Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Camp Presses McCain on 'Divorced' Remarks


Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) speaks at a campaign event at the McConnell Center in Dover, N.H., Sept. 12, 2008. (AP/Elise Amendola)

Updated 1:41 p.m.
By Jonathan Weisman
DOVER, N.H. -- Sen. Barack Obama and his campaign launched a promised counterpunch against Sen. John McCain here today, portraying him as an aging, out-of-touch politician who would continue President Bush's economic policies while an Obama administration would cut taxes for the middle class.

Using McCain's own words against him, Obama quoted his Republican opponent saying at Thursday night's service forum, "It's easy for me to go to Washington and frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have."

"So," Obama told a crowd of Democratic supporters and some self-identified undecided voters, "from where he and George Bush sit, maybe they just can't see. Maybe they are just that out of touch. But you know the truth, and so do I."

"We just can't afford four more years of what John McCain and George Bush consider progress," he continued.

Supporters' jitters about Obama's falling poll numbers and McCain's ongoing, repeatedly discredited assaults have grown palpable, so much so that an audience member stood to plead, "When and how are you going to start fighting back?"

Another questioner asked him how he could force the media to ask McCain tough questions about his tactics and beliefs. Obama's initially tentative reply, calling McCain's ads "just fabricated, just made up," spurred the audience to shout out "Lies."

"Lies, that's the word," Obama repeated.

But Obama said he would not be pushed into responding in kind, vowing to stick with the issues, especially economic issues, and quoting Abraham Lincoln saying that if his opponent lies about him, he will be forced to respond with the truth.

"I will guarantee, we are going to hit back hard," he pledged. "But we are going to hit back hard on the issues that matter to families."

If Democrats were expecting the campaign's new push to be accompanied by a dramatic departure, in words, tone and temperament, they did not get it. Obama remained measured.

While McCain attacks him as a pampered, fading celebrity, a sexist, even a desperate bully, Obama stuck to familiar themes, lumping McCain in with Bush and Washington fat-cat lobbyists.

And by using McCain's words from Thursday night's forum on volunteerism, Obama was inviting a biting response.

McCain had suggested he was out of touch as a way to defend the record of his small-town-mayor-turned-running mate, Sarah Palin. But Obama came to her defense that night as well, saying small town mayors fill pot holes, trim trees and make sure the garbage is collected while senators "yack."

Obama address here focused squarely on his tax plan, which offers sizable breaks to middle-income families, while raising taxes on families earning more than $250,000. He said McCain has been "simply dishonest" about that plan, falsely asserting repeatedly that an Obama administration would raise everyone's taxes.

"I will make a firm pledge. Under my plan no family making less than $250k will see any form of tax increase, not your income tax, not your payroll tax," he said.

And he slammed McCain's proposal to tax the value of employer-based health care plans as income, and use that to help finance tax credits for the purchase of health insurance. He called that "a $3.6 trillion tax increase" on working families.

"That's his idea of change," Obama said.

He concluded with words to reassure worried supporters: "They will say anything and do anything to maintain the status quo," he said, "but I feel good about our chances. They may have all the fat cats and clout, but I have you."

By Web Politics Editor  |  September 12, 2008; 1:41 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , John McCain  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain Paints Obama as Disrespectful
Next: McCain Gets an Earful on 'The View'

Comments

AndrewP are you speaking English? Oh that's right two bombs kept you from speaking Japanese. And as for the two cities to bomb the two most inhabited cities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Places we should have totaled along time ago. And just how did they get those bombs. Oh that's right Democrats approved the sale of them as far back as the Carter Admin

Posted by: CraigF | September 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Remember the KEATING FIVE!

Posted by: HughBriss | September 13, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

"McCain used the word 'change' at least 10 times in his speech -- but since the Republicans have controlled the White House for the past eight years, what does McCain want to change from? And to?

It really is an audacious ploy, to tell people that the country's got to correct the mistakes made by a political party when that's the very party you represent. It's like staging a revolution against yourself -- saying that the Republicans have got to go so the Republicans can move in
and clean up the mess."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Voting Republican and their extremist beliefs will only prove that America is its own worst enemy.

The headlines will say; "America has now become a Third World Country".

Posted by: RedNeck4Obama | September 13, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Carlito @12:43 AM plays McCain favorite card the POW Pity card.

Boo hoo hoo... McCain can't comb his thinning strands of hair scraped across his balding pate because he was a POW, for god's sake. For 5 and half years, the poor man didn't have comb!!!!

Boo hoo hoo... McCain can't tie his own shoes so he has to wear $520 Salvatore Ferragamo Italian designer fine leather slip-ons in rich Corinithian Brown. For god's sake people, the poor man was a POW for five and half years and he didn't have designer shoes!!!

Boo hoo hoo... McCain can't tell the truth about anything because he had to spend years trying to fool his captors with phony intelligence about who the Green Bay Packers, I mean the Pittsburgh Steelers, I mean the Arizona Cardinals, I mean the Los Angeles Raiders, I mean the St. Louis Rams, I mean the Carolina Panthers, I mean the Jacksonville Jaguars, I mean the New York Titans, I mean the Milwaukee Braves... For god's sake people for five and half years the man was POW and had to memorize the names of teams that didn't exist then and don't exist now to confuse the enemy.

Being a POW doesn't qualify you to be commander-in-chief. Not being able to raise your arms doesn't qualify you to be commander-in-chief. If it did, we'd be celebrating President Max Cleland who cannot walk because he has no legs, has but one arm. The hypocrites in the Republican party -- and that includes John McCain -- saw fit denigrate Cleland service. And that of Tammy Duckworth, for example, who lost both legs in Iraq.

Spare us your phony outrage, Carlito.

Posted by: Dept. of Real Outrage | September 13, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

John McCain was my hero before the RNC. But he has started disgusting me. We saw how George Bush fooled not only this whole country but the enitre world by his WMD claim. The day by day distortion of facts to finally proclaim that invasion of Iraq was inevitable. John McCain is following the same path. He is slowly dismantling Obama by half baked lies about how "they" are treating Palin. These lies disgust me, because I see the same pattern in John McCain that we all saw in George Bush. The constant twisting and turning of facts to the point we are confused what is right and what is wrong. This has major ramifications beyond the election of McCain or Obama. This country's politcal landscape is made so corrupt in the whole process that somebody who is not corrupt will never be able to make a dent in the future political direction of this country. John McCain has lost his mojo to be the straight talk guy, since he is so desperate to win this election at any cost. He himself once said "Do not go for a wrestling match with a pig in the mud. Both of you will be in the mud, but the pig likes it.". He is dragging Obama into a mud fight. In so doing he is dragging this whole country into the mud to watch the fight. And he uses Palin just as a cheerleader and a distraction. He has no qualms about what will happen to the presidency if he croaks. Obama looked at who will give him a helping hand in governing this country for the next 4 years and chose Biden, while McCain looked at who will be a good cheerleader during the mud fight to keep the voters interested in him for the next 50 days.

Posted by: Jill Whelan | September 13, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

All the fighting, bickering, smears...it's shameful and disgusting. Is this the America that everyone wants? Is this the America we want for our children? How are we supposed to come together as a nation to do anything? Remove party affiliation from this discussion and what remains is a lot of people who just want to fight, with no end in sight (sound familiar?). All that results from this endless fighting is hatred, pain, and fear. When you step back and take a long, honest, hard look at our candidates and their political parties, there is one truth that no one can deny: one candidate is spending the majority of his campaign trying to make this country a better place and one candidate is spending the majority of his campaign attacking the other one. Which point of view do you side with? Do you want to make America a better place or do you want to attack your fellow man?

I want America to be the best America it can be - for all of us -

I don't want to fight with or fear my fellow man

I know who I'm voting for

Posted by: David | September 13, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Obama offers real change from the last 8 years of lame duck presidency. What has bush accomplished the last 8 years for us?

Let's see losing jobs, rising deficit, bigger government, higher gas, inflation, housing market, compensation and government handouts for big oil, took away more of our freedoms, got us into a costly war both monetary value and lives wrecked, DISREGARDS THE CONSTITUTION, gives tax breaks to the rich while making it sound like the middle class is benefitting, incessantly lies to the American people and the rest of the world, keeps people under a constant threat of FEAR, shows ignorance towards the Environmental Issues (drill baby drill), portrays anyone other than them as a terrorist threat, didn't PREVENT a terrorist attack in the first place because he didn't read the MEMO, absolutely no healthcare plan, more foreclosures than any other time in history, LIES TO THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME, says it's fair trade when BIG OIL jacks up the price everyday, ETC,ETC,ETC.
Yeah, what has Bush done...specifically..to mess up your life?
You are cracking me up...

This is just the stuff that's right out in the OPEN. Who knows about the things they have done that we don't know about.

I guess the old saying; "The More You Know" doesn't have any effect on the Republican followers.

Like sheep being lead to slaughter.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Like many others...a lot of people on this board believe the government owes them a solution. Hmm...socialism anyone.

How about you take responsibility for your life. The conservative viewpoint is to let people live their lives...not create a nanny state.

But...I guess there's Yin and Yang. For people like me who want more of my money, work hard, and donate to worthy causes...there needs to be a balance in people that suck the life from me, won't donate a second of their time, and are always the "victim" of something. Conservatives vs Liberals.

sleeleswitters...you are cracking me up. What has Bush done...specifically..to mess up your life?

Lower taxes? More money going into education than ever. The treasury has taken in record amounts. He took action after 911 with NO MORE ATTACKS on US soil. More diverse administration than any other. Expanded medicare.

Hmm...what exactly? Gas is at record levels...but what did he do to make that happen? I guess we should suppress India and China's consumption. Meanwhile, he supports more domestic drilling and libs won't.


Posted by: MakeUsProud | September 13, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

More commentary at: http://whenelephantsfly.blogspot.com

McCain is divorced from critical issues of Americans across this country, as much as he is divorced from his first wife after he cheated on her. This man lies and cheats to get his way - I hope American can put a stop to him.

More commentary at: http://whenelephantsfly.blogspot.com

Posted by: When Elephants Fly | September 13, 2008 7:04 AM | Report abuse

Looks like New Jersey is contemplating a Divorce from Camp Obama-

Marist 09/05 - 09/08 805 RV 48 45 Obama +3
Fairleigh Dickinson 09/04 - 09/07 872 LV 47 41 Obama +6
Quinnipiac 08/04 - 08/10 1468 LV 51 41 Obama +10
Rasmussen 08/04 - 08/04 500 LV 52 42 Obama +10
Monmouth/Gannett 07/17 - 07/21 698 LV 50 36 Obama +14

************************

Look out below....NJ's
14pt lead down to margin of error in 6wks.
Looks like Sarah's wowing them in Secaucus....and Seattle and Helena Montana and Raleigh NC, and...

Hey Democrats, how's that "Western Strategy" working out against the Senator from Arizona and The Governor of Alaska? Not so well, huh? I suppose to win you'll have to go after NC and Georgia again...oops.

Election 2008 Latest Polls
Friday, September 12
Race Poll Results Spread
Missouri Rasmussen McCain 51, Obama 46 McCain +5
Oklahoma Rasmussen McCain 63, Obama 32 McCain +31
Washington Rasmussen Obama 49, McCain 47 Obama +2

Ohio Univ. of Cinci McCain 48, Obama 44 McCain +4

Thursday, September 11
Race Poll Results Spread
Ohio InAdv/PollPosition McCain 48, Obama 47 McCain +1
Florida InAdv/PollPosition McCain 50, Obama 42 McCain +8
Michigan InAdv/PollPosition Obama 44, McCain 45 McCain +1

Colorado InAdv/PollPosition Obama 49, McCain 46 Obama +3
Georgia InAdv/PollPosition McCain 56, Obama 38 McCain +18
Nevada InAdv/PollPosition McCain 46, Obama 45 McCain +1
Wyoming Rasmussen McCain 58, Obama 39 McCain +19
Alaska Rasmussen McCain 64, Obama 33 McCain +31
Idaho Rasmussen McCain 68, Obama 29 McCain +39

North Carolina Research 2000 McCain 55, Obama 38 McCain +17
New Mexico Rasmussen Obama 47, McCain 49 McCain +2

Mississippi Research 2000 McCain 55, Obama 37 McCain +18
Ohio Strategic Vision (R) McCain 48, Obama 44 McCain +4
Michigan CNN/Time Obama 49, McCain 45 Obama +4
Virginia CNN/Time McCain 50, Obama 46 McCain +4
Colorado PPP (D) Obama 47, McCain 46 Obama +1
Missouri CNN/Time McCain 50, Obama 45 McCain +5

Georgia Strategic Vision (R) McCain 52, Obama 39 McCain +13


Pennsylvania Quinnipiac Obama 48, McCain 45 Obama +3

Florida Quinnipiac McCain 50, Obama 43 McCain +7


Alabama AEA/Capital Survey McCain 55, Obama 35 McCain +20
Wednesday, September 10
Race Poll Results Spread

Montana Rasmussen McCain 53, Obama 42 McCain +11
North Dakota Rasmussen McCain 55, Obama 41 McCain +14

North Carolina SurveyUSA McCain 58, Obama 38 McCain +20
Pennsylvania Strategic Vision (R) Obama 47, McCain 45 Obama +2
West Virginia MBE McCain 44, Obama 39 McCain +5

Posted by: Scott | September 13, 2008 6:38 AM | Report abuse

In recent weeks, John McCain and the Republican Party have blatantly and without any shame adopted the Democratic campaign theme of “change”. It should be evident to an objective observer that Bush 43 and now McCain and Pailin are mere puppets to the true Republican national party leaders who control their strings. Cheney is one of the few of that inner cabal that have been calling the shots since the Nixon administration. They are in fact a continuation of the Nixon and Ford presidencies with only a disruption during the Carter and Clinton years. Bush 41( Head of the RNC during Nixon, former head of the CIA,VP to Reagan, and president is probably the real leader of this political Cosa Nostra if not a equal partner of this power sharing musical chairs game. His right and left hands have been Dick Cheney(former Sec.of Defense of Bush 41, former White House Chief of staff for Ford) and the other is Donald Rumsfeld(former Sec. of Defense for Ford and Bush 43,former special envoy to the Middle East during Reagan). Another member of this group, more likely a captain if not a full blown boss himself is James Baker (former C.O.S of Reagan, former Under Sec. of Commerce for Ford, former C.O.S and Sec of State for Bush 41, former Sec. of Treasury for Reagan, former chief legal advisor to Bush 43). Another captain or free lance enforcer is Karl Rove a college drop out and campaign manager for both Bush 41 and 43, also for Phil Gram who is McCain’s economic advisor.
Lets look at McCain’s staff of change.
On July 2, 2008, Steve Schmidt was given "full operational control" of McCain's campaign. Steve Schmidt prior to this was a top aide to Dick Cheney and a protégé to Karl Rove. Another advisor is Charles R. Black worked for Ronald Reagan's two Presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980 and he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 re-election campaign of George H.W. Bush. Another advisor is Randy Scheunemann. He was project director for the Project for the New American Century. A neo-conservative think tank founded by non other than Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Kristol and others in 1996. Other signatories to this group reads like a who’s who of the last 8 years of the republican administration.
These people have never cared about small town america or “values” All they care about is war profiteering. Many of the signatories have never served in the military. Cheney and Rove both dodged the draft. Look at the statement of principles by the PNAC. Rumsfeld was a good friend of Saddam Huessin in the 80’s Cheney didn’t want Nelson Mandela free. These are the real puppet masters, they throw out the talking points about the left of being elitist and not caring about middle america and these same guys other than Rove have advanced degrees and are worth no less than 10 million dollars. People who support them need to extricate their heads out of Limbaugh and Hannity’s asses and see what is really happening to them. McCain is not his own man he confuses stories of his real life with a book he read “The Gulag Archipelago", in which a fellow prisoner - not a guard - silently drew a cross in the dirt with a stick.” An ironic twist to all this is Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2581086/John-McCain-accused-of-plagiarising-Wikipedia-for-speeches.html. Even if you don’t like Obama there is no-way a sane person can want this continued blatant fleecing of our Nation.
Thes are all verifiable facts and can be found just with a google search. AIPAC and PNAC are the military industrial complex.
Other than the ultra affluent, how can anyone support the Republican Party? When will small town America realize that they are being duped into supporting the ultra-affluent agenda? The talking points of the right are so hypocritical that it becomes laughable. The red meat of the right is the so called Main stream Media as if Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are not part of it. They demean celebrity status, however they tout one of their greatest presidents(Reagan) was an actor. They say they are the party of patriotism, yet many of the upper echelon of the party have never served, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Reagan. They say that they care about "Main Street" USA but only bail out the Whales of Wall Street. Yet small town America eat this tripe every year. They don't care about religion unless it can be used to stir up the base, nor science or technology unless there is a buck to be made. Small town America takes pride on its freedom but yet don't realize that over time we are becoming less free, ie wire tapping and other forms of domestic surveillance. They demean people of intelligence because they know many people of small town America don't have degrees and use it at a fake issue and call people who spent time in academia as elitist when many on the right serve on university boards and have part-time professorships. They say they are against affirmitive action but yet celebrate mediocrity, Bush43 and McCain graduating at the bottom of their classes. Who both came from already well established families and had all the opportunities and connections to excel. Why does small town America believes this is the party for them? Christian conservatives seem to the be the first ones who want to go to war and bomb someone before any diplomacy is tried. Why can't small town America and Christian conservatives realize they are being used as pawns just as much the Islamic fundamentalist are. Islamic fundamentalist come from small town Middle East and given the same kind of talking points as the evangelicals. They want prayer in school, no choice available to women, and believe to the core that their ideas about worship and country are the best. Wake up small town America you are being duped.Talking about who is more patriotic, symbols, lipstick and wearing pins are nothing more than distractions to the real issue of how a few select group of people have held power almost continuously for over 30 years. Yes the left has their own political power groups but none have been so effective at pushing forward an agenda that is fundamentally bad for the U.S. and in a larger view the entire world. I stress again the now defunct PNAC and the AIPAC have been slowly pushing us closer to another World War. Bush41 and et al have been doing this and no one calls them on it. Every Republican administration has basically the same people recycled since Nixon. Just do a little research and you will see that these people are just pushing this agenda of some kind of Pax Americana and not taking into account that maybe other nations of the world might not like that and if not bomb them.Many people who support the Republican party, really need to read "1984" by George Orwell and see how we as nation have been inching closer to that type of society. People think this story is about a communist society, but it is more about how a society is kept in a constant state of fear in order for the ruling class to stay in control. Doublespeak, patriotism to the point of frenzy, censorship, erosion of civil liberties (not respecting the Constitution) is happening right in front of us. The consolidation of government (the executive branch has never been more powerful than ever, gridlocked legislature with only two parties for representation, a judiciary that just kowtows to the executive branch). No real independent journalism. Cameras placed on every street corner. This may sound like delusional conspiracy stuff, but I implore people to research for themselves to really see what is happening to them. People think this could never happen here in the U.S. but all this has already happening, slowly, incrementally all under the guise of "keeping America safe"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 4:54 AM | Report abuse

emj16kvb [URL=http://www.359733.com/624111.html] 023w6i7rxrcd5i0p [/URL] c62qa183

Posted by: hnj1cs0e0r | September 13, 2008 4:14 AM | Report abuse

Obama's latest line of attack could cost him. First off, McCain can certainly use the internet/computers. Second, he does have problems with it because he can barely type due to injuries received in service to country.

He also cannot tie his shoes, nor comb his hair. Keep it up obama...

Posted by: Carlito | September 13, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Marist 09/05 - 09/08 805 RV 48 45 Obama +3
Fairleigh Dickinson 09/04 - 09/07 872 LV 47 41 Obama +6
Quinnipiac 08/04 - 08/10 1468 LV 51 41 Obama +10
Rasmussen 08/04 - 08/04 500 LV 52 42 Obama +10
Monmouth/Gannett 07/17 - 07/21 698 LV 50 36 Obama +14

************************

Look out below....there goes New Jersey!
14pt lead down to margin of error in 6wks.
Looks like Sarah's wowing them in Secaucus.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama is disrespectful to everything and anything. He disrespected all women in america

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

infact he disrespected all the women.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama is completely out of touch.

The federal deficit, debt loads and latest economic bail-outs of mortgage companies have but assure that there can be no tax cuts for the next president, period.

Posted by: pete | September 12, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

If John McCain had real intentions of cleaning up Washington, he would have started at home and carried out the "honorable" campaign he promised. What good is a country free of earmarks if it is laid to waste first by cultural warfare? If John McCain manages to win the presidency, it will be a pyrrhic victory. Intellectually honest people of all affiliations will never trust his word. He will be forever resented for perpetuating Rovian politics under the Orwellian banners of "Country First" and "Straight Talk". And to think he once sounded so indignant when he complained that Rove and Bush "know no depths." No, John McCain, you know no depths!

Posted by: Honor=Obama | September 12, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Correction
I posted this very early on other sites. Some of the edits are very tight. I dare Gibson and ABC to stream the "raw" footage without burnt in but continuous timecode. Palin knows the questions and answers. There are to many edits. They cut her answers. You cann't cram and not make mistakes. Actually, its a poor editing job because she talks so fast sometimes making the edits abrupt. Most tv journalist will pick this up. The average Joe or Jane blow won't.
.

RICK DAVIS, McCain's man is controlling the press. He throws what I call "flash bang grenades" "He told you the campaign wasn't going to be about issues. What has it been about Oprah and lip stick. And the press just plays along with their behinds up in the air. Can you believe with all the problems in this country that they spent two whole days and on lipstick. Rick controls everything about Palin including who she talks too. ABC network went to bed with him for ratings. What good is a bunch of cut up edited tapes spread out over who knows how long. Charlie Gibson already lost his creditability with the Obama interview, but now he has sold his soul to the devil. He's worst than fox news. Its all about control for Rick Davis the real press will never get a chance to interview Palin. Her first real "live" press conference will not take place for months, win or lose because she's NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME. And if she is NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME, then how can she help lead (or possibly lead) this country? She is the biggest sham the republican party has going but more importantly, she's dangerous for the country. Since there are those in the media afraid to say it, I'll say it for them. The press traveling with Palin can't even ask her questions,but they can record the same stump speech over and over again. The country has her speech but doesn't know who she is because they are kept away from asking her about her views.
LOOK OUT! BANG! Palin Talks Up Clinton on ABC Rick just threw another grenade and the media is off track again! For instance,is Palin's husband subpoenaed in 'Troopergate' probe. The BBC beat the washington post with the headlines and its 9:27PM Let me help you with a clue washpost. Todd is relationed to a certain VP candidate for the US States. That's real news.
By the way Charlie, you sellout, don't forget to thank your sponsor...RICK DAVIS. Next up Fox News as I predicted earlier. (What a suprise)Glen Beck will probably get a shot, maybe "Morning Joe" But I repeat there will not be any "live" or taped Q and A from legit press. None.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm a woman who's pro gun, pro choice, conservative fiscally and on immigration and not at all religious. So I guess I'm a moderate/centrist like most of America I suppose, but I actually like Obama and McCain. But Obama brings something new, something fresh, something creative that the Republicans are lacking this year and trying desperately to seize... unfortunately the Republicans do not stand for what they once did but then neither do the Democrats. And while I don't agree with Obama on everything, the bottom line is there's no perfect society or candidate and you have to choose based on what's the most important to you at that time. For me it's change b/c we've been screwing up horribly the last 8 years. I don't expect miracles from Obama b/c whoever wins inherits a LOAD of problems that aren't fixed overnight. Bush's large tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans didn't do anything for our economy. I'll get a tax increase under Obama's plan but I'm willing to make that sacrifice to give a new guy a shot. Sometimes in life, and in politics, you get what you pay for.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Palin's interview was an embarrassment. Ready? Hardly. Biden is going to crush her in a debate.
I guess being able to "see Russia from Alaska" is good enough for foreign policy.
Also:
When asked what foreign policy experience Palin has, McCain answered "energy." Then he literally claimed she "probably knows more about energy than anyone in the United States."

