oversized bombs from his plane, which upon attack fell off and blew up the deck...

killing more than 100 US soldiers.

Yeah, his POW time and all the rest.

That's his military record.

I learned a lot about his character by being informed about it.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: qbigtest | August 2, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: qbigtest | August 2, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

seen that,

McCain is pet.

He wears $520 shoes and has a $1000/bet craps gambling habit.

He flies around in his wife's jet. He gets the benefit of her 11 houses.

You have no credibility for criticizing Obama when McCain himself is totally incompetent in the real world.

McCain was adopted as a pet by Nixon and Reagan and the Republican party because of his POW years.

That's just who he is.

Get over it.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

========
JOHN MCCAIN, TRADER TO HIS COUNTRY, COLLABORATOR WITH THE ENEMY, MILITARY DISGRACE.
Ted Sampley, a Vietnam Veteran and former Green Beret, issued a CHALLENGE to John McCain "If you can show us that the information presented in our mailer is untruthful . . . we will Stand Down" This CHALLENGE was issued during an interview with INSIDE EDITION on January 17, 2008.
John, family members of Vietnam POW/MIA(s) have been waiting for more then 14 years for you to have the courage to face them eye to eye in front of the American Public - Here is your opportunity for some "STRAIGHT TALK." Stop hiding behind your fabricated "War Hero" persona. You know we can prove your collaborations with declassified government documents . . . It is time for the American people to get to know the REAL John McCain - the John McCain that the POW/MIA families witnessed during the 1991-93 US Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs .
Bring It On John! HERE IS OUR NUMBER 252-527-0442

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Truthseeker,

You are wrong. Just wrong. There is such a thing as being wrong in 2008. Objectively, factually wrong.

"The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story?page=1

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how the McCain camp has already managed to spin Obama agreeing to the "bare minimum" of 3 debates with McCain as Obama being "afraid" to debate him. This ingenious maneuver distracts people from the real question: Why does McCain assume he needs more than 3 debates to convince the nation that he is the superior candidate?

Posted by: Media Takes Debate | August 2, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

James, he made his millions by writing about his favorite topic, himself.

McCain never claimed to be a businessman. He's a career statesman.

As far as more of a man, John McCain endured four additional years of torture so another man could go home ahead of his. He still can't raise his arms over his shoulders because of the abuse he took. And you may remember that he led the effort to get reconciliation with Vietnam, the country of the men who tortured him.

Obama is still so upset by the way Hillary challenged him that she isn't even being seriously considered as VP and Bill isn't being utilized at all.

So you've got a man who was tortured and worked to ease the circumstances of the people who tortured him and you have another man who slights and rejects people who pressed him in a political campaign.

Posted by: seen that | August 2, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Dissappointed Again,

You don't have to believe any sort of hype to fight for an Obama win over a McCain win.

McCain is the phoniest character in politics since Nixon. That's just a fact.

The CORPORATE media bias in his favor should all tell us something. If the facts of who the CORPORATE media wants to win doesn't give you pause and give you a clue of who to vote for, then you have learned very little over the past 8 years.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story?page=2

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

James,

I have challenged your source and you still have yet to respond. OF COURSE the LA Times is going to say that the media has a McLame bias. Believe me; I used to LIVE in LA!! But since when did Fox News and the other small-time Republican news outlets constitute the ENTIRE media!!

On the other hand, the Washington Post, the New York Times, NBC, CNBC, the LA times, the Dallas Morning news, etc. are all FAWING over Obama and are practically in bed with him. Take a look at the latest headlines under "national news" and the "politics" section (no, it's not the editorial section) and you will see it completely saturated with an Obama/Liberal bias.

On the other hand, many REPUBLICANS will blast McLame. Just recently, when the Obama campaign created an anti-Dobson website, did he even CONSIDER voting for McLame. Before that, Dobson and other conservatives grilled McLame as much as the rest of the media.