Wow.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I did serve in Korea and Japan during that war, but I am not a "PAID TOOL OF THE EVANGELICAL PARTY". Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Oh man that's it, isn't it...?
Lipstick Repiglicans are bitter that the Democrats have a nominee they actually LIKE and RESPECT and are EXCITED about. Yall have a waste of an old guy (who many didn't even like to begin with) and now keep the focus on the trigger happy Caribou Barbie who has more "Obama-like charisma". Let's see how he does campaigning without her. FAIL.

Please keep the lies and hypocrisy coming. I send $ to Obama every time I hear one.

Posted by: weehaw | September 12, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse


The extreme left is history in the united states.

Centrist democrats will banish them to siberia after Obama loses in november.

The sexist liberal hate machine has been exposed and we will never forget.

Posted by: reason | September 12, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

THIS 'JAKE D' POSTER IS A PAID TOOL OF THE EVANGELICAL PARTY.

A KOREAN VET? SURE, JADE. LIKE McSHAME WAS A VIETNAM VET. SITTING IN A CELL BLABBING HIS MOUTH TO THE ENEMY.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MUY9S6iCvk

Now lets see what his vet buddies confirm about McCain the hero.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

IF YOU ARE IMPRESSED WITH SARAH 'PORKY' PALIN, BLAME YOU SCHOOL.

FAMILY VALUES???

The Planned Parenthood ad turns a perverted attack on its head, asking why McCain objects to protecting toddlers.

"Every eight minutes a child is sexually abused. That's why Barack Obama supported legislation to teach children how to protect themselves," a female narrator says in it. "Now John McCain is twisting the facts and attacking Sen. Obama. Doesn't McCain want our children to protect themselves from sex offenders? Or after 26 years in Washington is he just another politician who'll say anything to get elected?"

Does McCain, like Tom DeLay, support child abuse? Why is he attacking legislation with the purpose of protecting our kids? Is the a ploy to protect his republican friends like Idaho senator Larry Craig?

What are McCain’s views on pedophilia?

BOOZE FOR KIDS

Barack Obama does not want to lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18. John McCain is not so clear on whether he supports such a move.

McCain has routinely sought to steer clear of alcohol-related matters. His wife, Cindy, is the chairwoman of the Hensley & Co. beer distribution company. Phoenix-based Hensley is one of the largest Anheuser Busch Companies Inc. distributorships in the country.

McCain has routinely not voted on issues directly impacting Hensley and alcohol-related sectors during his time in Congress.

The Obama campaign said the Illinois senator does not support a lower legal drinking age.

MARRAIGE

McCain likes to illustrate his moral fiber by referring to his five years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam and to demonstrate his commitment to family values. The truth is somewhat different.

The first Mrs McCain casts is the mother to McCain’s three eldest children. Carol, who was a famous beauty and a successful swimwear model when they married in 1965, was the woman McCain dreamed of in the ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

But when McCain returned to America in 1973, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered and she suffered massive internal injuries, doctors werer forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

When John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self. ‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens...it just does.’

Some of McCain’s acquaintances portray the politician as a self-centered womanizer who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons. McCain was then earning little more than $40,000 a year as a naval officer, while his new father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was a multi-millionaire who had impeccable political connections.

AND THE NEW WIFE

John McCain's powerful Washington, DC, lawyer, who secured a slap on the wrist for the Arizona Senator following the Keating Five scandal, was in close contact with federal investigators probing Cindy McCain's prescription drug abuse, throughout their nearly yearlong investigation, according to a new report Friday.

Although there was little doubt that McCain was misusing a medical-aid charity she ran in the early 1990s to obtain massive quantities of narcotic painkillers to feed her addiction, the Drug Enforcement Agency filed no federal charges against her. Instead, she was able to cut a deal that let her off the hook in exchange for completing a brief drug aversion program.

There is perhaps no one who can claim more credit for this auspicious outcome than John Dowd, an attorney with substantial clout in the nation's capital who came to McCain's aid after a former employee began telling the DEA what he knew about her drug problem.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Post_McCains_Keating_5_lawyer_pressured_0912.html

IS THIS GUY JUST LIKE ONE OF US?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

If voters believe Washington insider and an unknown bible thumper are agents of change, this country is headed for the worse

Posted by: L. D. | September 12, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Did you see Gov. Palin's interview with "Charlie" on ABC just now? Wow, That Ball is still flying. I think she ripped the cover off of it!

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

.

MAnolete: You summed up Obama's plight very well. His bad judgment if not sexism has cost him, as well it should. Maybe now he can go crawling back to Wright for advice...

McCain/Palin!!!

.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

I thought she was experienced and ready. That interview sucked!!! Charlie gave her er' "charlie horse". Now I know why she hates media, but he hasn't asked her anything about her former brother in law and her teenage daughter pregnancy and marriage. We wanna know about that stuff, private family problems.

Posted by: BOBSTER | September 12, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign and the liberal media are in disarray, confused and foaming at the mouth after the Maverick, John McCain chose Sarah Palin, a woman reformer for VP. Their response has been a vicious attack on Sarah ranging from insults to smearing and the sexist tactics that brought Hillary's campaign crashing down.

Obama fractured and divided the democratic party when he rejected the choice of 18 million democrats and instead of choosing Hillary for VP, he chose an old Washington politician Joe Biden, and by this grave mistake in choice, negated the flag of "change" Obama had been waiving and replaced it with the "more of the same" one.

On the other side, The Maverick stole the mantra of change from Barack when he selected a woman reformer for VP, who has gained the respect of the State she governs as well as of the nation governors.

The McCain/Palin ticket has also given hope to all the 18 million former Hillary supporters who now have a very compelling reason to vote for the republican ticket, as a way to put their country first by electing a president that has the qualifications, experience and love for our country and at the same time elect a woman to the White House as equal partners in governance and leadership of our country.

Country First!
McCain/Palin!

Posted by: MAnolete | September 12, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

.

RW:
"John McCain is no war hero. He simply got a plane shot out from under him that he probably wasn't qualified to fly in the first place.... What a dirt bag"

Does Obama supply your script? I doubt you are qualified to write the above.

.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

What a lightweight Gibson is, while Republicans said he asked difficult questions. His nonsensical Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO and her saying to defend NATO members was idiotic. Do you think Russian supply of oil and gas to EU pushes their members vote to no? Did you think the Iraq invasion was a good idea and why? You said a preemptive strike can be used against an imminent threat. Was Iraq an imminent threat? Do you think that Pakistan will take a softer or harder stance against the Taliban, now that Zadari is president and why?

Posted by: Jimbo | September 12, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

The truth about John & Cindy McCain

William Black a former government regulator investigating the Lincoln Savings and Loan / Keating 5 / John & Cindy McCain Scandal said: "Senator McCain was unique among the five Senators in having a direct financial conflict of interest involving direct investments.” He also said this about Senator McCain: “On judgment, ethics, and truthfulness he (Senator McCain) failed this test as badly as you can fail”

“God Dammit Johnny no wonder your flunking” A quote from John McCain’s father (a Navy Captain at the time) after catching son Johnny goofing off while visiting him at the U.S. Naval academy according to Frank Gamboa John McCain’s former academy roommate. Johnny McCain went on to graduate 894th in his class of 899.

John McCain is just another spoiled rich kid wanting to bully us around. Sound familiar? We have just had seven and a half years of it. This guy has made a career out of his bad or at least unlucky flying ability. John McCain is no war hero. He simply got a plane shot out from under him that he probably wasn't qualified to fly in the first place, but when your grandfather was an Admiral and your father is an Admiral there aren't many people in the Navy that are going to risk their careers and tell you the truth. So unqualified little Johnny gets to fly and gets shot down. Wow now that’s a great big surprise! He has been riding it ever since, while true heroes suffer in under funded and under staffed VA hospitals. What a dirt bag.

What about Cindy McCain his greedy wife, she inherited millions and didn’t share a cent with her half sister. She calls herself an only child. Her father while not exactly the most fair minded or charitable guy to ever live at least was giving money to his first daughter’s children for education. That is until the day of his funeral when they found that the card had been shut off by the ever greedy Cindy McCain. She had over a hundred million dollars and shut a credit card off to pay for her father’s own grand children to go to school. What a greedy greedy person. It’s no wonder why John McCain likes her so much.

Posted by: RW | September 12, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

My point is that I think the screams one message too: "John McCain is old."


Posted by: JakeD
============

Of course, you can think what you want, and so can Mr Weisman. I only take issue with his typing it into a "news" item, however informal, under the auspices of the Washington Post. Of course, you knew that, but I know how you enjoy being a wiseacre.

Posted by: zukermand | September 12, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

BRUCE:

If we need a draft, then we'll need a draft. I served in the Army during the Korean War, so I have no problem with a draft.

Anonymous:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

"Scott", would you mind not repeatedly posting the farmer stuff?? We got it, we got it.

Posted by: Fallen | September 12, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Try this one Jake. How do YOU feel about the DRAFT, now that Palin has stated her Palin doctrine of going to fight Russia over Georgia's relationship with the Iranians in South Ossetia?
Hmmm? Like that draft, do ya?
Palin is a loose cannon and that draft she just dredged up will be the end of her and McCain.

Posted by: BRUCE | September 12, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

You are aware that McCain is in the lead in the Electoral College polling too, right?

Posted by: JakeD |

No Jake. You are all wet, again.
There is no such data.
Obama leads all Electoral college polls.

There are no polls OF STATES with McCain in the lead.
All the polls of STATES show OBAMA in the lead.
Stop lying, its ugly politics.

Try this one Jake. How do YOU feel about the DRAFT, now that Palin has stated her Palin doctrine of going to fight Russia over Georgia's relationship with the Iranians in South Ossetia?
Hmmm? Like that draft, do ya?
Palin is a loose cannon and that draft she just dredged up will be the end of her and McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have no moral compass"
-greytok
*************************

Greytok, I'm prochoice, BUT your candidate takes it to the level of Dante's Inferno-
even NARAL, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Boxer approved The Infant Protection Act, saying it was NOT a threat to Roe v Wade.
BUT NOT BARACK OBAMA!


"On the hot-button issue of abortion, last month saw a growing concern over Mr. Obama's opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one."


Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

I'm for Independence from Foreign Oil AND Against Global Warming- So, I CAN'T vote Democratic this year, because your candidate panders to his Illinois Farmers!

Obama's Gift to Illinois farmers-

(I thought he was for a REDUCTION in dependency on foreign oil- corn ethanol requires 1 unit of petroleum for every unit it replaces- the more we make, the more we need, the bigger the profits in Illinois and the warmer the planet gets)

Study: Ethanol may add to global warming
Updated 2/8/2008 5:52 PM
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.
The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.
"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.
=0 A
The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.
The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Congress | Princeton University | Thursday
"Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role," said Bob Dinneen, the association's president.
There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.
The new "green" fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.
During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20% less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70% less emissions.
The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses "were one-sided" and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.
"The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions," said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.
The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20%, will increases it by 93% compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50% more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

In recent weeks, John McCain and the Republican Party have blatantly and without any shame adopted the Democratic campaign theme of “change”. It should be evident to an objective observer that Bush 43 and now McCain and Pailin are mere puppets to the true Republican national party leaders who control their strings. Cheney is one of the few of that inner cabal that have been calling the shots since the Nixon administration. They are in fact a continuation of the Nixon and Ford presidencies with only a disruption during the Carter and Clinton years. Bush 41( Head of the RNC during Nixon, former head of the CIA,VP to Reagan, and president is probably the real leader of this political Cosa Nostra if not a equal partner of this power sharing musical chairs game. His right and left hands have been Dick Cheney(former Sec.of Defense of Bush 41, former White House Chief of staff for Ford) and the other is Donald Rumsfeld(former Sec. of Defense for Ford and Bush 43,former special envoy to the Middle East during Reagan). Another member of this group, more likely a captain if not a full blown boss himself is James Baker (former C.O.S of Reagan, former Under Sec. of Commerce for Ford, former C.O.S and Sec of State for Bush 41, former Sec. of Treasury for Reagan, former chief legal advisor to Bush 43). Another captain or free lance enforcer is Karl Rove a college drop out and campaign manager for both Bush 41 and 43, also for Phil Gram who is McCain’s economic advisor.
Lets look at McCain’s staff of change.
On July 2, 2008, Steve Schmidt was given "full operational control" of McCain's campaign. Steve Schmidt prior to this was a top aide to Dick Cheney and a protégé to Karl Rove. Another advisor is Charles R. Black worked for Ronald Reagan's two Presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980 and he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 re-election campaign of George H.W. Bush. Another advisor is Randy Scheunemann. He was project director for the Project for the New American Century. A neo-conservative think tank founded by non other than Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Kristol and others in 1996. Other signatories to this group reads like a who’s who of the last 8 years of the republican administration.
These people have never cared about small town america or “values” All they care about is war profiteering. Many of the signatories have never served in the military. Cheney and Rove both dodged the draft. Look at the statement of principles by the PNAC. Rumsfeld was a good friend of Saddam Huessin in the 80’s Cheney didn’t want Nelson Mandela free. These are the real puppet masters, they throw out the talking points about the left of being elitist and not caring about middle america and these same guys other than Rove have advanced degrees and are worth no less than 10 million dollars. People who support them need to extricate their heads out of Limbaugh and Hannity’s asses and see what is really happening to them. McCain is not his own man he confuses stories of his real life with a book he read “The Gulag Archipelago", in which a fellow prisoner - not a guard - silently drew a cross in the dirt with a stick.” An ironic twist to all this is Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2581086/John-McCain-accused-of-plagiarising-Wikipedia-for-speeches.html. Even if you don’t like Obama there is no-way a sane person can want this continued blatant fleecing of our Nation.
Thes are all verifiable facts and can be found just with a google search. AIPAC and PNAC are the military industrial complex.
Other than the ultra affluent, how can anyone support the Republican Party? When will small town America realize that they are being duped into supporting the ultra-affluent agenda? The talking points of the right are so hypocritical that it becomes laughable. The red meat of the right is the so called Main stream Media as if Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are not part of it. They demean celebrity status, however they tout one of their greatest presidents(Reagan) was an actor. They say they are the party of patriotism, yet many of the upper echelon of the party have never served, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Reagan. They say that they care about "Main Street" USA but only bail out the Whales of Wall Street. Yet small town America eat this tripe every year. They don't care about religion unless it can be used to stir up the base, nor science or technology unless there is a buck to be made. Small town America takes pride on its freedom but yet don't realize that over time we are becoming less free, ie wire tapping and other forms of domestic surveillance. They demean people of intelligence because they know many people of small town America don't have degrees and use it at a fake issue and call people who spent time in academia as elitist when many on the right serve on university boards and have part-time professorships. They say they are against affirmitive action but yet celebrate mediocrity, Bush43 and McCain graduating at the bottom of their classes. Who both came from already well established families and had all the opportunities and connections to excel. Why does small town America believes this is the party for them? Christian conservatives seem to the be the first ones who want to go to war and bomb someone before any diplomacy is tried. Why can't small town America and Christian conservatives realize they are being used as pawns just as much the Islamic fundamentalist are. Islamic fundamentalist come from small town Middle East and given the same kind of talking points as the evangelicals. They want prayer in school, no choice available to women, and believe to the core that their ideas about worship and country are the best. Wake up small town America you are being duped.Talking about who is more patriotic, symbols, lipstick and wearing pins are nothing more than distractions to the real issue of how a few select group of people have held power almost continuously for over 30 years. Yes the left has their own political power groups but none have been so effective at pushing forward an agenda that is fundamentally bad for the U.S. and in a larger view the entire world. I stress again the now defunct PNAC and the AIPAC have been slowly pushing us closer to another World War. Bush41 and et al have been doing this and no one calls them on it. Every Republican administration has basically the same people recycled since Nixon. Just do a little research and you will see that these people are just pushing this agenda of some kind of Pax Americana and not taking into account that maybe other nations of the world might not like that and if not bomb them.Many people who support the Republican party, really need to read "1984" by George Orwell and see how we as nation have been inching closer to that type of society. People think this story is about a communist society, but it is more about how a society is kept in a constant state of fear in order for the ruling class to stay in control. Doublespeak, patriotism to the point of frenzy, censorship, erosion of civil liberties (not respecting the Constitution) is happening right in front of us. The consolidation of government (the executive branch has never been more powerful than ever, gridlocked legislature with only two parties for representation, a judiciary that just kowtows to the executive branch). No real independent journalism. Cameras placed on every street corner. This may sound like delusional conspiracy stuff, but I implore people to research for themselves to really see what is happening to them. People think this could never happen here in the U.S. but all this has already happening, slowly, incrementally all under the guise of "keeping America safe"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I dont care whether Palin looked comfortable and I dont care about tweezing the various definitions of Bush doctrine of attacking countries on slim pretexts.
What I care about is that Palin suggested two reasons why the USA should go to war against RUSSIA. One would be to defend Georgia.
That version of her reality requires many divisions of troops, many tens of thousands of men, to go against the Russians. THAT MEANS THE DRAFT OF MEN under 36. THEY NEED TO BE TRAINED NOW TO PREPARE TO IMPLEMENT THE PALIN DOCTRINE OF RESCUE OF THE CHRISTIAN GEORGIA from the mean old Russians. Of course, if Christian Georgian would stop trying to hold onto IRANIAN South Ossetia, there would be no need for Russia to spank Georgia, and no need for us to rescue Georgia.
Georgia is our ally. Palin COULD demand that Georgia end its intent to re-take South Ossetia instead of staring WW III, but hey! any excuse to start Armageddon right? What a few nuclear weapons, give or take? After all, the Russians are supposed to just take it when we take the Ukraine and put them in our NATO army? Sure Sarah. Armageddon.
Even now, with 'just' a couple of Middle eastern countries in the Bush cross hairs, our divisions are going back a second and third time and the families are hurting, since the war is now longer than WW II.
If McCain Palin are elected, the draft is a 100% necessity. I saw McCain say he supports the draft, as things are, in a TOWN HALL meeting.

Posted by: Bruce | September 12, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

jimimosey-
I think you just woke up from the Primary battle with the Clintons- WE haven't even begun to examine those 20 years that BO spent in Rev Wright's pews...

BUT HERE"S A REAL ISSUE if you want to chat-

I'm for Independence from Foreign Oil AND Against Global Warming- So, I CAN'T vote Democratic this year, because your candidate panders to his Illinois Farmers! (So, I don't know what you're talking about)


Obama's Gift to Illinois farmers-

(I thought he was for a REDUCTION in dependency on foreign oil- corn ethanol requires 1 unit of petroleum for every unit it replaces- the more we make, the more we need, the bigger the profits in Illinois and the warmer the planet gets)

Study: Ethanol may add to global warming
Updated 2/8/2008 5:52 PM
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.
The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.
"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.
=0 A
The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.
The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Congress | Princeton University | Thursday
"Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role," said Bob Dinneen, the association's president.
There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.
The new "green" fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.
During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20% less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70% less emissions.
The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses "were one-sided" and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.
"The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions," said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.
The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20%, will increases it by 93% compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50% more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Okay. Not sure of the *purpose* of the point though. Why would you care to correct the dolts who aren't going to change their minds anyway, or their view of their "facts"? You can't fix "stupid".

Posted by: Fallen | September 12, 2008 4:19 PM
------------------

Well done Fallen...I'll give you that one. No argument here. Your concise analysis is refreshing, and complete...saving me from further typing, which, frankly is making me late for work.

Take care, and "...keep on breathing the fresh air of truth. Get it while it lasts -because McCain/Palin are doing their best to replace it with the monoxide of lies."

Thanks...Zen

Posted by: zenplace | September 12, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

John McCain is still seeing the ghosts of his Admiral father and Admiral grand father and what a failure he thinks he was in their eyes.

Senator Obama should stop worry about worshiping John McCain as a military hero because he wasn't one. Go after his military record before he crashed his fifth plane. He was a spoiled military kid that got all of the privileges of military royalty. He finished 894th out of 899 in his class, and that was with all of his military instructors knowing the consequences failing him might have on their own military careers.

My best friend was a true hero. He was killed flying a Navy jet in peace time. He stayed with his plane to guide it away from a crowded beach and a bay full of boats and also so the person flying with him could parachute to safety.

Although the beach goers and boaters may have never realized that they were in danger the person flying with him was at his funeral and very thankful to be alive. My friend wasn't a hero because he crashed his plane and he wasn't a hero because he died. He was a hero because he died in order to save others. John McCain may have been a first rate killer as a pilot and a top notch prisoner of war, but he was no hero and he never will be, because its not how many people you kill that makes you a hero, its how many you save that makes you a hero. John McCain only wants to be president because he never lived up to father's and grandfather's expectations of him in the Navy and being president is his only redemption or at least that’s the way he sees it. Even with all of his wife's millions he can't fill that hole that his father and grandfather put in his heart.

Strangely as it seems not having a father around while they were growing up is the greatest thing our two candidates have in common. McCain had all of the privileges of wealth and status and finished fifth from the bottom of his class and was practically handed a U. S. Senate seat. Obama fought for his education and struggled up from poverty to become a U.S. Senator. In all honesty which one do you want to lead our country?

Posted by: RW | September 12, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

So many posters keep slamming Rev. Wright yet have no answer when asked about the frightening sermons delivered by Palin's pastors. Oh, I forgot, to question the effect on her is sexist, right?

Posted by: jimimosey | September 12, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

I'm for Independence from Foreign Oil AND Against Global Warming- So, I CAN'T vote Democratic this year, because your candidate panders to his Illinois Farmers! (So, I don't know what you're talking about)


Obama's Gift to Illinois farmers-

(I thought he was for a REDUCTION in dependency on foreign oil- corn ethanol requires 1 unit of petroleum for every unit it replaces- the more we make, the more we need, the bigger the profits in Illinois and the warmer the planet gets)

Study: Ethanol may add to global warming
Updated 2/8/2008 5:52 PM
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.
The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.
"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.
=0 A
The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.
The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Congress | Princeton University | Thursday
"Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role," said Bob Dinneen, the association's president.
There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.
The new "green" fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.
During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20% less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70% less emissions.
The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses "were one-sided" and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.
"The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions," said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.
The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20%, will increases it by 93% compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50% more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama

Should stop worry about worshiping John McCain as a military hero because he wasn't one. Go after his military record before he crashed his fifth plane. He was a spoiled military kid that got all of the privileges of military royalty. He finished 894th out of 899 in his class, and that was with all of his military instructors knowing the consequences failing him might have on their own military careers.

My best friend was true hero. He was killed flying a Navy jet in peace time. He stayed with his plane to guide it away from a crowded beach and a bay full of boats and also so the person flying with him could parachute to safety.

Although the beach goers and boaters may have never realized that they were in danger the person flying with him was at his funeral and very thankful to be alive. My friend wasn't a hero because he crashed his plane and he wasn't a hero because he died. He was a hero because he died in order to save others. John McCain may have been a first rate killer as a pilot and a top notch prisoner of war, but he was no hero and he never will be, because its not how many people you kill that makes you a hero, its how you save that makes you a hero. John McCain only wants to be president because he never lived up to father's and grandfather's expectations of him in the Navy and being president is his only redemption at least that’s the way he sees it. Even with all of his wife's millions he can't fill that hole that his father and grandfather put in his heart.

Strangely as it seems not having a father around while they were growing up is the greatest thing our two candidates have in common. McCain had all of the privileges of wealth and status and finished fifth from the bottom of his class and was practically handed a U. S. Senate seat. Obama fought for his education and struggled up from poverty to become a U.S. Senator. In all honesty which one do you want to lead our country?

Posted by: RW | September 12, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

On the hot-button issue of abortion, last month saw a growing concern over Mr. Obama's opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

In recent weeks, John McCain and the Republican Party have blatantly and without any shame adopted the Democratic campaign theme of “change”. It should be evident to an objective observer that Bush 43 and now McCain and Pailin are mere puppets to the true Republican national party leaders who control their strings. Cheney is one of the few of that inner cabal that have been calling the shots since the Nixon administration. They are in fact a continuation of the Nixon and Ford presidencies with only a disruption during the Carter and Clinton years. Bush 41( Head of the RNC during Nixon, former head of the CIA,VP to Reagan, and president is probably the real leader of this political Cosa Nostra if not a equal partner of this power sharing musical chairs game. His right and left hands have been Dick Cheney(former Sec.of Defense of Bush 41, former White House Chief of staff for Ford) and the other is Donald Rumsfeld(former Sec. of Defense for Ford and Bush 43,former special envoy to the Middle East during Reagan). Another member of this group, more likely a captain if not a full blown boss himself is James Baker (former C.O.S of Reagan, former Under Sec. of Commerce for Ford, former C.O.S and Sec of State for Bush 41, former Sec. of Treasury for Reagan, former chief legal advisor to Bush 43). Another captain or free lance enforcer is Karl Rove a college drop out and campaign manager for both Bush 41 and 43, also for Phil Gram who is McCain’s economic advisor.
Lets look at McCain’s staff of change.
On July 2, 2008, Steve Schmidt was given "full operational control" of McCain's campaign. Steve Schmidt prior to this was a top aide to Dick Cheney and a protégé to Karl Rove. Another advisor is Charles R. Black worked for Ronald Reagan's two Presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980 and he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 re-election campaign of George H.W. Bush. Another advisor is Randy Scheunemann. He was project director for the Project for the New American Century. A neo-conservative think tank founded by non other than Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Kristol and others in 1996. Other signatories to this group reads like a who’s who of the last 8 years of the republican administration.
These people have never cared about small town america or “values” All they care about is war profiteering. Many of the signatories have never served in the military. Cheney and Rove both dodged the draft. Look at the statement of principles by the PNAC. Rumsfeld was a good friend of Saddam Huessin in the 80’s Cheney didn’t want Nelson Mandela free. These are the real puppet masters, they throw out the talking points about the left of being elitist and not caring about middle america and these same guys other than Rove have advanced degrees and are worth no less than 10 million dollars. People who support them need to extricate their heads out of Limbaugh and Hannity’s asses and see what is really happening to them. McCain is not his own man he confuses stories of his real life with a book he read “The Gulag Archipelago", in which a fellow prisoner - not a guard - silently drew a cross in the dirt with a stick.” An ironic twist to all this is Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2581086/John-McCain-accused-of-plagiarising-Wikipedia-for-speeches.html. Even if you don’t like Obama there is no-way a sane person can want this continued blatant fleecing of our Nation.
Thes are all verifiable facts and can be found just with a google search. AIPAC and PNAC are the military industrial complex.
Other than the ultra affluent, how can anyone support the Republican Party? When will small town America realize that they are being duped into supporting the ultra-affluent agenda? The talking points of the right are so hypocritical that it becomes laughable. The red meat of the right is the so called Main stream Media as if Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are not part of it. They demean celebrity status, however they tout one of their greatest presidents(Reagan) was an actor. They say they are the party of patriotism, yet many of the upper echelon of the party have never served, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Reagan. They say that they care about "Main Street" USA but only bail out the Whales of Wall Street. Yet small town America eat this tripe every year. They don't care about religion unless it can be used to stir up the base, nor science or technology unless there is a buck to be made. Small town America takes pride on its freedom but yet don't realize that over time we are becoming less free, ie wire tapping and other forms of domestic surveillance. They demean people of intelligence because they know many people of small town America don't have degrees and use it at a fake issue and call people who spent time in academia as elitist when many on the right serve on university boards and have part-time professorships. They say they are against affirmitive action but yet celebrate mediocrity, Bush43 and McCain graduating at the bottom of their classes. Who both came from already well established families and had all the opportunities and connections to excel. Why does small town America believes this is the party for them? Christian conservatives seem to the be the first ones who want to go to war and bomb someone before any diplomacy is tried. Why can't small town America and Christian conservatives realize they are being used as pawns just as much the Islamic fundamentalist are. Islamic fundamentalist come from small town Middle East and given the same kind of talking points as the evangelicals. They want prayer in school, no choice available to women, and believe to the core that their ideas about worship and country are the best. Wake up small town America you are being duped.Talking about who is more patriotic, symbols, lipstick and wearing pins are nothing more than distractions to the real issue of how a few select group of people have held power almost continuously for over 30 years. Yes the left has their own political power groups but none have been so effective at pushing forward an agenda that is fundamentally bad for the U.S. and in a larger view the entire world. I stress again the now defunct PNAC and the AIPAC have been slowly pushing us closer to another World War. Bush41 and et al have been doing this and no one calls them on it. Every Republican administration has basically the same people recycled since Nixon. Just do a little research and you will see that these people are just pushing this agenda of some kind of Pax Americana and not taking into account that maybe other nations of the world might not like that and if not bomb them.Many people who support the Republican party, really need to read "1984" by George Orwell and see how we as nation have been inching closer to that type of society. People think this story is about a communist society, but it is more about how a society is kept in a constant state of fear in order for the ruling class to stay in control. Doublespeak, patriotism to the point of frenzy, censorship, erosion of civil liberties (not respecting the Constitution) is happening right in front of us. The consolidation of government (the executive branch has never been more powerful than ever, gridlocked legislature with only two parties for representation, a judiciary that just kowtows to the executive branch). No real independent journalism. Cameras placed on every street corner. This may sound like delusional conspiracy stuff, but I implore people to research for themselves to really see what is happening to them. People think this could never happen here in the U.S. but all this has already happening, slowly, incrementally all under the guise of "keeping America safe"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

RTGreenwood says: "Obama wants to reinstate the capital gains on the first $250,000 from a home sale."

Would you mind terribly posting a (credible) source on this, or video?

Posted by: Fallen | September 12, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

zenplace says:

"Nice try - and since you offered nothing of substance to back up your complaint...."

Complaint about ...?

"I'll assume that you already knew that, but had nothing to offer but the standard contrarianism, so typical of republicans."

I trust you aren't asserting that I'm a republican here, because I'm not. :)

"My point was, and is, that republican's routinely deny and "slough-off" ALL such serious political, social, and legal occurances and infractions, when it doesn't serve their "win-at-all-cost" interests to acknowledge them."

Okay. Not sure of the *purpose* of the point though. Why would you care to correct the dolts who aren't going to change their minds anyway, or their view of their "facts"? You can't fix "stupid".

Posted by: Fallen | September 12, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Wonder if it is true that the actual candidate that bumps off mutual opponent of both parties automatically wins in November and issues and popularity has little to nothing to do with it? And wonder if the mainstream media is in on this? Apparently the mutual opponent exposed corruption within both parties and is now targeted as a result. The question is how will he be bumped off? For example, will GOP use Guiliani-like mob ties like his protege Bernard Kerik did and got 140 years of jail or Gotti, Jr. whose trial for murder is scheduled for next Monday? Or will Dems use an OJ Simpson-like convict whose trial is coincidentally scheduled for next Monday too? Guess both are available to do a little 'bumping off' this weekend. Especially if both political parties engage in the common law enforcement practice of 'sweetheart deals' where convicts commit crime/murder in exchange for less jail time and conveniently covered up without real culprits suspected.

Wonder if we should begin to worry about our family's safety too as we volunteer this information? For example, will we have to worry doing our routine jog after work in the Hackensack/Bogota, NJ areas as our habits and plans are known in advanced with implanted bugging devices both in private and public?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Is there a difference between lying and deliberately withholding the truth, Obama? Obama wants to reinstate the capital gains on the first $250,000 from a home sale. You are forced to buy a home to avoid paying a huge tax bill. I do not want to buy another home in my life and planned to use the proceeds from my home sale to carry me to retirement. I am unemployed.

How can you fail to mention this in the context of tax policies?

Posted by: RTGreenwood | September 12, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

.

JakeD:
"The MSM actually covers for Obama when he slips up with "my Muslim faith" ..."

Obama would have made a near-fatal slip there, has Stenepholis (sp?) not *instantly* corrected him with "You mean your Christian faith?" Too bad.

.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse


reason: "No one is listening to Obama anymore. Palin's kool-aid is better."

Palin has some of the best "kool-aid" around pal, and she's also hot.

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | September 12, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Yes, vote tampering/suppression is a problem everywhere, I agree. But don't expect folks to focus on phone jamming stuff. It's silly.

Posted by: Fallen | September 12, 2008 3:40 PM

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

Ok Fallen, this is the last time I'll try and recover my REAL POINT from your fluffy diversion, which actually serves to MAKE my real point...

My point was NOT that phone jamming is the "Federal Offense of the Century" and the most crucial problem on which we should be focusing.

Nice try - and since you offered nothing of substance to back up your complaint, I'll assume that you already knew that, but had nothing to offer but the standard contrarianism, so typical of republicans.

My point was, and is, that republican's routinely deny and "slough-off" ALL such serious political, social, and legal occurances and infractions, when it doesn't serve their "win-at-all-cost" interests to acknowledge them.

I began my posts in response to posts from others who did just that. Look around and you will read comments from those who throw out staunch opinions that simply run right over the FACTS, as though these folks are living in some wonderful dream world where "liberal-media" doesn't exist to print, publish and broadcast the truth, which, unfortunately, knocks them off their axis of stupidity and arrogance.

Posted by: zenplace | September 12, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

david:

The MSM actually covers for Obama when he slips up with "my Muslim faith" ...

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I thought Sarah Palin did fine of her ABC interview. Charlie Gibson, surprisingly, misquoted the prayer he asked her about, and she corrected him. I wonder if anyone in mainstream media will ask Barack Obama or Joe Biden about the wording of a prayer or about the sermons they listened to for 20 years? Just asking.

-- I think not, they (The media) would consider that insulting since, your not allowed to bring up the muslin card-- regarding OBAMA !!!!!!!!

Posted by: david | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Sophia,

I completely agree with you. You can stop yelling. (Rubbing ears.)

The fact that Republicans tend to use Christianity as a bullet-proof vest is a horrible practice and I'm sure that any person with a shred of intelligence would agree.

I will list some of the major offenders of the "Jesus-vest"

1. George W. Bush
2. Dick Cheney
3. Jack Abramoff
4. Senator Foley
5. Senator Craig
6. Sarah Palin
7. .... etc.

**DING!**

Oh, looks like John McCain just came out of the microwave.

Posted by: steeleswitters | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

And now back to a real issue-


Obama's Gift to Illinois farmers-

(I thought he was for a REDUCTION in dependency on foreign oil- corn ethanol requires 1 unit of petroleum for every unit it replaces- the more we make, the more we need, the bigger the profits in Illinois and the warmer the planet gets)

Study: Ethanol may add to global warming
Updated 2/8/2008 5:52 PM
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.
The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.
"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.
=0 A
The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.
The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Congress | Princeton University | Thursday
"Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role," said Bob Dinneen, the association's president.
There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.
The new "green" fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.
During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20% less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70% less emissions.
The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses "were one-sided" and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.
"The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions," said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.
The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20%, will increases it by 93% compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50% more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

My point is that I think the screams one message too: "John McCain is old."

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

No, zuckermand, that link has an ACTUAL official Obama campaign ad. Did you watch it?

Posted by: JakeD
============
Yes, I did.

Kurtz (at your link):
"This Barack Obama commercial, without quite saying so, screams one message: John McCain is old."

I'm not sure what he means by "quite". What's your point?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Hey Camp Obama-
Seeing Red?


(you know there REALLY is a Camp Obama- 2 day meeting intended to raise one's level of committment to THE ONE- I was invited when I signed up for his VP text message)

Missouri Rasmussen McCain 51, Obama 46 McCain +5

Washington Rasmussen Obama 49, McCain 47 Obama +2

National Gallup Tracking McCain 48, Obama 45 McCain +3

National Rasmussen Tracking McCain 48, Obama 45 McCain +3

National Associated Press/GfK McCain 48, Obama 44 McCain +4

Ohio Univ. of Cinci McCain 48, Obama 44 McCain +4

National Associated Press/GfK McCain 48, Obama 44, Nader 1, Barr 1 McCain +4
Thursday, September 11
Race Poll Results Spread

Ohio InAdv/PollPosition McCain 48, Obama 47 McCain +1

Florida InAdv/PollPosition McCain 50, Obama 42 McCain +8

Michigan InAdv/PollPosition Obama 44, McCain 45 McCain +1

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

From The Nation:

"John McCain has been hammering rival Barack Obama for being little more than a vapid "celebrity" and "elitist." But The Nation has obtained a photo revealing just how star-struck a straight-talking maverick can become when offered the chance to celebrate his birthday aboard a yacht filled with celebrities--even if one of those celebrity types turns out to be an A-list con man.

The McCain-Follieri Love Boat Presidential Election 2008

Mark Ames & Ari Berman: What are we to make of a straight-talking maverick who spends his 70th birthday on the yacht of an A-list con man?
The War We Don't Know Russia

The photograph substantiates reports that in late August, 2006, McCain celebrated his 70th birthday aboard a yacht, the Celine Ashley, rented by A-list con man Raffaello Follieri and his then-movie star girlfriend Anne Hathaway. In the current edition of Vanity Fair, Michael Schnayerson reported that Follieri rented the Celine Ashley for the month of August 2006. Montenegro's leading daily newspaper, Vijesti, earlier reported that during McCain's visit in 2006 he celebrated with birthday cocktails and sweets aboard the Celine Ashley yacht. In the photograph, taken in Montenegro at the end of August, McCain is shown boarding the yacht ramp towards the smiling Follieri and Hathaway. Just ahead of McCain and shaking hands with Follieri appears to be Rick Davis--McCain's top aide and now co-manager of his campaign, who accompanied him on the trip and advised the government of Montenegro. A few months after McCain's yacht party, Follieri strengthened his ties to McCain's orbit by retaining Rick Davis's well-connected Washington lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, and offering Davis both an investment deal and help in securing the Catholic vote for McCain's presidential bid.

Follieri, who posed as Vatican chief financial officer in order to win friends and investments, pleaded guilty Wednesday in a Manhattan district court to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, eight counts of wire fraud and five counts of money laundering. As part of the plea, Follieri admitted to misappropriating at least $2.4 million of investor money and redirecting it to foreign personal bank accounts that were disguised as business accounts.

At the time he met McCain, Follieri was adept at collecting friends in powerful places and using those connections to attract investments in projects which later turned out to be bogus. Yet Follieri's ties to McCain's orbit have been largely overlooked by the media. Follieri first met McCain when the Arizona Senator visited Montenegro from August 29-31 as part of a Congressional delegation that included Republican senators Lindsay Graham, Richard Burr, Saxby Chambliss, Mel Martinez and John Sununu. [We'll have more on what else McCain was doing in Montenegro in a forthcoming article in the print edition of The Nation.]

What, exactly, was McCain doing aboard Follieri's yacht? Or put another way, was this McCain's 70th birthday wish--to spend an evening floating on the Adriatic with one of Hollywood's top actresses and her smooth-talking Italian beau?

An even bigger mystery is how Follieri's boat came to be docked in Montenegro on McCain's birthday. According to a journalist in Montenegro, the yacht had been anchored there for several days before McCain's arrival, and only sailed away after McCain boarded. According to Vijesti, locals were told that McCain was meeting "friends from Florida" on the yacht.

McCain aides later confirmed the encounter with Follieri, but said it was "entirely social and nothing came of it." Follieri, they told the New York Daily News, was just a "passing acquaintance." (Though the McCain campaign promise to comment on the encounter, it did not respond to The Nation's request by the time this article was published.)

It must not have seemed that way to Follieri. According to the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, in January 2007 Follieri sent Rick Davis a packet of information on his companies Follieri Capital and Follieri Media, apparently hoping to get financing from Pegasus Capital Advisors, a hedge fund in Connecticut that Davis represented. "Follieri's proposal to Davis had two dimensions to it--first, as an investment opportunity for Davis's fund; but secondly, there was the political dimension, in which Follieri offered to help deliver Catholic votes to McCain," said Claudio Gatti, a reporter for Il Sole 24 Ore, who investigated Follieri for eighteen months.

In February 2007, according to a recent article in the New York Daily News, Follieri retained Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort. According to the paper, "on Feb. 27, 2007, Davis Manafort partner Rick Gates signed a confidentiality agreement drafted by the Follieri Group. In the contract...Gates agreed not to disclose any information about Follieri's deal to get Clinton pal Ron Burkle to buy Catholic Church properties." (Gates did not respond to repeated requests for comment.)

Two months later, Burkle sued Follieri, who later repaid the $1.3 million owed to Burkle's Yucaipa Funds. That fall, the Wall Street Journal exposed Follieri's life as a high-society con man. In June of this year, Follieri was finally arrested and charged. Following his guilty plea this week, Follieri now faces up to five years and three months in jail."

Posted by: Bullwinkle J Moose | September 12, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse


Noone is listening to Obama anymore.

Palin's kool-aid is better.

Posted by: reason | September 12, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Hey Anonymous-
THIS ISN'T FUNNY EITHER! (it's sick in the head)

Saturday, September 06, 2008
Delaware Newspaper Calls Out Biden For Drunk Driving Lie

TV's Inside Edition ran a story last week replaying Sen. Joe Biden's claim that Curtis Dunn, the truck driver who struck the car driven by his first wife in 1972 and which killed her and his daughter, was drunk at the time of the accident, bringing tears to the surviving daughter of the innocent truck driver. The Wilmington News Journal writes about Joe Biden's false claim that a drunk driver killed his wife and daughter:


Since his vice presidential nomination, Joe Biden's 2007 statement that a "guy who allegedly ... drank his lunch" and drove the truck that struck and killed his first wife and daughter has gained national media traction.

Alcohol didn't play a role in the 1972 crash, investigators found. But as recently as last week, the syndicated TV show Inside Edition aired a clip from 2001 of Biden describing the accident to an audience at the University of Delaware and saying the truck driver "stopped to drink instead of drive."

The senator's statements don't jibe with news and law enforcement reports from the time, which cleared driver Curtis C. Dunn, who died in 1999, of wrongdoing.

"To see it coming from [Biden's] mouth, I just burst into tears," Dunn's daughter, Glasgow resident Pamela Hamill, 44, said Wednesday. "My dad was always there for us. Now we feel like we should be there for him because he's not here to defend himself."

Biden spokesman David Wade said Wednesday that the senator "fully accepts the Dunn family's word that these rumors were false."


What is particularly outrageous about Biden resurrecting the false claim during his recent 2008 presidential bid is the fact that he wrote a letter of apology to the truck driver's daughter, Pamela Hamill, after she sent a letter to him about the same false claim he made when addressing a college audience shortly after September 11, 2001. The News Journal writes:


After reading a News Journal account of Biden's 2001 speech at UD, Hamill sent Biden a letter on behalf of her father. The newspaper story included Biden's description of getting the call that his wife and daughter had died, but not his comments about Dunn.

Hamill said her note to the senator described how Dunn was affected by the accident.

Printed on the senator's letter head and dated Oct. 11, 2001, the response from Biden reads:

"I apologize for taking so long to acknowledge your thoughtful and heartfelt note," Biden wrote. "All that I can say is I am sorry for all of us and please know that neither I nor my sons feel any animosity whatsoever."


Hamill immediately contacted Biden's office again after Inside Edition ran Biden's claim that his wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver. The News Journal reports:


Hamill said it wasn't until the Inside Edition report that she became aware that the Delaware senator had said alcohol played a role in the accident. Dunn did not consume any alcohol the day of the crash, Hamill said.

She said she immediately called Biden's office after being contacted by Inside Edition and is waiting for the senator's response.

"The family feels these statements are both hurtful and untrue and we didn't know where they originated from," Hamill said.

As Hamill watched a recording of the Inside Edition report Wednesday, she gasped when the clip of Biden's comments from Iowa came on screen

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

.

Anonymous re the Bush doctrine"
"She could have her finger on the Nuclear Trigger, and she doesn't understand the foreign policy of her hero, President Bush."

Neither does anyone else, but when you review all six of the Bush doctrines, it amounts to him being allowed to attack any country he wants to. See former references here.

.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Zenplace says: "...THE FACT IS THAT A FEDERAL COURT PRESENTED STRONG EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THAT IT WORKED WELL ENOUGH TO SWAY THE ELECTION."

A federal court doesn't present evidence (evidence may be presented to it, of course).

Yes, vote tampering/suppression is a problem everywhere, I agree. But don't expect folks to focus on phone jamming stuff. It's silly.

Posted by: Fallen | September 12, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

And now back to a real issue-


Obama's Gift to Illinois farmers-

(I thought he was for a REDUCTION in dependency on foreign oil- corn ethanol requires 1 unit of petroleum for every unit it replaces- the more we make, the more we need, the bigger the profits in Illinois and the warmer the planet gets)

Study: Ethanol may add to global warming
Updated 2/8/2008 5:52 PM
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.
The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.
"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.
=0 A
The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.
The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Congress | Princeton University | Thursday
"Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role," said Bob Dinneen, the association's president.
There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.
The new "green" fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.
During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20% less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70% less emissions.
The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses "were one-sided" and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.
"The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions," said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.
The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20%, will increases it by 93% compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50% more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.


Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

This is not FUNNY!

Palin does not know what the "Bush Doctrine" is.

She could have her finger on the Nuclear Trigger, and she doesn't understand the foreign policy of her hero, President Bush.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

zenplace:
"a woman who isn't even qualified to run a Tupperware party."