Posted by: TruthSeeker | August 2, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Of course McCain wants all the association with Barack Obama he can get; this is the only way he can get any serious media is to appear with the "Celebrity". The only other time McCain is mentioned in the Media is when he is throwing a campaign supporter under the Bus or making outrageous cynical statements in his solo town hall meetings. Three Debates together is fine.

Posted by: Fareed H. Ansari | August 2, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

For a while there, I really thought Obama was different. But all he can seem to do is break promises, Mr. "I'm taking public funding." Mr. "I'll debate John McCain anywhere." Mr. "Never mind, I'm taking public funding and sticking to reading the stuff my extremely talented speechwriters come up with rather than risking getting my behind handed to me by McCain."

As it turns out, I found a copy of the Obama campaign playbook lying around my local MoveOn.org office. Here are some tidbits:

Rule #1: Any time you mention McCain's name, make sure to say "Bush" within five words of his name. Even better, simply conflate their names. Example:

"I respect John W. McCain. Senator McBush is a patriot and a hero. But George W. McCain's policies are not right for America. George McBush wants to keep the troops in Iraq for 100 years, etc..."

Rule #2: Avoid saying anything of substance. After all, nobody can attack your policies if you don't have any policies! When in doubt, resort to slogans that our focus groups have indicated resonate with your typical voter. Example:

"We need change. Unless we change, we will be forced to follow the same failed policies. Changing is the only way to change things. So if we don't change, then changing the change will have changed our change."

Unfortunately, some of you believe the Obama hype almost as much as Obama believes his own hype. For example, some of you are apparently convinced that the media is anti-Obama, which is akin to saying that Catholics are anti-Jesus. Apparently McCain is also a member of the mob now, which is almost as disgraceful as Karl Rove spreading that rumor eight years ago about how McCain had a black child out of wedlock. Somebody else suggested that McCain is toast when the debates start, because he'll no longer have the media to hide behind. You're absolutely correct, if by "McCain" you mean "Obama." Why do you think McCain keeps badgering Obama to do ten town-hall style debates, taking questions from ordinary Americans instead of the media? Why do you think Obama's campaign instead proposed doing ONE town hall meeting on July 4th, when nobody is inside watching TV? And why do you think Obama refused to do a town hall meeting in Iraq, with questions coming from the same troops whom Obama wants to command in six months?

I just can't believe how many supposedly intelligent people have been led by the nose by one of the most successful marketing campaigns in history.

Posted by: Disappointed, Again | August 2, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

JOHN MCCAIN, PLAYING THE DISABILITY CARD HIS WHOLE CAREER.

Mccain has been playing the disability card for his entire career. No one dares tell the truth about him or challenge the war hero or say anything bad or he will tell you,
" MY ARMS HURT, MY ARMS HURT, I WAS A P.O.W., I AM A HERO ASK ANYBODY".
He gets away with murder, why, Hell, "HE IS DISABLED".
At one of his town hall meetings he even paraded around a half blind demented "Real" war hero with all his medals on exploiting him. He has been hiding behind his disability for so long I was actually glad in 2000 when Bush went after him. Enough is enough he had been living off this hero BS with no political substance what so ever long enough. Much of his past can not even be substantiated. He can not account for most of his medals, ask him. They were just handed to him because of who his father was. It has long been just assumed his military records have been altered and faked by his father. It's nice when your father is an Admiral. Two other men in his camp who collaborated with the enemy were threatened with execution as traders for doing the exact same thing Mccain himself admits doing in his book, except Mccain did it "30" times. But like I said, when your father is an Admiral your past can be what ever you say it is and after a while you even begin to believe it.

=======

On the topic of media bias: McCain has been treated with kid-gloves by many in TV and Cable News.

This is a man who has had a hand in the two largest financial collapses since the Great Depression (the Savings and Loan crisis and the subprime debacle).

His track record on foreign policy includes signing off on the biggest strategic blunder in at least a generation -- and arguably in U.S. history.

This is a man who talks about honor, but who holds himself and those within his campaign to the lowest possible standard. Yet he receives very little scrutiny.