Jack The Ripper:
"Bet she could shoot a cherry off your doodewah."

zenplace:
"LOL...Thank you Jack, I just laughed so hard at your comment that I blew coffee through my nose...OUCH! "

YEA!!! Glad to be of service, but sorry about your nose.

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | September 12, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse


Gigwhite: "He/she has to make decisions that impact the lives of millions...billions. Who know what that is like?"

It takes someone with intestinal fortitude like McCain. Someone tough enough to do what's needed to be done.

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | September 12, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Prepare yourself for the greatest ideological match-up of the century!

No, it's not Obama versus McCain, it's McCain versus Palin.


LET'S GET READY TO RUUUMMMBBBLLLE...!


This was John McCain, late last year on why he was qualified to be the president:

"I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/us/politics/21debate-transcript.html?_r=1&pagewanted=3&fta=y&oref=slogin
.


And here is Sarah Palin last night on why she is ready to be a 72-year old heartbeat away from the presidency:

"Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state."

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5782924
.


So there you have it. The ultimate he said, she said. John McCain explained why Sarah Palin isn't qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, and Sarah Palin explained why John McCain doesn't represent change, just more of the same old politics as usual.


AMERICA, IF YOU'RE DUMB ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR THESE TWO KNOW NOTHINGS (MCCAIN/PALIN) THEN YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GET - FOUR MORE YEARS OF BUSH/CHENEY LIKE INCOMPETENCE AND THUGGERY!

Posted by: DrainYou | September 12, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

zenplace:
"a woman who isn't even qualified to run a Tupperware party."

Bet she could shoot a cherry off your doodewah.

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | September 12, 2008 3:08 PM
--------------------------------

+++OMG...LOL...Thank you Jack, I just laughed so hard at your comment that I blew coffee through my nose...OUCH!

Posted by: zenplace | September 12, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

A separatist on Lincoln's party.

It is shameful.
Almost treasonous.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Zenplace, thank you for expressing so accurately what is bothering me these days. This notion that our President must be someone we can relate to is ridiculous. At a minimum, it distracts us from the real job of a President - he/she is not going to sit in a bar or on a farm with us and become our good friends. He/she has to make decisions that impact the lives of millions...billions. Who know what that is like?

Posted by: Gigwhite | September 12, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

.

JakeD

Palin has upset the Obama faithful, note.


.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse


zenplace:
"a woman who isn't even qualified to run a Tupperware party."

Bet she could shoot a cherry off your doodewah.


Posted by: Jack The Ripper | September 12, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Zenplace is really angry. There is medication for that.

Posted by: tonystripple | September 12, 2008 2:53 PM

...Very accurate observation, Tony. Angry? You bet your A$$ I'm angry!!

And I am already on that medication that you suggest. It just doesn't seem to help me tune out political morons who are intent on ruining this country by voting for a republican party ticket that includes a woman who isn't even qualified to run a Tupperware party.

Posted by: zenplace | September 12, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

We have to let go of the notion that we want a President who we can relate to. The President of the United States needs to be the best educated, most intelligent, critical thinker that we can find. Some might call that the elite of America (as opposed to elitist, which is a completely different thing) and I would have to agree.

I am not saying that there can't be a reason other than lack of intelligence, that McCain did so poorly in school. I am not saying that the fact that Palin took 6 years and 6 different community and second rate colleges to graduate, means she isn't smart enough to be President (and make no mistake we are electing her as President. McCain is the oldest least healthy Presidential candidate in history), but these are not positives. It is no coincedence that more Presidents have come out of Ivy League schools than from any other colleges (this includes, Kennedy, Bush sr, Bush Jr, Bill Clinton in the past few decades), these are the elite schools of our country.

President of the USA isn't a job for a regular guy/gal, it's a job for someone not like you or me, but for someone with that very unusual mind that can grasp extremely complex issues quickly, but not act so rashly as to get us into WW3. Being a guy that you would want to have a beer with is a great reason to vote for someone on American Idol but it's not a reaon to vote for President.

Posted by: captbilly | September 12, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

.

. . . . HEY TIM . . . .

Did you just toss out your racist crap and go hide?

Tim said:
"I am sure that many dark skinned people are voting for Obama because of skin color. They just happened to be on the side of the fence that will help them get better educated in the future."

Billw asked:
"Please explain how the current President is hindering education of blacks that Obama would improve upon."


.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"S A R A H ! S A R A H ! I LOVE SARAH!!!"

Comimg from someone who has no doubt chided Obama supporters for the last year as having a messianic complex, a cult of personality, and a false "celebrity."

This response to Palin is another classic example of GOP hypocrisy.

Posted by: Duffman | September 12, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse


askaufman: "Clinton's experience was screwing anything that moved"

Hey Dude, it's a perk that comes with the job."

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | September 12, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Fallen wrote "Er, Zenplace, the notion that phone jamming on election day altered the course of things is a little out there. Folks don't wait for a phone call before voting to make up their minds."

...THE FACT IS THAT A FEDERAL COURT PRESENTED STRONG EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THAT IT WORKED WELL ENOUGH TO SWAY THE ELECTION.

Ok...I guess you are also smarter than Bush and Cheney who thought it was important enough to risk having one of their strategists end up in Federal Prison.

My point is, Fallen, ALL tampering is bad-this was just one example. Just because the examples you sight may be worse, doesn't make the facts I presented, moot.

Instead of complaining about my points-to make yourself look smart-why didn't you just post concrete examples of the points you made?

...

Posted by: zenplace | September 12, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

S A R A H ! S A R A H ! I LOVE SARAH!!!

Posted by: charlieb | September 12, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Zenplace is really angry. There is medication for that.

Posted by: tonystripple | September 12, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

.

WIN2008:
"Jacob Weisberg, in his book "The Bush Tragedy," actually identified six Bush Doctrines:
Bush Doctrine 1.0 was Unipolar Realism (3/7/99--9/10/01);
Bush Doctrine 2.0 was With Us or Against Us (9/11/01--5/31/02);
Bush Doctrine 3.0 was Preemption (6/1/02--11/5/03);
Bush Doctrine 4.0 was Democracy in the Middle East (11/6/03--1/19/05);
Bush Doctrine 5.0 was Freedom Everywhere (1/20/05-- 11/7/06); and
Bush Doctrine 6.0 (11/8/06 to date) is the "absence of any functioning doctrine at all."

Bottom line is that Bush can attack any country he wants to.


.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

And Clinton's experience was screwing anything that moved while he was governor and president. Can we quit talking about the past and move forward and stop the name-calling? We know Democrats or Republicans wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ if he was on either ticket just because of party label. It's the 30% of independent thinkers in this country that will decide the election based on facts.

Posted by: askaufman | September 12, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

First of all, there is no comparison between the two world wars and the "war on terror". A single terrorist attack cannot be compared to a genocide or foreign invasion.. really?

Tell that to the Kurds who were killed by mustard gas. In the 9/11 attacks the genocide came in the form of a airliner, the foreign invasion was a terrorist in the cockpit. Whether its 1 or 1 million coming to our shores and killing our people its an invasion! War is War my friend and yes they can be compared

Posted by: CraigF | September 12, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Uh, how is the email commercial about issues? Jonathan Weisman is beyond partisan. It is shameful.

Posted by: Karen | September 12, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

HURRY, HURRY AMERICA AND CROWN YOUR MICROWAVED PRESIDENTIAL MAVERICKS.THE WRITING IS CLEARLY ON THE WALL. HOW DIFFERENT ARE WE FROM THE TERRORISTS WHOSE WAR MANTRA IS 'ATTACK AND KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS IN THE NAME OF GOD'. CHRISTIANITY, YOU MEAN THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST? WHAT ABOUT ST. JOHN 3:16, MS. PALIN AND MY FELLOW CONSERVATIVES, DO YOU THINK GOD IS SMILING AT YOUR LIES AND HYPOCRISY? I THOUGHT WE WOULD BE IMMUNE FROM SUCH INFECTIOUS INSANITY. WELL, SINCE WE ARE'NT, THEN I MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE AMERICAN TITANIC DAYS ARE TRULY NUMBERED - ONLY THIS TIME WERE WERE WARNED.

THANKS FOR YOUR EARS AMERICA.
FROM A VERY CONSERVATIVE PENTECOSTAL (NO HOAX)

PS. PLEASE STOP PIMPING JESUS

Posted by: Sophia | September 12, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

About voter fraud, both parties are guilty. ACORN has been found guilty of forging voter registrations. The issue really is why over 40% of so-called Americans don't vote and a lot that do can't even find their precints. Come on, put some effort and common sense into one of the most sacred rights we have.

Posted by: askaufman | September 12, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

We are not talking about history just one VP candidate. A candidate by the way who included countries her plane stopped in to refuel as countries she has visited in her resumé. She seems to have a problem with the truth and an amazing ability to play fast and loose with ti.

===========
Basic common sense if you catch my drift:

So, then using your "logic", none of our prior Vice Presidential (or even Presidential) candidates who failed to shake a head of state's hand PRIOR to being elected were "qualified"?!

So, starting with George Washington ...

LOL

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 2:21 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

The experience Palin has is virtually the same experience GWBush brought to office. We can all see how well that worked out.

Posted by: rapchat | September 12, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Discredited? Obama whole campaign (100 years in Iraq) has been a lie. Where was the media discrediting Obama's lie. Weisman really might be the most in the tank writer (not journalist). Does Obama really think mayors fill potholes? can he be anymore dismissive.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Jacob Weisberg, in his book "The Bush Tragedy," actually identified six Bush Doctrines:

Bush Doctrine 1.0 was Unipolar Realism (3/7/99--9/10/01);

Bush Doctrine 2.0 was With Us or Against Us (9/11/01--5/31/02);

Bush Doctrine 3.0 was Preemption (6/1/02--11/5/03);

Bush Doctrine 4.0 was Democracy in the Middle East (11/6/03--1/19/05);

Bush Doctrine 5.0 was Freedom Everywhere (1/20/05-- 11/7/06); and

Bush Doctrine 6.0 (11/8/06 to date) is the "absence of any functioning doctrine at all."

Posted by: WIN2008 | September 12, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

McCain/Palin is an out of touch nightmare ticket. One can only pray that the public at large figures this out before the election.

Posted by: rapchat | September 12, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Er, Zenplace, the notion that phone jamming on election day altered the course of things is a little out there. Folks don't wait for a phone call before voting to make up their minds.

Focus on stuff that matters, e.g., vote tampering in terms of throwing out ballots, not counting votes, actual active voter suppression (one machine for a whole precinct). :) Yeesh.

Posted by: Fallen | September 12, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Explain the Bush Doctrine? Easy. Screw up until you get caught, then lie about it.

Posted by: tom | September 12, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Laura says: "If Palin/McCain win I'm leaving this country."

Come on now. You and millions of others already declared this in 2004 and never left. *Surely* you did so in 2004, right?? I mean, George and the war were both known quantities going into that election. :)

And this is an Obama supporter talking. I just hate it when folks talk smack like this ... like most of the Hillary supporters declaring that they'd never vote for Obama 'cause they were miffed she didn't win.

Posted by: Fallen | September 12, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Why is everybody so concerned about Sarah Palin's "experience?" We got so many "experienced" politicians in Washington that are complete morons.

Good point.

But unfortunately I put McSurge into that group. And that is who we are really voting for.

Palin is not a deal killer. She is insignificant in the formula. McSurge is the deal killer. His choice of Palin is another example of "WTF were you thinking John??"

Posted by: A. Nony Mouse | September 12, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Um, is Obama forgetting that he's a Senator too? McCain wasn't talking about just himself, but about the Senate as a whole. For Obama to suggest that he doesn't struggle in the least with the disconnect of Washington indicates that he's too proud to admit otherwise, or that he hasn't been around the Senate enough to know (or both).

Posted by: M | September 12, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm really disappointed in some of the Republicans--I really am. Party differences aside, we all live in such a great country and the present time we are in is probably the most critical point in our country's history. Yet, I see so many people standing up for a woman who says national security and foreign policy are the two most important issues we should be considering. Charlie Gibson SHOULD be grilling her--she's running with McCain to lead our country! When Obama has been grilled, he came out on top because he actually knew the issues and what he was talking about. I agree; but to be running for Vice President (a position she was picked for--Obama was at least elected to his position by the American people) and say most VPs haven't met foreign heads of state and be wrong (Cheney, Gore, Bush Sr., Quayle and Mondale all met foreign heads of state before being VP) is alarming. I applaud her knowledge on energy, but she hardly shares any views on energy with McCain (he's agains drilling in ANWR, she's for it; he believes climate change is brought on by humans, she recently changed her position to say so). And as far as the Bush Doctrine goes, sure, many people don't know what it is. But for someone who's running to be the No. 2 position in our country to not know that is scary, especially because it is so prevalent to issues we are facing today. She only proved to have no foreign policy experience and has failed to demonstrate her knowledge on national security, the two issues that SHOULD be most prominent to ALL Americans. And I'm disappointed that Republicans continue to stick up for her. Please, stop being stubborn--this is our country's future we are talking about!! I thought you knew better. But it just goes to show that people like the Republicans who will vote for her and McCain truly will vote for anyone, as long as they're under the Republican ticket. Very disappointing.

Posted by: Jess | September 12, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

+++++ To republicans who are IN DENIAL about the very-real existence of VOTER MANIPULATION and delay created by your party...

YOU MAY BE ABLE TO DEFEND THE LONG LINES CREATED ARTIFICIALLY - BUT YOU CAN NEVER DEFEND THE INDICTMENTS AND CONVICTIONS OF BUSH/CHENEY REPUBLICAN STRATEGISTS WHO, in 2002, PURPOSEFULLY TIED UP PHONE LINES IN NH DURING A IMPORTANT SENATORIAL ELECTION.

API WIRE SERVICE..." McGee and two other participants -- Republican National Committee regional political director James Tobin and GOP consultant Allen Raymond-- have been FOUND GUILTY of criminally violating federal communications law. Tobin will be sentenced today in U.S. District Court in Concord, N.H."...

"...When voting began Nov. 5, McGee's plan worked like a charm. For two crucial hours, an Idaho telecommunications firm tied up Democratic and union phone lines, bringing their get-out-the-vote plans to a halt. The effort helped John E. Sununu (REPUBLICAN) win his Senate seat by 51 to 47 percent, a 19,151-vote margin."

"...But the case has drawn complaints even from Republicans. By covering Tobin's legal fees, "the GOP appears to sanction and institutionalize corruption within the party," Craig Shirley, of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs, recently wrote in a commentary published by The Washington Post.

The phone-blocking occurred from 7 to 9 a.m. the crucial morning hours when many voters want to go to the polls before work..."

"...The New Hampshire Republican Party, burden by legal bills, is virtually broke, with $733.60 in its federal and state accounts."

"...Tobin, (FOUND GUILTY OF A FELONY) a longtime GOP operative, was later appointed New England chairman for the BUSH/CHENEY '04 campaign, but resigned when he became a subject of the federal criminal inquiry. On Dec. 15, 2005, Tobin, 45, was convicted (ADDITIONAL CONVICTION)of two counts of telephone harassment..."

"...In a pre-sentencing memo, federal prosecutors are seeking a prison term of 18 to 24 months for Tobin. "The 2002 U.S. Senate race in New Hampshire was hotly contested, and one of the main goals of the Republican Party was to retain that Senate seat," they wrote. "Overcome by his desire for success in the election, Tobin exercised his considerable authority to make the phone jamming scheme succeed, rather than to stop it..."


FACTS...FACTS...FACTS...FACTS...

SORRY REPUBLICANS-

- "FLAG-WAVING"
- "GET THE BOGEY-MAN TERRORISTS"
- "PROTECT THE RICH PEOPLE-WHO AREN'T ME, AND NEVER WILL BE"
- "WORST VICE PRESIDENT PICK SINCE DAN QUAYLE"
- "ARM-WAVING...FIST PUMPING...CHEST POUNDING...RANTS ABOUT YOUR 'RIGHT-TO-SOMEONE-ELSE'S-LIFE"...

NONE OF THAT CAN HIDE THE FACT THAT YOU'VE BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF RIGGING ELECTIONS!!!!!

Have a nice day.

Ps. By the way...republican puppets hypnotized by your own ignorance...if you respond, please don't bore us with your unsubstantiated, inaccurate, and over-exaggerated, "protect-your-ego-at-any-cost-even-the-future-of-our-country" opinions...Those of us with a brain and a conscience aren't interested.

Posted by: zenplace | September 12, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

John McCain is a sell-out and exposed he is just a typical Republican politician by picking Palin. He picked her to appease his base, poach Hillary votes and stoke a culture divide. Even Britain and Europe know Obama is the better candidate.
The only people who don’t get it are the brainwashed right-wing puppets who think that just because someone has a speech draw and likes to fish that somehow makes politicians just like them or the best candidate to run the government. I like Clint Eastwood too, that doesn’t mean he should run the country. Are we really this foolish? Palin wasn’t the best or most qualified, it’s because mcCain knew she would be a draw to small town America whom they are duping (Sara Palin ain’t like you, folks).

How is this being a "maverick"? How is it ‘Country First”? How is this “I rather win a war than loose an election”? I’ll say it again, John McCain is a sell-out. Obama said it pretty accurately too - Lipstick on a pig, is still a pig.

The most important metric for picking a VP is they are ready to step in from day one. His judgment is reckless and he gambled at our expense. The mere fact Palin is being educated on foreign policy and is avoiding the press indicates she wasn’t prepared on day one. She is running for the second highest office, but can’t answer questions from the press or public? This doesn’t alarm anyone?

I lost all my respect for John McCain. He's not the hero today he was 35 years ago. McCain is nothing without Palin.

What does it say about a campaign that has to "mimic" what and whom Obama is, not to mention hijack Obamas core message of Change from day one just to poach votes? Is that all they view Obama as, a "product" a "formula", a “personality”? It makes McCain look weak and more importantly, the American people stupid if they fall for it.

Now all these puppets are willing to just get behind her without even knowing anything about her and try to convince the American public she is prepared to be VP or President? Not even uncertain objectiveness, caution, pause or question just because she has an "R" in front of her name? How can anyone make a honest, clear determination reasonably in less than 60 days.

Bravo America! We look like complete idiots once again while the world watches. I am truly embarrassed of my country. I guess all isn’t lost, at least many will have Palin’s eye glass frames while our country crumbles economically. We are such tools.

If Palin/McCain win I'm leaving this country. I’m not paying for a war that should have never happened or failed Bush policies any more than I already have.

British Prime Minister Backs Obama
http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2008/09/brown-backs-oba.htm

World wants Obama
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/09/2360240.htm?section=world

Posted by: Laura | September 12, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Schmit and Rove campaign ads scare everyone because they are branding the Media as “Piranhas!”, Democrats are “Wolves” and talented Artists are just lite “Celebrities” without talent and their voice doesn't count. Schmidt and Rove have branded Palin as their Barracuda and Pit Bull.

Now Schmit and Rove are attempting to play the victim when ever the Democrat's response or the mainstream media starts asking the questions that are on the minds of the voters.

This will be the election that will be studied by historians. How did they do it? They took out everyone with negative ads and then created their own celebrity who is running on a open playing field now. Barracuda and Pit Bull running down field carrying the football. Can a goldfish stop them. I'm checking out a video - Trained Goldfish Performs Amazing Tricks!!. Can all talking dogs stop them? I look at the video -Talking Dogs. This election may decided by a gold fish and all talking dogs taking on Schmidt and Rove's Barracuda and Pit Bull. I have faith in the gold fish who says “No worries Team. Everything is going to be all right!” Our Goldfish runs onto the playing field to take on Schmidt and Rove's Barracuda. A determined mutt joins our gold fish to take on Schmidt and Rove's Pit Bull.

Democrats and Obamacans's courting all Republican and Independent Voters!

Obama’s message rings of a “Beautiful day coming to America” which is similar to Reagan’s “Its morning in america again”

Beautiful day coming to America

U2 - beautiful day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omFdpnSu57U

Obamacan's - “The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.” William F. Buckley, Jr. quote

The real change team for the last 19 months
Change we can believe in.

Vote Obama/Biden '08


Posted by: Cooday | September 12, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Askaufman says: "I want someone with good judgement and integrity, something in short supply on the hill."

Same here. But I have seen not a lot thus far to indicate she's got much of either (political judgment, maybe).

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

No, zuckermand, that link has an ACTUAL official Obama campaign ad. Did you watch it?

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

To: Anyone responsible for anything they do anymore?
First I did vote, hence I waited in line over 3 hours. Perhaps you need Charlie Gibson to clarify my statement for you. Had I needed to perhaps go to work, pick up my child, or get out of the COLD I wouldn't have waited 3 hours and would not have been able to vote.
Secondly, anyone who thinks fighting voter suppression is whining is simply NOT A PATRIOT.

Posted by: PJ | September 12, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

The Bush doctrine is the Statement of principles of the PNAC and AIPAC, the military industrial complex, just google these two acronymns and it is all right there in the open.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Why is everybody so concerned about Sarah Palin's "experience?" We got so many "experienced" politicians in Washington that are complete morons. I want someone with good judgement and integrity, something in short supply on the hill.

Posted by: Askaufman | September 12, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

P.S. this is NOT the first time I have taken interest in an election ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

.


Billw said:
"RE What is the Bush Doctrine?
There is no clear answer, as there have been six different versions."


Sarah Palin is Harriett Miers with a nice rack said:

"That should have made it easier for Palin to answer the question; she could have just picked any one of the six. But apparently she doesn't know any of them."

Then you explain the Bush doctrine, please.


.



Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Puhleassssse!!!

I don't want to think of Harriet Meiers with a nice rack. Now i have that visual image burned in my memeory.

How about this.....

Madeline Albright with an even nicer rack!

Gotcha.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"Kurtz says"? That's your argument? Pathetic.

Posted by: zukermand | September 12, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I thought that was an interesting image yesterday at ground zero as Mccain was struggling to walk up the ramp and his wife came to his side to help him as no one else seemed to notice. Once they reached the top Mccain seemed almost out of it totally exhausted.


===========
"...portraying him as an aging, out-of-touch politician..."

aging? I see no example of the Obama campaign including age in its criticism. Perhaps Mr Weisman ought to explain why he attributes that charge to them.

Posted by: zukermand | September 12, 2008 2:18 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"To indytucker:

RE What is the Bush Doctrine?
There is no clear answer, as there have been six different versions."

That should have made it easier for Palin to answer the question; she could have just picked any one of the six. But apparently she doesn't know any of them.

Posted by: Sarah Palin is Harriett Miers with a nice rack | September 12, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

As for Palin not shaking hands with a foreign head of state, why is that suddenly a requirement for the job?


Not sure if this is the first time you have taken interest in an election. but i will try to xplain to you how it works.

We need to select someone with honest credentials, ability and judgement to do the job at hand.

What we don't want to do is find some hockey mom and then re-write the job requirements, lowering all the standards in the hopes that maybe she can make the mimimum requirement for the job because we just love her pluckiness, her family, and all her wonderful wholesomeness.

After all we are talking about someone who could be the next president. It's a pretty serious job that, really, few are qualified for.

So having met, interacted with, and negotiated with foreign dignataries is really a fundamental requirement for this position. We owe it to America, and we owe to the other countries who look up to us and depend on us.

Is this too harsh? Unfair? Not what you wanted to here? I'm sorry. But life can be unpleasant at times.

If it makes you feel better I do believe she will be a good governor some day.

Posted by: Common sense should tell you | September 12, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Basic common sense if you catch my drift:

So, then using your "logic", none of our prior Vice Presidential (or even Presidential) candidates who failed to shake a head of state's hand PRIOR to being elected were "qualified"?!

So, starting with George Washington ...

LOL

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

It just begins to paint a picture of this person they seem to have been trying so hide so you have to fill in the blanks yourself if they won't do it for you. That is the gamble they take by being so secretive. Remember this is a woman who said on camera just recently she didn't know much about the war Iraq and really had not thought much about it.

======
As for Palin not shaking hands with a foreign head of state, why is that suddenly a requirement for the job?

Because, oh this is tough, let me think.....Uhh, because none of the other foreign leaders are hockey moms? And maybe she wouldn't have Charlie there to explain what the other foreign leaders were trying to explain to her???

Could that be the answer???

Posted by: Basic common sense if you catch my drift | September 12, 2008 2:13 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

"...portraying him as an aging, out-of-touch politician..."

aging? I see no example of the Obama campaign including age in its criticism. Perhaps Mr Weisman ought to explain why he attributes that charge to them.

Posted by: zukermand | September 12, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"I, for one, through my own initiative am just above that $250 K line and am not interested in having my income drop 32% with the Obama plan."

It's interesting that you are pretending you own a business or can earn $250k, yet don't even know how the Income Tax is structured.

Hint: Being "just over" $250k wouldn't result in a "32% Decrease" in your income.

That said, I would love to see the "calculations" that you have done to prove that you could make more by running a business that loses money.

Posted by: Duffman | September 12, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

.

Billw asked:
"Please explain how the current President is hindering education of blacks that Obama would improve upon."

anomymous said:
"It would take another 8 years to explain it to you."

OK let's call this day one. Start now please. PS I assume you're Tim, if not you'll do.

.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Watching the Presidential forum, some things struck me as disingenuous & hypocritical....

McCain says that more people in America need to "serve" their country. To be more actively involved in making their neighborhoods better & making government better. Yet correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't his OWN VP pick denegrate "community activists"?? Palin mocked Obama for HIS community service and now McCain is saying MORE Americans need to do the same kind of community service OBAMA did!!! WHY should they bother? Its obvious their activism & volunteer work won't be appreciated. Matter of fact, they'll only be ridiculed for it. And I hate to tell ya John, but with more & more people having to work 2 jobs, who the hell has TIME for volunteer work!!?!! And stop blaming Obama for HER comments. She was NOT defending herself against smears. HE never said ONE WORD about her qualifications. WE the American people wanted to know what they were, as we have every right to!! WE are the ones who demand OUR OWN chance to "vet" her. You sure had a LOT to say about what YOU thought about Obama's qualifications to be President.

Also, McCain wants to expand the military but he voted AGAINST veterans benefits. HIS was the deciding vote to pass the GI bill and he said NO! He wants to send your children to war but when they get home, he doesn't want to pay for them to go to college or receive the full medical benefits & pay they deserve!!! AND WHY??? HIS kids don't have to worry about going to college on a GI Bill and HIS kids are covered under Government insurance! (And HIS kids have 7 houses to choose from!!)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK_9sI7hzAc

He's also blaming the tone of the campaign on Obama!!! He's saying that things wouldn't have gotten ugly if only Obama had agreed to town hall debates. So in other words, Obama didn't want to run HIS campaign by McCain's rules so he decided to act like a petulant little boy by taking his toys and going home mad. He would NOT admit that he thought Obama called Palin a "pig". Even though he's approved ads claiming he believed so! Typical bully! You'll say things behind someone's back but when you're called on it, you back down!!! He stands behind a fence and throws mud and denies it to your face when cornered. And THIS is your honorable war hero?!?! When asked further about the nasty tone the campaign has taken, he dodged the question totally and said it should be based on ISSUES. THIS coming from the man that approved ads claiming Obama wanted to teach kindergardners sex ed? THIS coming from the man who approved ads with wolves stalking poor, helpless Palin?? THIS coming from the man that has LIED about Obama's tax policy??? THIS coming from the man that hired Steve Schmidt, Rick Davis, & KARL ROVE to manage his campaign? You can't hire men that use lies, distractions & shady tactics and then claim YOU'RE the one running a honorable campaign! It doesn't work that way John!! "Do as I say, not as I do" won't work anymore!!

And get this...In the middle of the fumbling answer he gave about Palin's mayoral experience, he stated how she had more duties than any other job in America even harder than HIS job in Washington since he was, and I quote "more divorced from the day to day lives of American people" I'm NOT making this crap up people...Wait awhile and watch it on youtube yourself! This man admitted for the 1st time that he doesn't know what the majority of people in this country are going through. And THIS is the man you want to trust with YOU & your CHILDREN's future? You REALLY expect a man with his own jet, 7 homes, and a wife that can afford 300k on an outfit to give a DAMN if you have to buy generic groceries because the prices have doubled in the last 8yrs? If so, then you deserve what you get....

Posted by: Kimberly | September 12, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Why??? asks: "Why isn't the press reporting on the issue of Republicans in both Wisconsin and Michigan planning on disenfranchising minority voters?!?!?"

Honey, there's no state where this isn't an ongoing problem ... on both sides of the aisle. The Republicans just so happen to be a little better at it, or at least have been more successful at it on a national level the past decade or so. (Last national election I believe was won by a Democrat under questionable circumstances was Kennedy.)

"Whatever happened to one person, one vote???"

Please understand this: there's NO right to vote guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. (Please understand that the 15th Amendment only serves to keep the government from keeping folks from voting based on their race/color/previous status as a slave as a voting qualification, which is not the same thing at all.)

This is something the doltish masses either don't know or have forgotten. Any person taking the citizenship test knows it, but ....

Voting for the president is up to the states. Your state's constitution may or may not guarantee you a right to vote. Even if it does, your states election laws may or may not be designed to protect your vote. Most are not. That's why folks need to lobby their legislative representatives in Congress to enact comprehensive voter rights legislation, including ensuring the folks who run the elections are non-partisan, and prohibiting them from being in any way, shape or form connected to a particular candidate.

Posted by: Fallen | September 12, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

.

Billw asked:
"Please explain how the current President is hindering education of blacks that Obama would improve upon."

anomymous said:
"It would take another 8 years to explain it to you."

OK let's call this day one. Start now please.

.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

There is no "bush doctrine." Or maybe you all can find the actual document that is a "bush doctrine" Now there is a national security strategy document published and one was published back in 2001-2, and another was revised in 2006. It is a large strategy document, not summed up in some reporters sentence. And our strategy in 2008 is different than in 2001. So Mr. Gibson, it doesn't even matter what is in the "bush doctrine" because the only thing that matters is what is McCains foreign policy positions, because that is the administration she will be in. THE VP DOES NOT HAVE THEIR OWN VIEWS, THEY HAVE THE ADMINISTRATIONS VIEWS. Biden and Obama don't agree on several issues themselves. Did anyone ask why Biden voted against the '91 Gulf war, but voted for the Iraq war. Isn't that what Obama hit Hillary on, the vote for Iraq. why is that not an issue, and apparently when another country invades a country and threatened a major supplier of our energy (the Saudi's), we should not have intervened. Biden has foreign policy experience, "BAD" experience, but at least more than Obama's

Posted by: right is right | September 12, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

PAILN, LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS

Ever wonder why Mccain never talks about his son in Iraq? Not because he is being humble, it is because you never identify a solider, who they are with or where they are deployed. For prominent people like politicians it is even more important. It puts everyone in danger who a around that person. You saw the same thing with the prince in Britain they had to actually bring him home.

So now we had this ditz Palin doing a public event around her son and his whole group. Even publishing this:
Private 1st Class Track Palin, is being deployed with 4,000 soldiers of the Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division.

This woman doesn't even no the most basic thing about being in command of anything. So now that everyone has her sons picture and knows where he is going, what happens if we have a nice video of him having his head cut off on camera? Or his whole squad get killed as they are trying to kill or capture him? Think she will be sorry for being so stupid? I actually don't know what to say, this is just short of treason it is so stupid. What next, she is going to tell us where Mccains son is? Maybe some nice infor on our troop strengths and where they are. Good going Palin you pig, you don't have a F'n clue.

Now we get to the worst part. John Mccain knows right off the top of his head you don't do this. Did he do anything to stop it or advise her against it or just plain tell her "DON'T DO THIS IT IS A BAD THING DO"? No he let her put her son and his comrades in added danger because it may help him POLITICLY.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

As for Palin not shaking hands with a foreign head of state, why is that suddenly a requirement for the job?

Because, oh this is tough, let me think.....Uhh, because none of the other foreign leaders are hockey moms? And maybe she wouldn't have Charlie there to explain what the other foreign leaders were trying to explain to her???

Could that be the answer???

Posted by: Basic common sense if you catch my drift | September 12, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Well, Sarah Palin did compare herself (a hockey mom) to a pittbull and the only difference is the lipstick (she wears). According to Sarah: She is a Pitbull with lipstick. Perhaps McCain misheard/misunderstood her and thought Sarah Palin said the only difference between a hockey Mom (Sarah) and a pig is the lipstick?? And now has reflected what HE thought she said on to Senator Obama?? IF so, McCain is deeper into dementia than I originally believed. The man is a SICKO!!

Posted by: NinaK | September 12, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

The Mayans in their infinite mathematical, existential, and eschatological knowledge have predicted the outcome of this election. I mean How do you expect the world to end in 2012? If America votes a reasoned, thinking, and compassionate nominee into the white house. No way, No How, That's how. Thank God, or not, that we have President Bush's spiritual successor in the skirts and lipsticks of Governor Palin, and in the senile hands of Senator McCain. God Bless America.

If anyone doubt her Bush credentials this oughta confirm it once and for all

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1840675,00.html

Posted by: Penseur | September 12, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

.

"Yeah, Charlie, if yer so damn smart then you tell me what the Bush Doctrine is!!"

There is no clear version. Please see:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/09/12/BL2008091201471.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

www.Vietnam Vets Against McCain aka songbird McCain by his vietnemese captors for talking so much.

Posted by: 1 | September 12, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

SPEECHES THAT BLOW LIBERALS COMPLETELY OUT OF THE WATER--

---Bill Clinton’s own words---

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

(Oh, & I wonder what Keith ‘GoOfy’ Olbermann would think about them)

Posted by: Mr Reality | September 12, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Please explain how the current President is hindering education of blacks that Obama would improve upon.

It would take another 8 years to explain it to you.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Moose Hunter:

I don't know if Gov. Palin qualifies as "an average hockey mom" but I have no problem with her being Vice President or, God forbid something bad happens to McCain, President of the United States. Regardless of what you think about starting the Iraq war, Obama was NOT right on the surge -- even he has admitted the surge worked -- that's a major reason why a time table for withdrawal is even possible.

As for Palin not shaking hands with a foreign head of state, why is that suddenly a requirement for the job? I agree with her that not many Vice-Presidential candidates have done so regardless (she will get plenty of practice doing that at all those State Funerals VPs get sent to ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Your right, but your long double posting shows the same poor judgment as your hero Obama.


You republicans are really stooping low by accusing Obama of double posting.

Have you no decentsy or shame? you accuse him of having purple lips. Of doing terrorist fist bumps with his wife Michelle.

And now double posting???

Really you guys are funnier than a rubber dick!!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

.

. . . . . PAGING TIM . . . . .


Tim said:
"I am sure that many dark skinned people are voting for Obama because of skin color. They just happened to be on the side of the fence that will help them get better educated in the future."

Please explain how the current President is hindering education of blacks that Obama would improve upon.

.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

In recent weeks, John McCain and the Republican Party have blatantly and without any shame adopted the Democratic campaign theme of “change”. It should be evident to an objective observer that Bush 43 and now McCain and Pailin are mere puppets to the true Republican national party leaders who control their strings. Cheney is one of the few of that inner cabal that have been calling the shots since the Nixon administration. They are in fact a continuation of the Nixon and Ford presidencies with only a disruption during the Carter and Clinton years. Bush 41( Head of the RNC during Nixon, former head of the CIA,VP to Reagan, and president is probably the real leader of this political Cosa Nostra if not a equal partner of this power sharing musical chairs game. His right and left hands have been Dick Cheney(former Sec.of Defense of Bush 41, former White House Chief of staff for Ford) and the other is Donald Rumsfeld(former Sec. of Defense for Ford and Bush 43,former special envoy to the Middle East during Reagan). Another member of this group, more likely a captain if not a full blown boss himself is James Baker (former C.O.S of Reagan, former Under Sec. of Commerce for Ford, former C.O.S and Sec of State for Bush 41, former Sec. of Treasury for Reagan, former chief legal advisor to Bush 43). Another captain or free lance enforcer is Karl Rove a college drop out and campaign manager for both Bush 41 and 43, also for Phil Gram who is McCain’s economic advisor.
Lets look at McCain’s staff of change.
On July 2, 2008, Steve Schmidt was given "full operational control" of McCain's campaign. Steve Schmidt prior to this was a top aide to Dick Cheney and a protégé to Karl Rove. Another advisor is Charles R. Black worked for Ronald Reagan's two Presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980 and he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 re-election campaign of George H.W. Bush. Another advisor is Randy Scheunemann. He was project director for the Project for the New American Century. A neo-conservative think tank founded by non other than Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Kristol and others in 1996. Other signatories to this group reads like a who’s who of the last 8 years of the republican administration.
These people have never cared about small town america or “values” All they care about is war profiteering. Many of the signatories have never served in the military. Cheney and Rove both dodged the draft. Look at the statement of principles by the PNAC. Rumsfeld was a good friend of Saddam Huessin in the 80’s Cheney didn’t want Nelson Mandela free. These are the real puppet masters, they throw out the talking points about the left of being elitist and not caring about middle america and these same guys other than Rove have advanced degrees and are worth no less than 10 million dollars. People who support them need to extricate their heads out of Limbaugh and Hannity’s asses and see what is really happening to them. McCain is not his own man he confuses stories of his real life with a book he read “The Gulag Archipelago", in which a fellow prisoner - not a guard - silently drew a cross in the dirt with a stick.” An ironic twist to all this is Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2581086/John-McCain-accused-of-plagiarising-Wikipedia-for-speeches.html. Even if you don’t like Obama there is no-way a sane person can want this continued blatant fleecing of our Nation.
Thes are all verifiable facts and can be found just with a google search. AIPAC and PNAC are the military industrial complex.
Other than the ultra affluent, how can anyone support the Republican Party? When will small town America realize that they are being duped into supporting the ultra-affluent agenda? The talking points of the right are so hypocritical that it becomes laughable. The red meat of the right is the so called Main stream Media as if Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are not part of it. They demean celebrity status, however they tout one of their greatest presidents(Reagan) was an actor. They say they are the party of patriotism, yet many of the upper echelon of the party have never served, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Reagan. They say that they care about "Main Street" USA but only bail out the Whales of Wall Street. Yet small town America eat this tripe every year. They don't care about religion unless it can be used to stir up the base, nor science or technology unless there is a buck to be made. Small town America takes pride on its freedom but yet don't realize that over time we are becoming less free, ie wire tapping and other forms of domestic surveillance. They demean people of intelligence because they know many people of small town America don't have degrees and use it at a fake issue and call people who spent time in academia as elitist when many on the right serve on university boards and have part-time professorships. They say they are against affirmitive action but yet celebrate mediocrity, Bush43 and McCain graduating at the bottom of their classes. Who both came from already well established families and had all the opportunities and connections to excel. Why does small town America believes this is the party for them? Christian conservatives seem to the be the first ones who want to go to war and bomb someone before any diplomacy is tried. Why can't small town America and Christian conservatives realize they are being used as pawns just as much the Islamic fundamentalist are. Islamic fundamentalist come from small town Middle East and given the same kind of talking points as the evangelicals. They want prayer in school, no choice available to women, and believe to the core that their ideas about worship and country are the best. Wake up small town America you are being duped.Talking about who is more patriotic, symbols, lipstick and wearing pins are nothing more than distractions to the real issue of how a few select group of people have held power almost continuously for over 30 years. Yes the left has their own political power groups but none have been so effective at pushing forward an agenda that is fundamentally bad for the U.S. and in a larger view the entire world. I stress again the now defunct PNAC and the AIPAC have been slowly pushing us closer to another World War. Bush41 and et al have been doing this and no one calls them on it. Every Republican administration has basically the same people recycled since Nixon. Just do a little research and you will see that these people are just pushing this agenda of some kind of Pax Americana and not taking into account that maybe other nations of the world might not like that and if not bomb them.Many people who support the Republican party, really need to read "1984" by George Orwell and see how we as nation have been inching closer to that type of society. People think this story is about a communist society, but it is more about how a society is kept in a constant state of fear in order for the ruling class to stay in control. Doublespeak, patriotism to the point of frenzy, censorship, erosion of civil liberties (not respecting the Constitution) is happening right in front of us. The consolidation of government (the executive branch has never been more powerful than ever, gridlocked legislature with only two parties for representation, a judiciary that just kowtows to the executive branch). No real independent journalism. Cameras placed on every street corner. This may sound like delusional conspiracy stuff, but I implore people to research for themselves to really see what is happening to them. People think this could never happen here in the U.S. but all this has already happening, slowly, incrementally all under the guise of "keeping America safe"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

A separatist on Lincoln's party.

It is shameful.
Almost treasonous.

Posted by: jOs | September 12, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

The American people (the real family values ones) won't stand for this type of guy as an example to our children. He would only be the 2nd divorced President in our history. Ronald Regean was the first but his wife left him because she felt, it seems, that he wasn't a big enough star.

Leaving your wife in her 40s for a cute, young, rich girl whose father could help you get elected to Congress. This is the type of behavior that real Christians detest.

Posted by: DougH1 | September 12, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"In what respect, Charlie?"

Palinspeak for "Yeah, Charlie, if yer so damn smart then you tell me what the Bush Doctrine is!!"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't the press reporting on the issue of Republicans in both Wisconsin and Michigan planning on disenfranchising minority voters?!?!? Whatever happened to one person, one vote??? What are the Rethugs afraid of - that someone might actually, like, vote?

READ THESE LINKS AND SEE JUST HOW UNBELIEVABLY INHUMAN THE REPUBLICANS ARE - IT'S SHAMEFUL TO BE REPUBLICAN TODAY

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h9pxGlK3YYte2ZHnD5o8YW2RvVRQD93534MO0

http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote

Posted by: Why??? | September 12, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

.

To need4trth:
Your right, but your long double posting shows the same poor judgment as your hero Obama.


.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

McCain:

"Listen, mayors have the toughest job, I think, in America. It's easy for me to go to Washington and, frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have."


Finally! Some frank and honest straight talk from the guy (McCain) who doesn't know how to use computers, owns eight homes, thinks "middle class" is anything under $5 million, thinks people suffering economically are whiners, and -- yes -- thinks that being the mayor of a town with 6,000 residents is somehow qualified to run the United States of America.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxT0s_I5WtA
.

Posted by: ZappoDave | September 12, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"(and if you don't think Obama rides around in protected motorcades, too, you would be mistaken ; )"


Really? In this country?

Who would think that the first BLACK Presidential contender might be in danger? Not to mention that all Presidents and Presidential candidates are protected by the US Secret Service...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

That, and the fact that McCain doesn't use a computer, is all they got lately?

How is he going to activate the launch sequence if he can't use a frigging computer?

It's simply a basic requirement of the job. Every other candidate knows this. He could fly an A-4 Skyhawk off a carrier deck but the old dinosaur cannot open Windows?

We need dinosaurs in the Smithsonian, not the White House. Okay, I am being too harsh. He is a living relic so we will put him in the National Zoo.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"Ask your parents about wars in their lifetime. WWI WWII, First of all a Democratic president sent us into those wars. Yes a tough choice but it needed to be done. The Japanese attacked pearl Harbor, The Germans were killing 100,000 or Jews and we jumped in. If not right now you could be speaking Japanese or German. How do you feel about speaking the native tongue of Afganistan, or Iran. Terror never entered your mind until 9/11 when it hit on our shore. Your parents put an end to it with a war to "end all wars" Diplomacy has its place. Were we not diplomatic with the Germans and the Japanese? See what it got us?"


First of all, there is no comparison between the two world wars and the "war on terror". A single terrorist attack cannot be compared to a genocide or foreign invasion...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Who in their right mind wants an average hockey mom and moose hunter to be VP let alone POTUS??? I don't want my president to be just an average schmoe that finished nearly dead last in his Naval class... He needs to be supremely intelligent with unbelievable wisdom and judgment. Obama has been right on the war and on all issues of foreign policy. Both Bush and McSame have followed his lead with both the time tabled withdrawal from Iraq and our military efforts in Afghanistan. Palin hasn't even shaken hands with a foreign head of state...

Posted by: Moose Hunter | September 12, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

NinaK:

McCain said "somewhat divorced" but that's not going to stop you from worshiping the ground Obama walks -- or, does he "hover" -- on (and if you don't think Obama rides around in protected motorcades, too, you would be mistaken ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Talk about being divorced from the issues:

Check out the two VERY, VERY IMPORTANT links below.


---Bill Clinton’s own words---

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

(if the links don't work just copy & paste them)

Why have the Clintons never talked about these speeches. Why has Obama never mentioned them (since the Clintons are now campaigning for him). Why does the liberal press never mention them - of course we all know the answer to that one.

The above links show how 'out of touch' Obama and the rest of the liberals are.period

(Oh, & I wonder what Keith ‘GoOfy’ Olbermann would think about them. He would make some CLUELESS excuse, I am sure)

((apparently liberals are so terrified of these speeches they are completely running from them!!))

Posted by: Mr Reality | September 12, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I just want to remind people it is about the VOTES. In Ohio in 2004 several thousand people (at least) couldn't vote because they couldn't wait the over 3 hours in line in the major cities. I know because I waited in that line. Voter suppression is VERY real and will be used again.


Quit whining. the constitution doesn't gurantee "3 lines, no waiting."

If you waited 3 hours you could have voted. you chose not to wait. Your choice.

I wait 4 years to vote.

Posted by: Anyone responsible for anything they do anymore? | September 12, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

THIS ISN'T FUNNY, IT'S SCARY AS H#LL!

THIS WOMAN IS SO UNQUALIFIED AND CLUELESS THAT IT'S SCARY TO THINK WHAT HER AND GRAMPY WARMONGER MCCAIN WOULD DO IF THEY WERE TO HAPPEN TO GET ELECTED!


Last week, Palin said she didn't know what the Vice President does every day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4gkPXSDtGQ
.


This week, she has no idea what the President has been doing for the last eight years.

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


I thought Gibson was remarkably poised for not laughing in her face.


"In what respect?" That's not even a valid delaying question. There's no other "respect" in which the question can be cast! Do you agree with the doctrine or not?


You can't parse that question. You can shade your answer, but you can't parse the question. Gibson was nearly struck dumb by how easily and quickly she revealed her total ignorance.