This is a candidate who makes false claims about his tax policy -- and that of his opponent -- yet he continues to repeat those lies with impunity. His record is never challenged.

This is a candidate who preaches good governance, yet he surrounds himself with the same lobbyists who have turned traitor on the American middle class and the next several generations of Americans.

Yet he receives little scrutiny.

So is there media bias in some outlets? Yes, absolutely. In McCain's favor.

John McCain the politician is no friend of ordinary Americans or the middle class. Those are the facts and that is his record.

Posted by: JP2 | August 2, 2008 7:22 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Read Obama's remarks from a town hall meeting in Cedar Rapids yesterday, and ask yourself, does Obama really need to be running around with McCain doing Town Hall meetings and arguing over things they'll never agree on. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080801/NEWS/80801002/1001

Posted by: HemiHead | August 2, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Media bias for McCain proven once and for all. End of discussion.

Republicans have no argument based in reality. These are just facts. The media is overwhelmingly printing more negative stories about Obama than McCain.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story?page=2

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

seenthat,

Obama is a self-made millionaire.

McCain is a pet who cheated on his first wife and remarried for money. He's never earned a buck in the real world.

Obama is far and away a better businessman than McCain.

And more of a man.


Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

oh, and on this whole "we don't want a third term of Bush," I have some more information. Over the last 8 years, Bush has increased federal spending by about $3,000 per household in the United States.
Back in FEBRUARY 2008 Obama's spend-o-meter had already reached $800 billion dollars, that is, Obama had promised to increase federal spending by $800 billion to cover his "change." If you divide that by the number of households in the US, you get a WHOPPING $7,000 increase in taxes PER HOUSEHOLD in the United States. That amounts to approximately $2,500 per MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD in the United States. I don't know about you, but I REALLY don't want a third term of Bush, and I CERTAINLY don't want a Bush's budget on steroids, excuse me I forgot, marijuana.

McLame is more pathetic than a dying, flip-flopping white-haired fish, but I certainly don't have an extra $2,500 sitting around to pay the latest tax and spend sensation to hit Washington!


http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S3-Federal-Government-Spending-per.html

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGYxYWM4NjkxMjUwMzBhZDAwNTg2NjZmYmU5MWU2ZmQ=

Posted by: TruthSeeker | August 2, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

On the topic of media bias: McCain has been treated with kid-gloves by many in TV and Cable News.

This is a man who has had a hand in the two largest financial collapses since the Great Depression (the Savings and Loan crisis and the subprime debacle).

His track record on foreign policy includes signing off on the biggest strategic blunder in at least a generation -- and arguably in U.S. history.

This is a man who talks about honor, but who holds himself and those within his campaign to the lowest possible standard. Yet he receives very little scrutiny.

This is a candidate who makes false claims about his tax policy -- and that of his opponent -- yet he continues to repeat those lies with impunity. His record is never challenged.

This is a candidate who preaches good governance, yet he surrounds himself with the same lobbyists who have turned traitor on the American middle class and the next several generations of Americans.

Yet he receives little scrutiny.

So is there media bias in some outlets? Yes, absolutely. In McCain's favor.

John McCain the politician is no friend of ordinary Americans or the middle class. Those are the facts and that is his record.

Posted by: JP2 | August 2, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

It looks like the Obamabots are having a bad day today. First, Obama adds another flip-flop to his long list of flip-flops by saying he's not opposed to offshore-drilling for oil. Then Obama wimps out on having the town hall meetings with McCain. It's the same way Obama ran away from debating Hillary after he was just completely lost in their last debate. You Obamabots talking about "if the media could hold fair debates." Clinton got all the tough questions at the debates and Obama got softball ones, the one exception being the ABC debate, which left Obama with his mouth open. Clinton won all of her debates with Obama. And Clinton never wimped out. Neither have any of the other candidates. This further convinces me that Obama is "not ready for prime time." Our country doesn't need a wimp, who isn't strong enough to stand up for us. Obama won't even stand up for himself. His M.O. seems to be to run away. And about Obama being honest? Please, don't get me started. By the way, I'm not a repub, or a neocon. I'm an Independent. I would have loved to vote for Obama but he's said untruths, he has suspect Chicago political ties and he's flip-flopped on every major issue. Obama was left, now he's center and heading to the right.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama isnt' going to give the corporate media more chances than necessary to kneecap him.

We all know the media is in the tank for McCain. It's already been proven by statistics. Republican whining is just Rove politics... it's a lie.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story?page=2

Republicans are just going to have to deal with the fact that Democrats are now strong enough to tell their friends in the corporate media to stuff it.

Three debates. That's it.

I'm sure one of them will be hosted by Fox and one by CNN or CBS/ABC... it's already a biased pro-McCain joke before it starts.

I just hope MSNBC gets one so there's a chance (and only a slight chance at that) for balance in at least one of the debates.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Good luck with that.

You guys are going down.

Obama is going to kick McCain's butt. Hard.

Underestimate him- it'll make victory that much sweeter for us and that much more painful for you.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

You get an understanding of Obama if you look at him in the right way. All you college educated people know the type. He's a really intelligent grad student. Lots of self-confidence because he dominates in the world of words and ideas but no accomplishments to criticize because he hasn't done anything of note yet. He has all kinds of criticism for others though based on his theories.

To be fair he has managed to bamboozle a major political party. How do you think the primary would have played out if he had told the environmentalists he would approve offshore drilling, the libertarians that he would vote for FISA and the peace supporters that his strict deadline would be exactly the same as George Bushes.

You owe Hillary an apology by the way.

Posted by: seen that | August 2, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

J Snyder,

Nope. Obama gets more articles about him, but most of those are negative.

It's already been covered and your Republican propaganda has been prove wrong by the LA Times.

The media bias is for McCain. It always has been.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story?page=2

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

I was listening to NPR yesterday and they played a clip of Barry Hussein responding to a man who just lost his job with Union Carbide. Do you know what he told him? He said he would put him to work building windmills! What planet is this man with the purple lips from anyway?

Posted by: Nadeem Zakaria | August 2, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

McCain - and all of you who knowingly and willingly back a candidate who is in the mafia's pocket - makes me sick.

This is a sad state of American affairs when people can be so... I don't even know how to describe the depths of corruption this represents.

There is no need to debate anything. McCain should step down.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

You Obama fans are pathetic. Your candidate gets the best press coverage in history and you still have the audacity to complain of bias corporate coverage?. What planet do you live on? Obama is afraid to debate McCain because he will likely make a mistake. I have news for all you liberals, this election isn't over yet. Could it be that your inexperienced, socialist candidate isn't as popular as you think? Don't take too much comfort in your slight poll lead as many people are afraid of a racist charge when they get surveyed so accuracy is questionable. I just hope Alex Baldwin really does move this time if McCain pulls off an upset!

Posted by: J SNYDER | August 2, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Such great emotion being expressed here! It doesn't take a political scientist to realize that each candidate will push for more or fewer debates of one type or another based on what he and his advisors think will be to his best advantage.

There's still weeks left before the conventions, and there's plenty of time to work out a compromise to which both candidates will grudgingly agree, if they feel they need to. The debate on the debates ain't over until it's over.

Posted by: Willythekorn | August 2, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

In response to the comments below:

James, PLEASE check your source! Quoting a study by the LA times saying that the media has an anti-Obama view is just as valid as me quoting a study by Fox News or Townhall.com saying that the media has a pro-Obama view!

JP2, what does that prove? It proves that Obama is on the same level as Bush and Reagan. I thought we DIDN'T want a third term of bush.

Acutally, JP2, that's not quite the real problem. The real problem is that McLame is so old that he forgets what he knows and always flip-flops. Do we really want someone like this running the country?
But we also have another problem. His opponent is so young and inexperienced that he often forgets that he doesn't know what he's doing or how to REALLY solve problems. Thus, he proposes different solutions to please different audiences, and thus he comes across as lying.