Last week she didn't know what the VP did all day. This week, she doesn't know what the President has been doing for eight years.


"In what respect, Charlie?"


I haven't seen a newscaster so dumbfounded by a question since "What's the frequency, Kenneth?"
.

Posted by: McCain = Bush's third term | September 12, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Lincoln is rolling in his grave to have a separatist on his party's ticket.


A separatist in Lincoln's party's ticket.

Palin's husband supported the separation of Alaska from the United States.

Grave rolling.

Poor Lincoln.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

So, Obama concedes all they did was "yack" in the U.S. Senate, but that's not as bad as McCain saying the U.S. Senate is "divorced" from reality that average Americans are struggling with?! That, and the fact that McCain doesn't use a computer, is all they got lately? LOL

McCain is not "completely" out of touch with America. The bump in his polling over Obama has finally given him the lead in State-by-State ELECTORAL COLLEGE numbers too:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Posted by: JakeD |
------------------
JakeD, McCain stated, "It's easy for me to go to Washington and, frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have." He IS finally ADMITTING AND CONFIRMING WHAT MOST OF US ALREADY KNOW: McCAIN IS OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THEIR DAILY LIVES!! When you divorce yourself from the day-to-day challenges people have, you are NOT in touch with the people and their day-to-day challenges and sacrifices, period!! Call it honesty if you like, I choose to call it an unintentional admission and confirmaton that McCain KNOWS he (and Palin) is NOT ready to to MEET our challenges and acknowledge our sacrifices and is THEREFORE NOT READY TO LEAD OUR COUNTRY AND OUR PEOPLE! I am thrilled he said it, though!! God does work in many ways and this, I am sure, is one of God's clear messages via McCain himself!! It couldn't get any better!!! Thank you, Lord!

Posted by: NinaK | September 12, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

What absolutely boggles my mind, is the level to which republicans who earn, on average, $30,000 to $65,000 a year are foaming at the mouth, and screaming at the top of their lungs trying to protect the interests and incomes of those republicans who earn in excess of $250,000-the same people who are, most likely, their bosses. You know, the people who run the companies that these same middle-class republicans b!tch about on payday when they come home from work with their lousy paychecks.

MIDDLE-CLASS REPUBLICANS...WAKE UP! THE RICH PEOPLE WHOM YOU ARE PROTECTING DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT YOU! NEITHER DOES MCAIN, THE GUY YOU ARE VOTING FOR!

WHEN YOU WATCH THIS COUNTRY GOING TO HE11 ON TV-REMEMBER-IT IS NOT SOME HUGE, LONG-RUNNING EPISODE OF "WALKER TEXAS RANGER"; THIS IS REAL-LIFE!! AND YOU AND I ARE GETTING $CREWED!

Posted by: zenplace | September 12, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Not to mention that McSame divorced his 1st wife, who had vigilantly waited for him while he was in Hanoi Hilton for 5 yrs, seeing as she had had a terrible auto accident and had become disfigured, so he could marry a rich woman that hadn't lost her 'figure'. Character? Morals? Integrity? Not McSame.

CHANGE '08

Posted by: Divorced | September 12, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey DS, you are a little long-winded there, aren't you? I got a question. If 40% of americans do not pay income tax, then how is obama going to provide tax relief to 95% of americans. Let's be realistic, the dreamworld obama and the left has fed to the ones who 'feed' off the government is simply to depend more and more on government. To achieve what obama is proposing means that he would have to increase taxes on the 60% of americans who do pay income tax. Bill clinton promised tax relief and he ended up increasing taxes on everyone!

Posted by: amac | September 12, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Mr Reality | September 12, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Okay I am a bit disturbed that Sarah may wake up some morning and think God revealed his plan to her and it involves secret go codes, launch sequences and red activation buttons.

After all "God has a plan for the world" and if she thinks she is qualified to be President she may be dellusional enough to think she heard God's War Plans in a dream one night.

Dr. Sarahlove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb.

Posted by: Purity of Essence | September 12, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Dear Franky:
Are you talking about Jimmy Carter's administration or George Bush's? Just want clarification.

Posted by: Rosemary | September 12, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Well, setting aside the fact that you either don't understand the concept of "marginal" in marginal tax rate or you have the world's worst accountant, Obama's justification for the "tax cuts" for low income folks is that is is a rebate against payroll taxes paid.

Yes, the lowest 44% of tax payers pay no federal income tax, but every single one of them pay a substantially higher percentage of their income on FICA taxes than you so (assuming you really do earn $250K - hard to believe given your grasp of accounting - and isn't *everyone* posting internet comments super rich and oh so smart?).

Anyways, I am not saying I agree or disagree with Obama, or saying if that's a "tax cut" or "welfare," but I thought it was worth pointing out the justification.


______________

I don't know how Obama can say he will give a tax break to 95% of the people. 44% of the population pays NO income tax and the top 5% now pays 80%. How do you give a tax break to someone who pays no tax -- you give them welfare. Thought Obama wanted to eliminate welfare.

I, for one, through my own initiative am just above that $250 K line and am not interested in having my income drop 32% with the Obama plan. I will quit and start a business that looses money -- because that will get a tax incentive. I have done the calculations and I will make more by quiting and living off the new public largess.

Posted by: Anon Internet Postings Are Useless, But We Post 'Em Anyways | September 12, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I just want to remind people it is about the VOTES. In Ohio in 2004 several thousand people (at least) couldn't vote because they couldn't wait the over 3 hours in line in the major cities. I know because I waited in that line. Voter suppression is VERY real and will be used again.

Posted by: PJ | September 12, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

McCain has no honor, he is a two bit lying thug just like Bush and Cheney are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
.


If the corporate media hadn't been carrying McCain's water for him for the last six months he'd already be out of this race:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
.


McCain is a fraud just like Bush and Cheney are. If you want four more years of thuggery and incompetence then you should vote for him because that's what you'll get:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnb2IrsU1Cg
.

Posted by: Bush + McCain = "W:orthless | September 12, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

John McCain, if he ever did have any honor, has completely adjusted himself comfortably into a DISHONORABLE MODE OF DECIET. I have completely lost any respect that I once as a registered Republican (one of the many decieved) had for him. This thing with Sarah Palin and the lack of the Press REALLY PINNING JOHN McCain and Sarah Palin down and holding them accountable for these..., there's no other PHRASE that describes it more accurately than a quote from the book by Al Franken, " LIES, and the LYING LIARS THAT TELL THEM."

The RNC IS RUNNING WITH THIS LIE LIKE BATS FLYING OUT OF HELL. They remain UNCHALLENGED BY THE PRESS CORP. Even in the Presidential FORUM LAST NIGHT IT WAS HARDLY TOUCHED. The press and the CORPORATE MEDIA continue to Laud the so-called honor of John McCain while his action are anything but HONORABLE. The RNC and senator john mccain and Governor Sarah palign are running a POISONOUS, HITLER/STALIN PRPAGANDA CAMPAIGN.

IT IS NOTHING LESS THAN THIS. Yet, McCain walks about as though he is divorced from his actions. Where is the fulfillment of our AMERICAN MEDIAS CIVIC DUTY to challenge things and politics which are UNAMERICAN and CORRUPT? The RNC and Mccain camp ARE ENGAGED IN OUTRIGHT HITLER LIKE PROPAGANDA. This is an ASSAULT ON OUR AMERICAN CONSCEINCE AND INTELLIGENCE.

HERE ARE A COUPLE OF FACTS FROM FACTCHECK.ORG AND POLITIFACT.COM

The McCain camp has put out a Web ad painting Obama as “ready to smear.”

McCain ad, “Lipstick”

[Title: Sarah Palin on: Sarah Palin]

Palin: Do you know they say, the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.

[Title: Barack Obama on: Sarah Palin]

Obama: But you know, you can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.

[Title: Katie Couric on: This election]

Couric: One of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued and accepted role of sexism in American life.

[Title: Ready to lead? No. Ready to smear? Yes.]

Let’s start with what the ad gets right. It does seem to be true that Republican v.p. candidate Sarah Palin wears lipstick. And it’s true that she mentioned this particular cosmetic choice at the convention, when she joked that lipstick is the only difference between a hockey mom and pit bull, as the ad shows before it goes completely off the rails. If this were a CoverGirl commercial, we’d be all set.

But it’s not; it’s a political ad. And it goes on to imply that Obama made a personal dig at Palin, calling her a “pig,” and that commentators decried his sexism for derailing the campaign. This is bunk. Let’s look at what Obama actually said at a campaign rally in Virginia:

Obama, Sept. 9: John McCain says he’s about change too. And so I guess his whole angle is, watch out, George Bush — except for economic policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics, we’re really going to shake things up in Washington. That’s not change. That’s just calling some, the same thing something different. You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

Here’s what the McCain campaign heard, according to ABC News’ Jake Tapper:

Tapper, Sept. 10: Asked why she was so confident Obama was “comparing” Palin to a pig, [former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift, on behalf of the McCain campaign,] said Palin was the only one of the four candidates on both parties’ tickets who wears lipstick.

“She is the only one of the four candidates for president or the only vice presidential candidate who wears lipstick,” Swift said. “I mean it seemed to me a very gendered comment.”

But, Swift added, if “as part of his apology Senator Obama wants to say no he was calling Senator McCain — who is a true hero in our country a pig — then I suppose we could wait en masse for an apology to that as well.”

For starters, Swift is ignoring the fact that “putting lipstick on a pig” is a hoary old expression of the same caliber as “building a better mousetrap” or “letting the cat out of the bag.” We did a quick Nexis search on uses of the expression before Tuesday, and found 2,290 instances dating back to 1985 (which is as far back as most Nexis news goes). Its meaning is precisely what Obama was talking about in his speech: calling the same thing something different. Context for the phrase in the last two decades ranged from health care to taxes to fashion to business to, uh, pig racing. It has tumbled from the lips of sports commissioners, librarians and company spokesmen, but it’s particularly popular with politicians. (Congressional newspaper The Hill even featured the phrase in its “Congress Speak” column.) It’s been spotted as far away as New Zealand. It’s even the title of a book by former McCain press aide Torie Clarke.

As several people (including Tapper, Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic, Ben Smith at Politico, the Obama campaign and some of our readers) have pointed out, John McCain employed the phrase in 2007, in talking about Hillary Clinton’s health care plan: “I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” Oh, and he also said it about Iraq war strategy – if it’s really a personal smear, it’s not clear who’s wearing the lipstick in that example. Obama has used the expression before, too (also in referring to Iraq strategy). But before either McCain or Obama speculated on porcine cosmetics, members of Congress from Rick Santorum to Ted Kennedy had been talking pig lips for years.

If the McCain campaign wants to get literal, ignoring the expression’s long political pedigree, they could go whole hog (as it were) and look at what Obama actually said. He is talking about John McCain’s policies, not about his running mate. “Barack Obama on Sarah Palin”? Not at all.

And “Katie Couric on this election”? Well, it depends on what your definition of “this” is. Couric was referring to the Hillary Clinton campaign, long before Palin was tapped for v.p. Hey, remember when McCain called Clinton’s health plan “lipstick on a pig”?

Posted under Presidential Election 2008, Sarah Palin

This post was written by Jess Henig on September 10, 2008

Don’t mess with us

We were displeased, to say the least, when the McCain campaign released a new TV ad today making it seem as though FactCheck.org was endorsing its claims that Obama is making stuff up about Palin. So we posted this article on our home page:

McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding

September 10, 2008

Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn’t come from Obama.

Posted under FactCheck.org

This post was written by Brooks Jackson on September 10, 2008

If They Keep Saying It, It Must Be So

Today’s Washington Post has a story about the repetition of deceptive statements in the campaign, leading with McCain’s and Palin’s claim that Palin told Congress “Thanks, but no thanks” for the Bridge to Nowhere. It’s a standard line in their stump speeches, despite the fact that we and a slew of news organizations have explained that it’s extremely misleading, at best. One quote from a GOP strategist: “[T]he bigger truths are that [Palin]’s new, she’s popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent. As long as those are out there, these little facts don’t really matter.” Hmmm. (Full disclosure: The article credits FactCheck.org with puncturing a couple of claims about Palin, but that’s not why we recommend it. Also, for more on why repetition works, see our Special Report, “Cognitive Science and FactCheck.org, or Why We (Still) Do What We Do.”)

Posted under Barack Obama, E-mail Rumors, FactCheck.org, John McCain, Presidential Election 2008, Sarah Palin

Kindergarten Sex Ed? Hardly

By Angie Drobnic Holan

Published on Thursday, September 11th, 2008 at 11:15 a.m.

SUMMARY: A McCain ad says Education Week trashed Obama's education plans and that Obama wants "comprehensive" sex ed for kindergartners. The Truth-O-Meter says Wrong.

John McCain released an ad this week making the accusation that Barack Obama supports sex education for five-year-olds.

Here's what the ad says:

"Education Week says Obama 'hasn't made a significant mark on education,' that he's 'elusive' on accountability, a 'staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.'

Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners.

Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."

Let's look first at the claim that Obama wants five-year-olds to learn about sex.

The origins of this claim go back to Obama's days as a state senator in the Illinois General Assembly.

In 2003, the Assembly considered a bill to expand sex education directives from grades 6 through 12 to grades K through 12. The legislation required the curriculum to be medically accurate and include information on the prevention of HIV and contraceptives. It also said abstinence must be taught and that students "shall be encouraged to base their actions on reasoning, self-discipline, sense of responsibility, self-control, and ethical considerations, such as respect for oneself and others."

Most pertinent to the kindergarten allegation, the legislation states that "course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate."

Carol Ronen, the now-retired state senator who sponsored the bill, said its main intent was to make sure that teenagers got information that was "medically accurate," a requirement that wasn't then part of the school code. A secondary effect was to expand age-appropriate sex education down to lower grades, to allow things like teaching school children to avoid sex predators, Ronen said.

"Barack never had anything to do with it," she said. "This is a lot of hoopla."

Obama voted for the legislation in committee on a party-line vote. He was not a sponsor nor a co-sponsor, and the legislation never made it to a full Senate vote. So calling it one of his accomplishments is wrong, since it never became law and it wasn't his bill anyway.

This isn't the first time Obama has faced the "sex ed for kindergartners" charge. When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his opponent Alan Keyes used it. "Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it," Obama said at a campaign event in 2004. "If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards."

Because the legislation doesn't say what the ad implies it said, and because it was not sponsored by Obama and didn't pass, calling it one of his "accomplishments" is absurd. We rated this claim Pants on Fire!

Now to the lesser accusation, that Education Week deplores Obama's record on education.

Education Week did write that Obama "hasn't made a significant mark on education," but the phrase is plucked out of its original context. It's is from a long article written during the Democratic primary that reviewed Obama's positions on education, particularly in comparison with the other Democratic candidates.

Here's the full quote:

"In his eight years in the state Senate and two years in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama hasn’t made a significant mark on education policy. In Illinois, his biggest accomplishments were in reforming state ethics rules and capital punishment. He did promote early-childhood initiatives that advocates considered 'innovative and progressive,' said Betsy D. Mitchell, a lobbyist for the Illinois Association for the Education of Young Children. "His biggest accomplishment in the field was the creation of a state board to oversee the expansion of early-childhood education in the state, Ms. Mitchell said."

So Education Week did write the words "hasn't made a significant mark on education," but it was not as disparaging a remark as the ad makes it out to be.

The audio portion of the ad is misleading because Education Week did not say Obama was "elusive" or a "staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly." People who only hear the audio portion of the ad will not know that those two phrases are attributed to other publications. And, more significantly, those last two quotes come from opinion columns not news stories, which isn't made clear in the audio or video.

The "elusive" description is from a July 7, 2008, Washington Post editorial that says both candidates have fuzzy education proposals.

"Mr. McCain has not been forthcoming with any detailed plan; he is said to be preparing one for the fall. Mr. Obama, as the New York Times' David Brooks recently observed, has promised dozens of crowd-pleasing programs but has been elusive on such thorny issues as teacher tenure and school accountability," said the editorial.

The charge that Obama is a "staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly" comes from a Chicago Tribune opinion piece by Steve Chapman. That brief quote does accurately capture the substance of Chapman's piece, which criticizes Obama for not embracing school vouchers. We rated this statement Barely True.

Lipstick, pigs and pit bulls

By Angie Drobnic Holan

Published on Wednesday, September 10th, 2008 at 06:33 p.m.

SUMMARY: Not quite a week after Gov. Sarah Palin joked about hockey moms being like pit bulls with lipstick, the McCain and Obama campaigns spar sharply over the phrase, "it's like putting lipstick on a pig."

The story begins, like so many these days, with Gov. Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention last week. Having stirred the crowd to its feet more than once, Palin delivered a knock-out line when she deadpanned:

“I love those hockey moms. You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.” The line drew cheerful applause and has echoed ever since, which seems to explain how Sen. Barack Obama found himself in the middle of an uproar when he uttered a time-worn phrase to denigrate Sen. John McCain’s proclaimed agenda for “change” in Washington.

After declaring that McCain will follow the policies of President Bush on economics, health care, taxes, education and foreign affairs Obama said, “That’s not change. That’s just calling the same thing something different. But you know, you can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.”

Gasp! He just said lipstick! Did he just call Sarah Palin a pig??!!!

That’s the charge.

Later that day, the McCain campaign arranged a conference call for reporters with Jane Swift, the former governor of Massachusetts. She said that when you add up Obama’s comments and Palin’s comments, you get Obama calling Palin a pig. Swift said Obama should apologize.

“Calling a very prominent female governor of one of our states a ‘pig’ is not exactly what we want to see,” Swift said.

The issue has dominated the presidential campaign for two days, with the McCain campaign stirring a controversy by having local lawmakers call for Obama to apologize, and the Obama campaign responding with examples of how often he and others have used the phrase. The Obama campaign called McCain’s campaign tactics “lies and phony outrage and Swift-boat politics.

On Wednesday, the McCain campaign released a Web ad called “Lipstick.” It begins with a clip of Palin delivering her lipstick line, then text flashes on the screen saying “Barack Obama on: Sarah Palin.” A moment later, the ad plays a small portion of Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” remark, but not enough of his quotation to make clear what he was talking about. The ad concludes with a clip of CBS anchor Katie Couric soberly remarking on sexism on the campaign trail.

The ad has two big problems, as does the complaint of former Gov. Swift. First, in the full text of the remarks it’s clear that Obama isn’t talking about Sarah Palin. He’s talking about McCain’s argument that he represents change.

Second, “putting lipstick on a pig” is a popular put-down, especially among politicians. It generally means taking a bad or unattractive idea and trying to dress it up.

We weren’t able to pin down the origins of this folksy expression, but we found tons of instances of people using it. It’s so common, the political newspaper The Hill labeled the phrase “Congress Speak” back in June, and gave it an official definition: “an expression used to illustrate that something unattractive cannot be beautified or otherwise positively changed by any amount of makeup or other exterior alterations.”

Obama and McCain both have used the expression.

In September 2007, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson quoted Obama using the phrase to discuss Iraq policy:

“I think that both Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are capable people who have been given an impossible assignment,” Obama said. “George Bush has given a mission to Gen. Petraeus, and he has done his best to try to figure out how to put lipstick on a pig.”

In Iowa on Oct. 11, 2007, McCain panned Sen. Hillary Clinton’s health care plan, calling it “eerily reminiscent” of the plan that failed during Bill Clinton’s administration, according to a report in the Chicago Tribune.

“I think they put some lipstick on a pig,” McCain said, “but it’s still a pig.”

On Feb. 1, 2007, McCain blasted a Senate resolution that would have criticized President Bush’s strategy in Iraq. Some had praised the resolution as a compromise measure, but McCain disagreed. “It gets down to whether you support what is being done in this new strategy or you don’t,” McCain said. “You can put lipstick on a pig, [but] it’s still a pig, in my view.”

It is simply impossible to view the complete remarks by Obama and conclude that he’s making a veiled and unsavory reference to Palin. Her name never is used in the preceding sentence. In fact, it’s hard to see how one could interpret Obama’s lipstick-on-a-pig remark as referring directly to McCain, either.

We think it’s very clear that Obama was saying McCain’s effort to call himself the “candidate of change” is like putting lipstick on a pig, trying to dress up a bad idea to look better. Agree or disagree with Obama’s point, but his remark wasn’t the smear that McCain’s people have tried to make it.

If anyone’s doing any smearing, it’s the McCain campaign and its outrageous attempt to distort the facts. Did Obama call Palin a pig? No, and saying so is Pants on Fire wrong.

These are the facts. Yet, the AMERICAN CORPORATE MEDIA LEAVE ANY LIES MCCAIN LAUNCHES UNCHALLENGED. The Free Ride for McCain continues as the CORPORATE MEDIA attempts yet again to STEAL AN ELECTION for the RNC by remaining TIGHTLIPPED AND ONESIDED. The corporate MEDIA CONTINUES TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH ABOUT The WARMONGER and would be KING GEORGE BUSH THE 2ND, John McCain .

Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: need4trth | September 12, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

John McCain, if he ever did have any honor, has completely adjusted himself comfortably into a DISHONORABLE MODE OF DECIET. I have completely lost any respect that I once as a registered Republican (one of the many decieved) had for him. This thing with Sarah Palin and the lack of the Press REALLY PINNING JOHN McCain and Sarah Palin down and holding them accountable for these..., there's no other PHRASE that describes it more accurately than a quote from the book by Al Franken, " LIES, and the LYING LIARS THAT TELL THEM."

The RNC IS RUNNING WITH THIS LIE LIKE BATS FLYING OUT OF HELL. They remain UNCHALLENGED BY THE PRESS CORP. Even in the Presidential FORUM LAST NIGHT IT WAS HARDLY TOUCHED. The press and the CORPORATE MEDIA continue to Laud the so-called honor of John McCain while his action are anything but HONORABLE. The RNC and senator john mccain and Governor Sarah palign are running a POISONOUS, HITLER/STALIN PRPAGANDA CAMPAIGN.

IT IS NOTHING LESS THAN THIS. Yet, McCain walks about as though he is divorced from his actions. Where is the fulfillment of our AMERICAN MEDIAS CIVIC DUTY to challenge things and politics which are UNAMERICAN and CORRUPT? The RNC and Mccain camp ARE ENGAGED IN OUTRIGHT HITLER LIKE PROPAGANDA. This is an ASSAULT ON OUR AMERICAN CONSCEINCE AND INTELLIGENCE.

HERE ARE A COUPLE OF FACTS FROM FACTCHECK.ORG AND POLITIFACT.COM

The McCain camp has put out a Web ad painting Obama as “ready to smear.”

McCain ad, “Lipstick”

[Title: Sarah Palin on: Sarah Palin]

Palin: Do you know they say, the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.

[Title: Barack Obama on: Sarah Palin]

Obama: But you know, you can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.

[Title: Katie Couric on: This election]

Couric: One of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued and accepted role of sexism in American life.

[Title: Ready to lead? No. Ready to smear? Yes.]

Let’s start with what the ad gets right. It does seem to be true that Republican v.p. candidate Sarah Palin wears lipstick. And it’s true that she mentioned this particular cosmetic choice at the convention, when she joked that lipstick is the only difference between a hockey mom and pit bull, as the ad shows before it goes completely off the rails. If this were a CoverGirl commercial, we’d be all set.