Posted by: TruthSeeker | August 2, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

ISn't this the guy who said "Any where Any time" to townhall meetings?
I can't stop laughing at this clown.

Looking forward to see how he does on "Non orchestrated, non tele promoter" event such as debate :) lol

Posted by: Martin | August 2, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Seriously though, this is pathetic. The VPs get vetted, but who vets the Presidential candidates?

I can understand JFK getting elected back when there were only three networks and a major newspaper or two in the major cities.

But for McCain to be a viable candidate in this information era is simply unacceptable.

He needs to discover a health issue, and he needs to be replaced at the Republican Convention by someone who cannot be leveraged by the mob.

Hello!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

McCain is so crotchety and full of himself..if it doesn't go his way he is ready to cry foul.. He will make an argument out of anything. That maybe the way that campaigns are run but I am tired of this nonsense bickering and whining. Obama has signed on for the debates now lets just debate and SHUT UP ALREADY.

Posted by: lg. | August 2, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

How shocking. This certainly has nothing to do with the fact that, without a teleprompter or notes, Obama is worse at public speaking than George Bush.

Posted by: Tirade | August 2, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

They better hold them early in the morning because anytime after noon and McSame will be taking a nap. Besides unless his puppet master Lieberman is there to tell him what to say and Lyndsey to look adoringly at him I don't know if he will make it through. Senility is a terrible thing, especially when everyone in the world will be watching!They are going to wonder, if this is the best the GOP can do! LOL

Posted by: Sue F | August 2, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

on the one question you'd like to ask your opponent "Did Shock and Awe" make you queezy (blitzkreig)... or excited?

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 2, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

http://www.girlinshortshorts.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-mccain-and-mob.html

Debate #1

Obama: Sen McCain how can you be trusted to lead the American people when you married into the mob. You could be compromised?

McCain: At least I'm not black! Hahahaha!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

"Truth"Seeker,

In fairness, it will probably take three to four weeks between each of these debates to cull out all of the lies that come out of McCain's mouth in the course of each debate.

It's also worth noting that Obama is participating in more general election debates than either George H.W. Bush, or that former global Hollywood celebrity Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: JP2 | August 2, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Because many of the media moguls' families made their money in the same network and in the same way McCain's wife did.

Booze+ back in the day...

Rehnquist was McCain's father-in-law's attorney at the trial where he was convicted of a felony.

You could google it. All of it.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

The question is whether McCain can get through a debate without an intravenous hook up. Is that allowed?

Posted by: mnjam | August 2, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama has nothing to hide.

He just can't trust the corporate media to hold fair debates. They already burned that bridge in the primaries... it was a joke.

Republicans can flail about and stamp their feet all they want, but their friends in the corporate media aren't going to get but the average number of shots to slant the election towards McCain.

Three. Plus a VP debate.

Democrats aren't going to just hand the election over to the Republicans and the corporate media.

We've already learned that lesson.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Truthseeker,

Because our media has an anti-Obama bias, as documented with statistics by the LA Times.

They proved in the primary debates that they couldn't be trusted to be fair and balanced wrt Obama. It was absurd. It was a joke.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

What a sad day it is when the man that America holds as it's savior and hero is only brave enough to debate FOUR times?? If McCain is really such a pushover, why, may I ask, is our great and mighty Obama so afraid to debate him? Why, if I may ask, has our "savior," the great and mighty Obama been so reluctant to engage in any REAL press conferences where the press AND the audience ask questions that are not PRE-STAGED where Obama can give one of his elaborate mini-speeches? This lack of public questioning begs the question, what does Obama have to hide?

Posted by: TruthSeeker | August 2, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Re: MA B4A & MA 522 BHO

You can park in front of my house if you want. Why do you park a block away??

Now you are sending a bunch of young guys to the Convience Store?

I can not believe this.
What happened to MA State?

Posted by: premier | August 2, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

obama is a little coward. what's he trying to hide?

Posted by: fred | August 2, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Did a Republican just call Michelle Obama a "negro" below?

How is that permitted on the WAPO website?

This website allows more racist Republican nutbags than the worst of the worst blogs out there.

Mainstream media is worse than blogs when it comes to offensive outlandish posts. It's just a fact.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

McCain married into an old criminal family in Arizona that has great influence in the media.

Neither McCain nor the media can be trusted. Both have been compromised.

Bronfman Lansky Hensley McCain

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Republicans need to be scanned for ear pieces and hidden microphones.

John McCain is a debate disaster waiting to happen, and we can't allow another fiasco like when Jr. was having the answers fed to him via microphone.

That was a true low point for our so-called Democracy (which is really a Republic... which is really a neo-fascist Republic when under the control of Republicans).

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Isn't the "bare minimum" number of debates zero?

Three debates is pretty much the standard.

e.g. total debates during the general election cycle (for presidential candidates):

2004 -- 3
2000 -- 3
1996 -- 2
1992 -- 3
1988 -- 2
1984 -- 2
1980 -- 2
1976 -- 3

In each of the previous election cycles the total number of VP debates was usually 1 -- and in some cases zero.

Source: Commission on Presidential Debates.

Posted by: JP2 | August 2, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

If Obama could trust the media to hold fair debates, there would be more of them.

But given how they behaved in the primaries, he simply can't. We can't even trust that questions asked by audience members would be screened fairly. No way.

If Americans have a problem with 3 debates plus a VP debate, they can take it up with their fake corporate news.

The media's Anti-Obama behavior in the primary debates (and ongoing) was/is inexcusable... and Obama isn't going to lose this election just in order to appease the corporate news.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 2, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama is going to destroy McCain in the debates.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

" My friends...my friends....my friends.....my friends......my friends....my friends....my friends.....my friends.....zzzzzzzzz"

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Slimeball NObama opted out of debates after he was for it?

Slimeball changed stance on offshore drilling, after being against it?

Slimeball NObama is for FISA after being against it?

Slimeball NObama is for staying in Iraq forever, after advocating pullout in strict 16 months?

SLimeball NObama used race card on Clinton?

Slimeball NObama used sex card on CLinton?

Slimeball NObama compared Pres Clinton to Nixon, but is now cringing because the right wingers are attacking him?

YES to all of these.
But that is slimeball NOBama for ya'll.
Clinton fans, don't fall for the "you need to toe the party line" angle. This is not a commie party.
The sleazy NObama campaign stole the nomination. Now his true colors are coming out.

Wright, Ayers, bittergate, those were small fried. The truly scary thing about this guy is that he is a Hypocrite par none, and will do anything, flip anything, race/sex card anything, to get his trone and crown.

Ruthless egomaniac, in other words.

Stay home or vote Nader, write Clinton name, or Ron Paul name, or your own name.
ANything but NObama.

Posted by: intcamd1 | August 2, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

what a coward...that is all.

Posted by: Hugiththrough | August 2, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Will MccCain be allowed to have Lieberman stand next to him to whisper the answers?

How many times do you think McCain will re-visit those tired old POW stories he likes to spin?

Obama: NO sighing, like Gore did.
NO looking at the watch like Bush did.
Keep linking McCain to Bush...You'll win.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

McCain participated in over a dozen debates during the Primary.

In nearly all of them, he came across as "mean and small"

according to the Republican State Television (Fox News)

which at the time was tilted toward Rudy-911.

Posted by: Robert Blanchard North Smithfield RI | August 2, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

McSleezy is an adulterer - this is a given. Makes you wonder about his ethics. Selfish and an a**hole, McSleezy is trying (with limited success) to suck Obama into a series of McSleezy-loaded traps called "town hall meetings". Obama is taking the high road... and has taken it all along. Politics is dirty business only if you have to deal with McSleezy and his Karl Rove propagandists and Nazi stormtroopers.