But it’s not; it’s a political ad. And it goes on to imply that Obama made a personal dig at Palin, calling her a “pig,” and that commentators decried his sexism for derailing the campaign. This is bunk. Let’s look at what Obama actually said at a campaign rally in Virginia:

Obama, Sept. 9: John McCain says he’s about change too. And so I guess his whole angle is, watch out, George Bush — except for economic policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics, we’re really going to shake things up in Washington. That’s not change. That’s just calling some, the same thing something different. You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

Here’s what the McCain campaign heard, according to ABC News’ Jake Tapper:

Tapper, Sept. 10: Asked why she was so confident Obama was “comparing” Palin to a pig, [former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift, on behalf of the McCain campaign,] said Palin was the only one of the four candidates on both parties’ tickets who wears lipstick.

“She is the only one of the four candidates for president or the only vice presidential candidate who wears lipstick,” Swift said. “I mean it seemed to me a very gendered comment.”

But, Swift added, if “as part of his apology Senator Obama wants to say no he was calling Senator McCain — who is a true hero in our country a pig — then I suppose we could wait en masse for an apology to that as well.”

For starters, Swift is ignoring the fact that “putting lipstick on a pig” is a hoary old expression of the same caliber as “building a better mousetrap” or “letting the cat out of the bag.” We did a quick Nexis search on uses of the expression before Tuesday, and found 2,290 instances dating back to 1985 (which is as far back as most Nexis news goes). Its meaning is precisely what Obama was talking about in his speech: calling the same thing something different. Context for the phrase in the last two decades ranged from health care to taxes to fashion to business to, uh, pig racing. It has tumbled from the lips of sports commissioners, librarians and company spokesmen, but it’s particularly popular with politicians. (Congressional newspaper The Hill even featured the phrase in its “Congress Speak” column.) It’s been spotted as far away as New Zealand. It’s even the title of a book by former McCain press aide Torie Clarke.

As several people (including Tapper, Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic, Ben Smith at Politico, the Obama campaign and some of our readers) have pointed out, John McCain employed the phrase in 2007, in talking about Hillary Clinton’s health care plan: “I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” Oh, and he also said it about Iraq war strategy – if it’s really a personal smear, it’s not clear who’s wearing the lipstick in that example. Obama has used the expression before, too (also in referring to Iraq strategy). But before either McCain or Obama speculated on porcine cosmetics, members of Congress from Rick Santorum to Ted Kennedy had been talking pig lips for years.

If the McCain campaign wants to get literal, ignoring the expression’s long political pedigree, they could go whole hog (as it were) and look at what Obama actually said. He is talking about John McCain’s policies, not about his running mate. “Barack Obama on Sarah Palin”? Not at all.

And “Katie Couric on this election”? Well, it depends on what your definition of “this” is. Couric was referring to the Hillary Clinton campaign, long before Palin was tapped for v.p. Hey, remember when McCain called Clinton’s health plan “lipstick on a pig”?

Posted under Presidential Election 2008, Sarah Palin

This post was written by Jess Henig on September 10, 2008

Don’t mess with us

We were displeased, to say the least, when the McCain campaign released a new TV ad today making it seem as though FactCheck.org was endorsing its claims that Obama is making stuff up about Palin. So we posted this article on our home page:

McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding

September 10, 2008

Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn’t come from Obama.

Posted under FactCheck.org

This post was written by Brooks Jackson on September 10, 2008

If They Keep Saying It, It Must Be So

Today’s Washington Post has a story about the repetition of deceptive statements in the campaign, leading with McCain’s and Palin’s claim that Palin told Congress “Thanks, but no thanks” for the Bridge to Nowhere. It’s a standard line in their stump speeches, despite the fact that we and a slew of news organizations have explained that it’s extremely misleading, at best. One quote from a GOP strategist: “[T]he bigger truths are that [Palin]’s new, she’s popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent. As long as those are out there, these little facts don’t really matter.” Hmmm. (Full disclosure: The article credits FactCheck.org with puncturing a couple of claims about Palin, but that’s not why we recommend it. Also, for more on why repetition works, see our Special Report, “Cognitive Science and FactCheck.org, or Why We (Still) Do What We Do.”)

Posted under Barack Obama, E-mail Rumors, FactCheck.org, John McCain, Presidential Election 2008, Sarah Palin

Kindergarten Sex Ed? Hardly

By Angie Drobnic Holan

Published on Thursday, September 11th, 2008 at 11:15 a.m.

SUMMARY: A McCain ad says Education Week trashed Obama's education plans and that Obama wants "comprehensive" sex ed for kindergartners. The Truth-O-Meter says Wrong.

John McCain released an ad this week making the accusation that Barack Obama supports sex education for five-year-olds.

Here's what the ad says:

"Education Week says Obama 'hasn't made a significant mark on education,' that he's 'elusive' on accountability, a 'staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.'

Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners.

Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."

Let's look first at the claim that Obama wants five-year-olds to learn about sex.

The origins of this claim go back to Obama's days as a state senator in the Illinois General Assembly.

In 2003, the Assembly considered a bill to expand sex education directives from grades 6 through 12 to grades K through 12. The legislation required the curriculum to be medically accurate and include information on the prevention of HIV and contraceptives. It also said abstinence must be taught and that students "shall be encouraged to base their actions on reasoning, self-discipline, sense of responsibility, self-control, and ethical considerations, such as respect for oneself and others."

Most pertinent to the kindergarten allegation, the legislation states that "course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate."

Carol Ronen, the now-retired state senator who sponsored the bill, said its main intent was to make sure that teenagers got information that was "medically accurate," a requirement that wasn't then part of the school code. A secondary effect was to expand age-appropriate sex education down to lower grades, to allow things like teaching school children to avoid sex predators, Ronen said.

"Barack never had anything to do with it," she said. "This is a lot of hoopla."

Obama voted for the legislation in committee on a party-line vote. He was not a sponsor nor a co-sponsor, and the legislation never made it to a full Senate vote. So calling it one of his accomplishments is wrong, since it never became law and it wasn't his bill anyway.

This isn't the first time Obama has faced the "sex ed for kindergartners" charge. When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his opponent Alan Keyes used it. "Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it," Obama said at a campaign event in 2004. "If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards."

Because the legislation doesn't say what the ad implies it said, and because it was not sponsored by Obama and didn't pass, calling it one of his "accomplishments" is absurd. We rated this claim Pants on Fire!

Now to the lesser accusation, that Education Week deplores Obama's record on education.

Education Week did write that Obama "hasn't made a significant mark on education," but the phrase is plucked out of its original context. It's is from a long article written during the Democratic primary that reviewed Obama's positions on education, particularly in comparison with the other Democratic candidates.

Here's the full quote:

"In his eight years in the state Senate and two years in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama hasn’t made a significant mark on education policy. In Illinois, his biggest accomplishments were in reforming state ethics rules and capital punishment. He did promote early-childhood initiatives that advocates considered 'innovative and progressive,' said Betsy D. Mitchell, a lobbyist for the Illinois Association for the Education of Young Children. "His biggest accomplishment in the field was the creation of a state board to oversee the expansion of early-childhood education in the state, Ms. Mitchell said."

So Education Week did write the words "hasn't made a significant mark on education," but it was not as disparaging a remark as the ad makes it out to be.

The audio portion of the ad is misleading because Education Week did not say Obama was "elusive" or a "staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly." People who only hear the audio portion of the ad will not know that those two phrases are attributed to other publications. And, more significantly, those last two quotes come from opinion columns not news stories, which isn't made clear in the audio or video.

The "elusive" description is from a July 7, 2008, Washington Post editorial that says both candidates have fuzzy education proposals.

"Mr. McCain has not been forthcoming with any detailed plan; he is said to be preparing one for the fall. Mr. Obama, as the New York Times' David Brooks recently observed, has promised dozens of crowd-pleasing programs but has been elusive on such thorny issues as teacher tenure and school accountability," said the editorial.

The charge that Obama is a "staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly" comes from a Chicago Tribune opinion piece by Steve Chapman. That brief quote does accurately capture the substance of Chapman's piece, which criticizes Obama for not embracing school vouchers. We rated this statement Barely True.

Lipstick, pigs and pit bulls

By Angie Drobnic Holan

Published on Wednesday, September 10th, 2008 at 06:33 p.m.

SUMMARY: Not quite a week after Gov. Sarah Palin joked about hockey moms being like pit bulls with lipstick, the McCain and Obama campaigns spar sharply over the phrase, "it's like putting lipstick on a pig."

The story begins, like so many these days, with Gov. Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention last week. Having stirred the crowd to its feet more than once, Palin delivered a knock-out line when she deadpanned:

“I love those hockey moms. You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.” The line drew cheerful applause and has echoed ever since, which seems to explain how Sen. Barack Obama found himself in the middle of an uproar when he uttered a time-worn phrase to denigrate Sen. John McCain’s proclaimed agenda for “change” in Washington.

After declaring that McCain will follow the policies of President Bush on economics, health care, taxes, education and foreign affairs Obama said, “That’s not change. That’s just calling the same thing something different. But you know, you can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.”

Gasp! He just said lipstick! Did he just call Sarah Palin a pig??!!!

That’s the charge.

Later that day, the McCain campaign arranged a conference call for reporters with Jane Swift, the former governor of Massachusetts. She said that when you add up Obama’s comments and Palin’s comments, you get Obama calling Palin a pig. Swift said Obama should apologize.

“Calling a very prominent female governor of one of our states a ‘pig’ is not exactly what we want to see,” Swift said.

The issue has dominated the presidential campaign for two days, with the McCain campaign stirring a controversy by having local lawmakers call for Obama to apologize, and the Obama campaign responding with examples of how often he and others have used the phrase. The Obama campaign called McCain’s campaign tactics “lies and phony outrage and Swift-boat politics.

On Wednesday, the McCain campaign released a Web ad called “Lipstick.” It begins with a clip of Palin delivering her lipstick line, then text flashes on the screen saying “Barack Obama on: Sarah Palin.” A moment later, the ad plays a small portion of Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” remark, but not enough of his quotation to make clear what he was talking about. The ad concludes with a clip of CBS anchor Katie Couric soberly remarking on sexism on the campaign trail.

The ad has two big problems, as does the complaint of former Gov. Swift. First, in the full text of the remarks it’s clear that Obama isn’t talking about Sarah Palin. He’s talking about McCain’s argument that he represents change.

Second, “putting lipstick on a pig” is a popular put-down, especially among politicians. It generally means taking a bad or unattractive idea and trying to dress it up.

We weren’t able to pin down the origins of this folksy expression, but we found tons of instances of people using it. It’s so common, the political newspaper The Hill labeled the phrase “Congress Speak” back in June, and gave it an official definition: “an expression used to illustrate that something unattractive cannot be beautified or otherwise positively changed by any amount of makeup or other exterior alterations.”

Obama and McCain both have used the expression.

In September 2007, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson quoted Obama using the phrase to discuss Iraq policy:

“I think that both Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are capable people who have been given an impossible assignment,” Obama said. “George Bush has given a mission to Gen. Petraeus, and he has done his best to try to figure out how to put lipstick on a pig.”

In Iowa on Oct. 11, 2007, McCain panned Sen. Hillary Clinton’s health care plan, calling it “eerily reminiscent” of the plan that failed during Bill Clinton’s administration, according to a report in the Chicago Tribune.

“I think they put some lipstick on a pig,” McCain said, “but it’s still a pig.”

On Feb. 1, 2007, McCain blasted a Senate resolution that would have criticized President Bush’s strategy in Iraq. Some had praised the resolution as a compromise measure, but McCain disagreed. “It gets down to whether you support what is being done in this new strategy or you don’t,” McCain said. “You can put lipstick on a pig, [but] it’s still a pig, in my view.”

It is simply impossible to view the complete remarks by Obama and conclude that he’s making a veiled and unsavory reference to Palin. Her name never is used in the preceding sentence. In fact, it’s hard to see how one could interpret Obama’s lipstick-on-a-pig remark as referring directly to McCain, either.

We think it’s very clear that Obama was saying McCain’s effort to call himself the “candidate of change” is like putting lipstick on a pig, trying to dress up a bad idea to look better. Agree or disagree with Obama’s point, but his remark wasn’t the smear that McCain’s people have tried to make it.

If anyone’s doing any smearing, it’s the McCain campaign and its outrageous attempt to distort the facts. Did Obama call Palin a pig? No, and saying so is Pants on Fire wrong.

These are the facts. Yet, the AMERICAN CORPORATE MEDIA LEAVE ANY LIES MCCAIN LAUNCHES UNCHALLENGED. The Free Ride for McCain continues as the CORPORATE MEDIA attempts yet again to STEAL AN ELECTION for the RNC by remaining TIGHTLIPPED AND ONESIDED. The corporate MEDIA CONTINUES TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH ABOUT The WARMONGER and would be KING GEORGE BUSH THE 2ND, John McCain .

Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: need4trth | September 12, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

.

To indytucker:

RE What is the Bush Doctrine?
There is no clear answer, as there have been six different versions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/09/12/BL2008091201471.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Jonathan Weisman:

Next time you "UPDATE" your article, can you please do so with italics or bold or otherwise indicate what was changed? Thanks in advance.

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

>But the nature of life isn't all that vague to anyone who has studied biology.

Oh yes it is. Life, defined in terms of factual observations rather than some mythical "soul", is a multidimensional continuum. A particular entity can be more alive in some ways and less alive in others.

The "when life begins" question implies that life is a binary distinction - but it's not. There is no point in human development where the relevant entities are not alive. If life had a beginning, it was four billion years ago.

Posted by: John | September 12, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

There is no "bright line" at conception. It is a biochemical process just like other stages of life. Truth is, from a biology standpoint, "when does life begin?" is a meaningless question.

Posted by: imback | September 12, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I marvel at the way McCain and his minions dodge any question that probes how is economic policies will differ from Bush's.

Truth is they don't have to answer that question. Their followers could care less if the economy does worse as long as the President they elect wants to elect judges that will strike down Roe vs Wade and make most abortion illegal.

This has to be, from his track record, the most anti family values presidential candidate yet. He left his first wife in her 40s with 3 kids to raise alone while he married a girl in her 20s.

He cheated on her for months before she finally granted him the divorce. He got a marriage license before the divorce was final and married the rich young Cindy a little over month after the divorce became final.

He hasn't got the values of a good parent let alone a good President.

Shame on him for doing that to his first wife and his children.

Posted by: DougH | September 12, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

mccain is the worst kind of self glory politican who tells a big lie that no reported will touch namely what happened in nam. no one offered mccain the chance to go home and that story about the cross in a sand is a made up story taken from a book

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Joe:

Do you think that illegible voters in Ohio should be allowed to vote?

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"It's a hypothetical question -- specious or not -- just like Charlie Gibson's to Gov. Palin last night."

Well if Palin had called Chuck out on that it would have upped my respect for her. :)

Hell, if McCain or Obama would talk about the situation in terms of reality instead of blustering so they seem tough on security and policy issues it would up my respect for them too.

Posted by: DougB | September 12, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to think when we elect a VP the person has good approval by most people.

Not someone who divides us in to two groups each side claiming the glass is half full or half empty.

Palin is a 50/50 risk or bet on whether she is qualified.

Not good odds for a potential President. Okay for governor maybe.

But do we really think we have the luxury of just putting anyone into that position?

Sarah Palin--Leader of the Free World, President of the United States, Commander-in-Chief of the largest military in the world, including 5,000 nuclear war heads?

What is this, an episode of the Twilight Zone???

Sarah, do the right thing. Call up Charlie and tell him this whole thing was a horrible mistake. He'll understand. You still have time to get out.

We weren't going to vote for McSurge anyways!!

Posted by: Say What? | September 12, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Wow, and I thought only Republicans could be illiterate and ignorant. Judging by the comments of some Obama supporters here, the gap isn't that big between the two parties.

For the people who CANNOT read: The U.S is a NATO member (a founding one), and Art.5 of NATO says:
* "The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all...."* and all NATO countries go to war.
Which is WHAT PALIN SAID (if Russia attacked a NATO country).

The United States used that same article after Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and NATO is fighting in Afghanistan today. So you want NATO's help but in return you wouldn't help?!

What do they teach in American schools?!

Posted by: Tony D. | September 12, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Biden must focus on the double talk and outright lies being spouted by McCain/ Palin. She lied about the eBay plane sale, about the Bridge to Nowhere, about her love for earmarks when mayor, about Troopergate; It is doubletalk to say McCain fought Republicans when he voted with Bush 93% of time on all major issues including war, taxes and healthcare. The Rove people are experts at using propaganda techniques like thr Big Lie, but Obama/Biden miust hammer home the truth: McCain is a Bush Republican: "You can't throw the bums out if you are one of the bums". Obama received the excellent advice that to win it is not whether you can take a punch that counts, it is whether or not you can give one. In the waning weeks ahead, Obama/Biden must follow three tracks: (1) Expose the McCain/Palin lies, (2)Get out the Obama/Biden policy message (3) Deliver hard direct blows at McCain/Palin as fake mavericks playing the American Idol game. In American politics, candidates to who don't fight back with iron fists lose to Swift Boaters and Willie Horton ads and Rove's specialty, The Big Lie.

Posted by: jefflz | September 12, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Today in America the wealthiest 1% owns more than everyone in the bottom 95% combined. Income inequality is at its greatest level since the 1920s - right before the great depression. Though the US has continued to make big gains in productivity over the last decade, nearly all of the benefit of those gains has gone to the wealthy, not the workers. American CEOs earned 411 times as much as average workers in 2005, up from 107 times in 1990. In the economic expansion of 2002-2006, the top 1% captured nearly three quarters of income growth.

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2006prel.pdf

This condition is not an accident, but is instead the deliberate goal of Republican economic policy. The rich write the rules! McCain's proposals will accelerate this trend further by using a tried and true method - fill the campaign dialogue with talk about social issues, personal stories, vague statements ("tax cuts"), and the trickle-down myth, and hope that middle and lower income voters do not read the details. It worked twice with Bush. While they talk about gay marriage to your face, they are literally picking your pocket from behind - systematically redistributing wealth from poor to rich. And here's the kicker - they don't think there is anything wrong with the situation! And if you vote for McCain, you are again telling them that you don't think there is anything wrong with the situation either! The high unemployment level, housing crisis, credit crunch, lower value of the dollar, high gas prices, and increasing national debt are all related to these failed policies. Standards of living in the US have continued to rise only because in most families both people work, and people work longer hours and more days per year (all for lower benefits). Something has to give...

These are the proposed tax plans for the two candidates. You can see that McCain intends to further reduce the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the middle and lower income families. Obama's plan increases taxes on the wealthy, especially that top 1%, to the benefit of working americans - a first step in reversing the rich-get-richer trend and toward re-building a real middle class. In fact, Obama has offered to actually raise his own taxes for the benefit of the country as a whole. Where are you in this table?


.............................. MCCAIN ....................... OBAMA
Income ................. Avg tax bill ..................Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M ....... -$269,364 (-4.4%)...... +$701,885 (+11.5%)
$603K and up...... -$45,361 (-3.4%)...... +$115,974 (+8.7%)
$227K-$603K...... -$7,871 (-3.1%)................. +$12 (+0.0%)
$161K-$227K...... -$4,380 (-3.0%)............ -$2,789 (-1.9%)
$112K-$161K...... -$2,614 (-2.5%)............ -$2,204 (-2.1%)
$66K-$112K ....... -$1,009 (-1.4%)............ -$1,290 (-1.8%)
$38K-$66K ........ -$319 (-0.7%)................ -$1,042 (-2.4%)
$19K-$38K ........ -$113 (-0.5%)................... -$892 (-3.6%)
Under $19K ......... -$19 (-0.2%)..................... -$567 (-5.5%)

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/?postversion=2008061113

Posted by: DS | September 12, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

To those who question whether Palin doesn't think the Iraq War is a task from god take a look. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOqP3T-ejXI
Maybe the War with Russia will be another "task from god for us!!!

Posted by: Brad | September 12, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"Want to end terror? After diplomacy fails, ask the Japanese. Its called two bombs. The war was over like that."

This gets my vote for most ignorant post of the day. Hey Mastermind, just where exactly would you drop those bombs? If you can accurately answer that, will you please pass that information on to the idiot you elected twice? Cuz, he sure hasn't found any bad guys yet. Oh, and did you know that the bad guys have the bomb now too?

Hope you're enjoying your economic prospertiy.

Posted by: Andrew P | September 12, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"since almost all blacks are supporting Obama because of the color of his skin, common sense says most females should support Palin because of her sex..............

FEMALE INTELLIGENCE AND POWER!!!!!!!!"

You must be blind or don't recognize black Republicans, didn't you see blacks in the Republican convention?

Posted by: Sahr | September 12, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

WP says: "44% of the population pays NO income tax and the top 5% now pays 80%."

And you should find it quite alarming that so many -- excluding children and other non-wage earners -- make so little money that they don't wind up having a federal income tax liability. :)

Also, you need to keep in mind the basic employment-related taxes every wage earner must pay (6.65% to FICA, last time I checked, and 13.30% if you're self-employed). How about state income taxes?

... and how about the two-thirds of corporations that pay no corporate income tax?

I'm not quite sure how to read your characterization of the low-wage earning folks. You make it sounds like the wealthy folks are getting screwed, when in fact they are not. Most pay a far smaller percentage of tax than their middle-class counterparts. And look at historic income tax rates; the country's done just fine even with much, much higher income tax rates than we have.

Posted by: Fallen | September 12, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

> common sense says most females should support Palin because of her sex.............. FEMALE INTELLIGENCE AND POWER!!!!!!!!

That was sarcasm.

...

Right?

Posted by: F | September 12, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

What's the Bush Doctrine? What does the VP even do?

Poor Sarah, when this episode of 'American Idol: The Election Saga' ends, she will be known as the most popular moosehunting lipsticked beauty queen ever. Good thing is, she'll be back in Alaska, huntin' moose with all those kids, not the White House.

Country first!!!!!

Posted by: indytucker | September 12, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

> The question, "when does life begin?" has not been answered because it is too vague.

Really? Because science textbooks used to say "at conception." After all, that's when it's a complete human organism and that's when it starts becoming something we all recognize as human.

Granted, the zygote doesn't look like much at first, but it is of the species homo sapiens ("human" unless you can name another species it belongs to), it's a complete organism (unlike a tissue sample taken from someone) and it is becoming something we all know as human, if only it is given food & shelter. But children need that for much of their lives. And while you can say that it's the woman's body, the DNA says that there are two bodies, not one. Unless you want to recognize the child as the mother even after it's born? Naturally, people like to stick law in here at that point, as if a mother could be held responsible for miscarriages. That point, I think, is absurd. Who would hold someone responsible for an accident they had no role in?

All that aside, helping women is probably the best way to reduce abortions. So perhaps our goal should be to reduce them rather than merely forbidding them, because people seem likely to skirt any prohibition of the practice. And it's probably more helpful, and more Christian, to worry more about helping people than telling them what to do.