Posted by: White Racist Pigs for Obama | August 2, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

I am disappointed with American Electoral process. We do not have very good choices.
Mccain is deceitful and O'bama is deceitful.
Mccain is flip flopper so is O'bama.
Mccaind dumped his loyal wife and o'bama dumped his pastor.
Mccain is for offshore drilling now O'bama is doing the same.

What's the difference?

Posted by: Sam69 | August 2, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

McLame supporters really do have short memories, what happened the last time Mclame tried to bait Obama. I still have Obama's sucessfull foreign policy tour in mind. After the 3 debates it will be over for McShame! His age & anger will be in display for all to see, especially when he can't / won't remember the facts and details of his policies.

Posted by: Elitist | August 2, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

I saw Obama in a town hall meeting. He was asked a question that came from left field, one that he had never gotten before. He was thoughtful and articulate in responding, and I came away thinking that for Obama a town hall meeting was like Brer Rabbit begging not to be thrown into the brier patch.

Posted by: NoVA | August 2, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

McCain's wife supposedly has a lover back in Arizona. I'm not surprised. She has a husband that wears Depends, not condoms...

Posted by: Polly Purebred | August 2, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Why is no one talking about McCain's adultery? He left his handicapped wife for Cindy (a mobbed-up beer distributor's daughter). THAT says something about where his brain really is...

Posted by: Polly Purebred | August 2, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Will they allow McCain to wear DEPENDS on stage ? Obama has to be careful not to totally destroy him, because he will be charged with cruelty towards a senior citizen.

Posted by: Ron | August 2, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Notice how Obama wants to hide from the people by not allowing regular people ask him questions, straight honest question in a town hall like debate? He wants to hide behind the liberals who host and run and manipulate such debates that yet another Republican is walking ignorantly into. Maybe the next time Americans, not politicians or the media (liberal media), will elect a president.

Posted by: Fightertom34 | August 2, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse


Senator mccain might be a controlled manchurian candidate, ready to bomb bomb whoever!
after luciferian message sent by kein lieber man. The brainwashing legacy left by psycho masters: ewen cameron, jose delgado, joseph mengele..
and those in APA who are torture eager advisers should be contested debated and fulminated for once and all.
Should we trust abu graibh advisers for the evil designs they believe so great for us to wear? Senator Mccain seems to be pr'd
by apa members. To promise an impossible presidency to a man whose health demands serious attention is not what friends do.

Posted by: lea | August 2, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

ObamaNATION is just too scared to debate with MCcain in a TownHall event because he knows he acts and talks like a bumbling IDIOT without a script or teleprompter to READ on when he talks. He is only good of talking when everything is prepared way in advance for him by his minions to cover for him WITH a PREPARED written statements. He is so pathetic...

Take a look at one of his unscripted TOWNHall appearance in BRISTOL, VA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1s6ld271Dk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6ZpJ4-REYM&feature=related

Posted by: bILL | August 2, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

McCain cynical? Heck, I think he's more of a wiseass, trash talking, scum bag.

Posted by: Polly Purebred | August 2, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I see everyone talking about Obama reading speeches. Has anyone noticed that John McCain can't even read. What grade did he complete? Does anyone know ?

Posted by: Ron | August 2, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

I disagree with the first poster, mnjam. Senator Obama does fine in town hall meetings. He thinks before he responds, he does not have prepared, canned answers for questioners. He opted out of the John McCain devise town halls for political strategy. Why play on your opponents turf when you can play on your home field or neutral territory?

Posted by: CitizenAJ | August 2, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Lest not forget that the media holds McCain to the same bar as George W's speaking ability when it comes to debates. The MSM will probably say that McCain tied or even beat Obama because "debating is not McCain's strong suit and that since he didn't make any glaring errors, he met the (very low) threshold of success and won."

Leave it to the punditry to spin this race to the White House.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't want to be seen on the same stage with John McCain. He has shown that he is childish and cynical.

Posted by: Ron | August 2, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Hold the 3 debates in big cities - London, Berlin, Paris.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

The problem with town hall debates is that they invariably take place in front of an audience of vetted, race-baiting reactionaries hand-picked by McCain's handlers, particularly Rove protege Schmidt.

Posted by: mnjam | August 2, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

One can only hope that these three "debates" are more meaningful than what we've seen so far.
-
Why is Obama such a poor performer in the town hall format? He totally shines when reading from a prepared text, but is a null and void android when called upon to speak contemporaniously. It makes you wonder if there is anything in there.
-
-
-


Obama is only acting in his best interest - just like McCain was when he demanded more town hall debates. Obama's a poor performer at the more unscripted town hall events, so he obviously wouldn't want to do those.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | August 2, 2008 4:44 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

McSleezy will say that Obama is chicken to debate him in a town hall setting. If the roles were reversed,McSleezy would say that HE was smart enought not to get caught up in an Obama trap. With Fox News (fair and balanced my a**) and Rush Limppaw pimping for McSleezy, no wonder Obama is cautious.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Three debates is more than enough for Barack to show up the OLD GEEZER. Maybe McCain will suffer a bout of incontinence and wet his trousers...or maybe he'll just nod off. We shall see.

I want to see a debate between Cindy and Michelle.

Posted by: Torquemada | August 2, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm completely certain that Obama will perform amazingly well in all the debates. McSame's will probably have a hard time remembering simple geography. But that will not help - Kerry performed excellently in all 3 debates and look what happened. The MSM like the Post, NYT etc should start reporting facts, voting records, instead of parroting "he said, she said" pieces of tabloid-like gossip. Otherwise, I am very worried that McSame's Rove-ian techniques will win him this election.

Posted by: Nikki | August 2, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse


Is it possible that mc cain has control of the media when it comes to fox, rush, wall street journal and all rightward leaning media outlets?

Mc Cain simply took a trip abroad and the foreign people, leaders, grass and trees were unimpressed and paid no attention.

And so, to quell the attention of a completely successful trip by Obama he cries the media loves him. No John, the people love him.

Mc Cain is just not a compelling speaker and he falls asleep mentally while reading his own teleprompter.

Posted by: change is good | August 2, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if McCain will begin each sentence in the debate with "My friends, Senator Obama believes . . . ".

Posted by: Curious | August 2, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama is only acting in his best interest - just like McCain was when he demanded more town hall debates. Obama's a poor performer at the more unscripted town hall events, so he obviously wouldn't want to do those.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | August 2, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

If John can stay awake, I just watched him sleeping during a Senate floor vote, How many of us would have jobs if we fell asleep at work? To Short, To mean, to out of touch, To OLD!, I kinda of pitty him in the Debates, I think Baby O was just being kind to the old guy, I think Mcain will look like the Old fool.

Posted by: RaferJanders | August 2, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

So much for "OBAMA" being a different type of Democ"rat". He seems to want the "MEDIA" to be in charge of the debates instead of the "Voters". But I wonder if come Denver and the polls show him losing will he be the "ONE" in the debates.

VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com

Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | August 2, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

John McCain is toast once the debates happen and he's got no media to hide behind.

Posted by: chris | August 2, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

t what point will the NY Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and NBC realize that they bear an enormous amount of responsibility for how this country is run?

They are the ones who promote the ridiculous lies that Obama is playing the race card, or that John Kerry didn't serve honorably in Vietnam, or that Gore is a bore, etc. Meanwhile they completely ignore reporting the facts about McCain, Bush, Cheney, etc.

The people in this country deserve facts, not sensationalism. The job of so-called journalists like Brian Williams and Wolf Blitzer is to actually report the facts, and to be wise about not giving voice to blatant lies.

If they can't do their job we are going to end up with another 4 years of Republicans running the country into the ground. And how is Republican rule helping anyone, including the very reporters (and the media companies) who tolerate Republican lies?

PS: Obama, you need to punch back. Remind the country that McCain is a HUGE Bush supporter. Remind the country that on the day Katrina was destroying New Orleans, those two idiots were eating cake in Arizona.

Posted by: fafa | August 2, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company