But the nature of life isn't all that vague to anyone who has studied biology. Though the way they teach it may have become more uncertain recently. For all the debate you see online, the only difficult philosophy about "what is life?" comes into play when you talk about viruses and crystals, not the well-understood process of conception. And conception is the only bright-line in the whole process. After that point in the process, any measure of "humanity" you want to take is a matter of degree, not kind, even if you talk about birth. But people want to avoid that bright line and head for the gray area for whatever reason.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

This is stupid. Right there with the 'lipstick' smear. Neither man is connected to the average American.

Let's discuss energy and I mean 'ALL OF THE ABOVE' - write in Pickens for President.

Posted by: zlato | September 12, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

since almost all blacks are supporting Obama because of the color of his skin, common sense says most females should support Palin because of her sex..............

FEMALE INTELLIGENCE AND POWER!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Lucy | September 12, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Wow, and I thought only Republicans could be illiterate and ignorant. Judging by the comments of some Obama supporters here, the gap isn't that big between the two parties.

For the people who CANNOT read: The U.S is a NATO member (a founding one), and Art.5 of NATO says:
* "The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all...."* and all NATO countries go to war.
Which is WHAT PALIN SAID (if Russia attacked a NATO country).

The United States used that same article after Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and NATO is fighting in Afghanistan today. So you want NATO's help but in return you wouldn't help?!

What do they teach in American schools?!

Posted by: Tony D. | September 12, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

So, you're "out of touch," huh John? And this is supposed to be some kind of news revelation to us? McCain has now openly confirmed what we heard in Obama's acceptance speech: John McCain "doesn't get it."

Posted by: Patootie | September 12, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Looks like most people in America are becoming poppets, only do what they are told to, especially the right wingers

Posted by: Sahr | September 12, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Thats a shame youd vote for Bush again,that just means youve learn nothing in the past 8yrs.Where have you been living?I dont know if youve noticed but our country is in one hell of a shape!

Posted by: 1 | September 12, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

On The Early Show Friday, body language expert Jo-Ellan Dimitrius said Palin rated about a five on a scale of ten during the interview. As Dimitirius put it, "There were some aspects that could have been better and some that could have been worse."

Dimitrius, who with Wendy Patrick Mazzarella co-wrote the new book, "Reading People: How to Understand People and Predict Their Behavior -- Anytime, Anyplace," told co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez Palin was slouching a bit in the chair. "She's not erect. Most people look at body posture as being a sign of credibility, or professionalism. The way she's hunched over, it also shows a bit of insecurity and a lack of confidence."

Palin didn't come off as being as confident sitting there as she seemed during her speech to the Republican convention, Dimitrius added.

Also, accoridng to Dimitrius, Palin isn't a good listener -- she hurried the conversation.

And she had clenched hands at many points. That, says Dimitrius, is a fighting, defensive stance, also revealing a lack of confidence. It's one of insecurity. She was being protective.

What's more, at times, when Plain was saying "no," she was shaking her head "yes." That, says Dimitirus, indicates she wanted Gibson's approval.

Improvements Dimitrius suggests for Palin include correcting her posture, gesturing more freely and with her hands open, being careful about the verbal messages she is sending, and being a better listener.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Talk about being divorced from the issues:

Check out the two VERY, VERY IMPORTANT links below.


---Bill Clinton’s own words---

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

(if the links don't work just copy & paste them)

Why have the Clintons never talked about these speeches. Why has Obama never mentioned them (since the Clintons are now campaigning for him). Why does the liberal press never mention them - of course we all know the answer to that one.

The above links show how 'out of touch' Obama and the rest of the liberals are.period

(Oh, & I wonder what Keith ‘GoOfy’ Olbermann would think about them. He would make some CLUELESS excuse, I am sure)

Posted by: Mr Reality | September 12, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

WP Ranted "44% of the population pays NO income tax"

Do you know who those 44% are? They are single women, who earn a low income and have a dependent or two. In other words, low income single mothers.

In other words, women who chose NOT to have an abortion.

Conservatives think life begins at conception, but assistance and caring ends at birth.

Posted by: Andrew S | September 12, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

McCain is too old to be president.
Palin is Bush/Rove with lipstick.

Americans need to look out for their own interests and not choose a leader like American idol.

Posted by: Cathy T | September 12, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Wolf.. Point well taken. but here is the problem. Ask your parents about wars in their lifetime. WWI WWII, First of all a Democratic president sent us into those wars. Yes a tough choice but it needed to be done. The Japanese attacked pearl Harbor, The Germans were killing 100,000 or Jews and we jumped in. If not right now you could be speaking Japanese or German. How do you feel about speaking the native tongue of Afganistan, or Iran. Terror never entered your mind until 9/11 when it hit on our shore. Your parents put an end to it with a war to "end all wars" Diplomacy has its place. Were we not diplomatic with the Germans and the Japanese? See what it got us? John McCain as a war hero doesn't merit alot but our admiration for his service, but he served his country. Obama has no clue on this front. Never been there, never served and no military involvement. Want to end terror? After diplomacy fails, ask the Japanese. Its called two bombs. The war was over like that. Will Obama have the guts or courage to make that call? You speak of Obama experience in economics that he can fix it. Again I ask, what has he done for Illinois. They have a high tax burden, exactly how has he worked with state officials to ease their burden? I don't like being in war as much as the next guy. What I hate worse is some terrorist killing innocent people. Obama foreign policy is nill. At that rate its just a matter of time before it strikes back at our back door again

Posted by: CraigF | September 12, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

1:

Gov. Palin was only saying the same. As for your questions: Syria, somewhere along the border of Pakistan / Afghanistan, and "yes" (I would vote for GWB again if it was allowed under the Constitution ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

How many people on here that think war is great can say they have been in a firefight or laid in a fox hole with a dead buddy and watched his beard grow?
Now tell me how great war is!!!!!!!

Posted by: 1 | September 12, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

"Mccains Qualification his long standing in Seneate and americal politics, his sucess with reforms and legistlation.His Experience"

Yeah, he has success with reforms, reforms that broke this country to the HOT MESS its in now.

Experience? He's too old to remember what he has experienced!
LAMO, LOL, HAHA :-)

He's sooo experienced that he voted with Bush 90% of the time. Did he use his experience to guide the country into the right direction? NO!!! So why would he do it now.

Posted by: I FORGOT | September 12, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

It's apparent that those on the left wish to continue to bury their collective heads in the sand with regard to international politics. If you think this country can sit around and watch Russia (or any other country for that matter) invade nation after nation you obviously have never read a single book of history and warfare.

What was Palin supposed to say - “Oh sure, let then go right ahead; we don't mind if they take over the entire free world - no problem here". MORONS

Hitler didn't start by taking on the entire European continent -

Posted by: Robert Campbell | September 12, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

WP wrote: I, for one, through my own initiative am just above that $250 K line and am not interested in having my income drop 32% with the Obama plan.
***********************************

You've obviously never done your own taxes or don't understand how income tax works. The increased rate will only apply to the income over $250,000. How can someone so ignorant make over $250,000?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

.


Tim:
"I am sure that many dark skinned people are voting for Obama because of skin color. They just happened to be on the side of the fence that will help them get better educated in the future."

Please explain how the current President is hindering education of blacks that Obama would improve upon.


.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Yes,as long as were not going it alone and Georgia was part of nato,which at this moment they are not.However Im not running for VP.
And I have a couple of questions for you ,where are the WMDs in Iraq?And where is Osama?Did you vote for Bush twice?

Posted by: 1 | September 12, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

War and death are just as much a part of humanity as life and peace. We should elect our leaders based on their ability to choose the course of action that best benefits our country. We will always have war, we won't/don't have enough oil to provide the energy necessary to sustain our way of living.

We should have carpet-bombed Iraq from the beginning, wiped the slate clean and started anew; putting up Exxons and Walmarts as fast as we could. If we would have done this from the beginning I swear to you you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Iraq and West Texas by now. Especially if we taught the survived Iraqis how to speak Spanish.

Posted by: mccain-palin08 | September 12, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Phil said "I really hope to be making over $150,000 a year. After taxes, it comes to about $75,000 a year. "

Oh please. Lets be honest here shall we. The student loan level you have will allow for substantial tax deductions, as will the $100K loan for starting your practice, a small business. Not to mention, many business expenses can be written off as well so there is no way, unless you have the worst accountant in the world, that you are taking home $75,000 with a $150,000 annual income. That's 50% in taxes. No one has that kind of burden, especially someone like you.

But hey, lets say you do, and you desperately need $7500, because $75,000 isn't enough to live on. The moment one of your patients says she can't afford that $500 cleaning, and you lose some business, then we can talk about tax cuts, ok?

Posted by: Andrew S | September 12, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

mountainman:

I am a real person and not a paid Republican lobbyist. Now, maybe YOU can answer my NATO question?

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

It's hilarious to think that McCain would not know how to post a response here.

Posted by: Andrew P | September 12, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

You dips gotta remember that Georgia started that mess over their, NOT RUSSIA!!!


Posted by: Redneck4Obama | September 12, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I will have over $350,000 in student debt after I complete dental school. That's before buying a practice. So it's more like $450,000.


Wow! I work the swing shift at our local convenience store selling packs of smokes to errant crack heads and meth freaks who stumble through the front door.

I feel pretty lucky not having all those problems you are stuck with. I will certainly reasess my miserable existence. I actually have it pretty ggod. Don't I?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

.

1:
"People who think that being in the military makes you a better leader should remember other military leaders: Hitler, Stalin,Saddam Hussien,Fidel Castro"

Most American Presidents served in the military, active or reserve:

Bush (both)
Reagan
Carter
Ford
Nixon
Johnson
Kennedy
Eienhower
Truman
T. Roosevelt
McKinley
Harrison
Arthur
Garfield
Hayes
A. Johnson
Lincoln
Buchannan
Pierce
Filmore
Taylot
Tyler
Harrison
Jackson
Monroe
Washington

I think we'll ass McCain to the list shortly.

.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

DougB:

It's a hypothetical question -- specious or not -- just like Charlie Gibson's to Gov. Palin last night.

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

So let's forget about income taxes and get on with a national sales tax. That requires everyone to pay tax based on how mcuh they spend. If you spend a lot (rich people), you pay more. Don't spend a lot, you pay less taxes.


There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government. In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, so you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, free medical, etc., while we continually lose our freedoms - just a little at a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Posted by: Dale | September 12, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

JakeD -- are you a real person, or a paid Republican lobbyist, ala Jack (pinstripes) and his buddy Tom DeLay? Look into the camera JakeD and tell me why Tom DeLay should not be the President.

Posted by: mountainman | September 12, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I don't know how Obama can say he will give a tax break to 95% of the people. 44% of the population pays NO income tax and the top 5% now pays 80%. How do you give a tax break to someone who pays no tax -- you give them welfare. Thought Obama wanted to eliminate welfare.

I, for one, through my own initiative am just above that $250 K line and am not interested in having my income drop 32% with the Obama plan. I will quit and start a business that looses money -- because that will get a tax incentive. I have done the calculations and I will make more by quiting and living off the new public largess.

Posted by: WP | September 12, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Last time I checked Obama has NOT served four years in the Senate...

Posted by: markkens | September 12, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

My stomach churns; and I curse the high heavens as I think about the possible election of John McCain and Sarah Palin. If these two are elected we will become engaged in a nucelar war with Iran; the economy will further go into recession; and any progress done in the past eight years will regress. This is our moment. Let's not let these two destroy our future.

Posted by: Alexis | September 12, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have us at war in two countries as a result of Republican lies and deceptions, and we might be in two more wars--Iran and Pakistan--by November. We have alienated the entire Muslim world and most of the rest.

The dollar has lost 60% of its value against the euro, and the once mighty dollar is losing its reserve currency role.

The Republicans' policies have driven up the price of both oil and gold by 400%.

Inflation is in double digits. Employment is falling.

The Republican economy in the 21st century has been unable to create net new jobs for Americans except for low wage domestic services such as waitresses, bartenders, retail clerks and hospital orderlies.

Republican deregulation brought about fraud in mortgage lending and dangerous financial instruments which have collapsed the housing market, leaving a million or more homeowners facing foreclosure. The financial system is in disarray and might collapse from insolvency.

The trade and budget deficits have exploded. The US trade deficit is larger than the combined trade deficits of every deficit country in the world.

The US can no longer finance its wars or its own government and relies on foreign loans to function day to day. To pay for its consumption, the US sells its existing assets--companies, real estate, toll roads, whatever it can offer--to foreigners.

Republicans have run roughshod over the US Constitution, Congress, the courts and civil liberties. Republicans have made it perfectly clear that they believe that our civil liberties make us unsafe--precisely the opposite view of our Founding Fathers. Yet, Republicans regard themselves as the Patriotic Party.

The Republicans have violated the Nuremberg prohibitions against war crimes, and they have violated the Geneva Conventions against torture and abuse of prisoners. Republican disregard for human rights ranks with that of history's great tyrants.

The Republicans have put in place the foundation for a police state, which they have no problem using against fellow citizens!

We must get the Republicans totally out of power, or we will have no country left for any of us!

Posted by: Franky | September 12, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Obama became desperated!!!!

Posted by: shameonObama | September 12, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"If Russia invaded a current NATO member, would you be O.K. with the United States responding militarily pursuant to Art. 5?"

Specious argument Jake. Russia wouldn't invade a NATO country (they're not stupid or crazy).

The situation in Georgia is a lot more nuanced than most reporting/rhetoric gives it credit. Russia's invasion was a direct response to the Georgian's military moving into South Ossetia emboldened by the support of the Bush regime. Yes, it was in response to attacks by Ossetian rebels, but it was a huge tactical and political risk and it backfired.

Basically for the last 20 years since the end of the cold war we've been pushing Russia's buttons and marginalizing them as best we can in the world community. It's surprising they haven't pushed back before this.

Our consideration of Georgia for inclusion in NATO is a direct jab at what Russia still considers their sphere of influence and is related to the fact that a lot of ethnic Russians live in the disputed areas of Georgia (many of them still hold Russian passports, etc.). In their mind they were protecting their own people.

To reduce the situation of one where Russia is the only one at fault is both naive and inaccurate.

Posted by: DougB | September 12, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

1:

Gov. Palin said last night that war should be the last resort. Now, can you answer my question: If Russia invaded a current NATO member, would you be O.K. with the United States responding militarily pursuant to Art. 5?

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

TIMMY where is lassie ? there is no specific right to privacy anywhere in the constitution - just FYI - I've read ROE V WADE - have you ? ROE V WADE says there is logical and biological reason for states to restrict abortions after 20 weeks - so obama's refusal to ban partial birth abortion is far more extreme than even the majority writers of Roe V Wade - Roe v Wade made TWO separate arguments A) since the constitution does not specifically say that a fetus is protected by the constitution, then we will not extend ANY constitutional protections (at least before 20 weeks) B) even though there is no specific right to privacy in the constitution, it is implied so we will grant that constitutional protection - so you see, from any viewpoint the "logic" contains a bit of a double standard - be that as it may, the writers of Roe v. Wade were much less extreme than obama ("whatsoever ye do to the least of My children, that do ye unto ME") - obama quoted that at saddleback but hardly meant it, did he ? OBAMA PROBABLY DOESN'T LIKE ALL ABORTIONS BEING LEGAL (and government funded) BUT HIS HANDLERS TELL HIM WHAT TO SAY - HE HAS NOT BEEN HIS OWN MAN SINCE HE SOLD OUT FOR 100'S OF MILLIONS IN DONATIONS (MOSTLY CORPORATE)- same guys who made him pick bickering partisan biden.

Posted by: tojoley | September 12, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"Tim if you can get a bunch of blacks to pass a test, then you should be elected president. God knows our educational system in this country needs help."

1) It is our governments fault that the education system cators to the wealthy. Obama plans on fixing it.

2) Your statement is clearly racist. I know plenty of dark skinned men and women that are college educated.

3) I am sure that many dark skinned people are voting for Obama because of skin color. They just happened to be on the side of the fence that will help them get better educated in the future.

Posted by: Tim | September 12, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Community Organizers Don’t Count, Really?

The Republicans are at it again, running on nothing, bent on degrading the efforts of ordinary hard working citizens and their communities. We all have seen what they are capable of, just plain old dirty tricks that do not serve the interest of the American people.

Let see, the Republican ideology which they have sold to the American people for over decades, don’t sum up to anything but just rhetoric. Before George W. Bush took over the White House the Economy was in good standing, America and it citizens respected all over the world, militarily capable, the world looked up to America as a leader and nations counting on America as a big brother. Last but not list, a surplus that was unimaginable to accomplish, thanks to President Clinton.

Bush and the Republicans took over in the name of fiscal conservatism, security, and small government for the people. What did they do my friends, as John McCain always says?

1. They squander the surplus which the American people were counting on to improve health care, schools in the suburbs and urban areas, build bridges and roads and invest in renewable energy and creating work for our families and friends. Well if we the tax payers did not know; that surplus was our money which the Republicans destroyed mercilessly without remorse, because they did not work for it, and didn’t care about how the American people think the surplus should be used. They used it recklessly, thanks to their ideology of fiscal responsibility and small government spending, ha! In order words the Republicans didn’t care for the ordinary Americans, this was done with the help of John McCain by giving it to the wealthiest and leaving us the poor hard working citizens to struggle.

2. The Republican stance on security is that you have to use military first before using diplomatic means, you have to yell and declare guilty first, before you investigate, there is no other alternative to their solutions, others and their opinions or solutions don’t count and negotiations with parties who do not share their views or policies is meaningless and below there thinking. Even though the American people elected them to office, they looked low upon them until it is time for another election before they are treated as people or citizens of this great nation. Wake up America.

3. The Republicans ruled both the House and Senate in the last six to seven years, what did they do with the Republican ideas they have been selling for over decades, they tried to hijack both the Senate and the House of Representatives trying to turn it into a one-party governance that would not allow Democrats and Independents to pass any legislation for the people, they were in control, Democrats and Independents had no say because they were out numbered and had no voice. The Republicans made a rubber stamp, rubber stamped everything. Now tell me America, what did you profit from this take over of the big Republican ideology? Are you ready?

• They dumped on us a humongous deficit
• Abuse of executive power
• Waging a war of no substance
• Destroyed the economy
• Higher gas prices
• More children left behind
• Lost leadership in the world
• Unemployment skyrocketing
• Middle class vanishing
• Oil companies making more profits than ever
• Fiscal irresponsibility
• Hard working people loosing there homes
• No strategy to fixing the problems
• Torture
• Increase in the number of people uninsured
• Neglecting the people (Katrina and others)
• This is a long list let’s stop here for God’s sake

America, George Bush and his cronies still have their homes and have a health care that you and I can only dream of having. Like I said earlier, the Republicans only show good face to the American people when it is election time, McCain is part of the Bush administration, why didn’t he fight for the people when they needed someone to stand for them when the Democrats and independents where shut out of rule making? He did nothing and now he wants to distance himself in trying to look as the savior because it is election time, we get it, but McCain doesn’t get it.

4. George Bush and the Republican party thought their grip on power will never end, they bullied the American people in many ways unimaginable, and this was done with a great might of abuse of power, neglecting the people, and thinking they were above the law while at the same time asking people to abide by the law, does it ring a bell? Sounds like any of those one-party and Dictatorship States in Africa or elsewhere. Let me remind my friends and all good citizens of this great nation, John McCain and the Republicans are up to the same ideology as Bush, Cheney and all their counterparts who by the way are still in Washington, waiting to continue the same failed policy with a different face, while the Bush catastrophe is not even over yet.
Well Sarah Palin said it beautifully, this time the bullies have lipstick on, disguising themselves to lure us in to the same ring with the same bullies who have done everything to demoralize the people of this country, they have physically, emotionally, financially, morally and spiritually exhausted us and now they want to sniff our souls out of us. Not this time, the American people have given the Republicans two chances and they could not even return a 1% of appreciation and still want more chances. My friends we are not the enemy, enough is enough.


5. After eight years of putting up with the Republicans what do we get in returned? Slap in the face after all the abuses. Telling us our efforts in organizing friends, families and neighbors in helping to cope with difficulties and standing up to the elected officials to do what we want them to do or do what they are elected for, students volunteering in community developments helping the needy and others, they, the Republicans have the guts to tell us our efforts don’t count. Giuliani and Sarah Palin echoed this like there is no place for Community Organizers in this society. Giuliani, who did you count on, during 9/11? I am sorry to bring these sad memories of citizens and loved ones who suffered great loss on this fateful day, but it was the ordinary people who organized themselves and volunteered to help others. Giuliani and Sarah Palin bringing down our everyday heroes, as not having any actual responsibility as Community Organizers and then talking about reformation. SHAME on you for bringing down those who worked for your campaigns tirelessly and those Community Organizers who have made great difference in our communities. That is why Obama will encourage students to volunteer more in community services and will help to finance their schooling, unlike the bullies with lipsticks who offer nothing for our Community Organizers but drag them in to the mud.

There is so much to talk about in this election which can not be done in one article or so, but we the great people of this country know that the only way to prosperity this time around is Barack Obama and Joe Biden, let us put our differences aside and focus on the issues at hand, see who or what party is really responsible for bringing down America to this lowest point in the history of the country. Remember that we are talking about our livelihood which has slipped away from us by giving these folks two chances to make good on our side. If they could not deliver when the country hard a surmountable surplus and good standing why do Americans think the same ideology can deliver us from the hole they have dug for us and in which they are also in. When you are trapped in a hole and can’t get out, you count on someone to help you out, because your thinking or ideas and mistakes got you there in the first place and you need someone’s help or idea and strength to get you out, and that helping hand will always come from our friends, neighbors caring citizens and our Community Organizers and who happens to be Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Thanks for reading this article and be smart this time around to make the right choice Bless your heart and God Bless America and the good citizens of the World.


Daniel S. Mustapha

Posted by: Sahr | September 12, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Joe:

I don't think the country can afford even 1 year if Obama-Biden. Notwithstanding, I have no problem with McCain-Palin doing everything LEGALLY possible to win this election. You don't think that illegible voters should be allowed to vote, do you?

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The USA should have a required civics test before allowing people to vote.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No one said you had to be intelligent in order to vote. We use a de facto intelligence test in America.

We assume if you are too stupid to find the voter registration office then you ain't smart enough to vote.

Now how these same people seem to find their way on to this message board is something I still can't figure out.

Posted by: Humpty Dumpty | September 12, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

To anonymous;

I will have over $350,000 in student debt after I complete dental school. That's before buying a practice. So it's more like $450,000. I really hope to be making over $150,000 a year. After taxes, it comes to about $75,000 a year. Add in living expenses, retirment plan, and college fund for my children. So yeah, that $7,500 a year extra would be very very nice to help pay down loans. Most people making that large of a salary have to take on massive amounts of school debt. Most "rich" people worked their asses off to get where they are. Of course, it's easier to just say "THEY'RE RICH!" and be done with it.

Posted by: Phil | September 12, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

War is not a game,its not heroic,its not television,Its death and death is forever.It should only be used as a last resort!!

Posted by: 1 | September 12, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

PALIN ready to start ANOTHER war with Russia over the Georgian relationship with ethnic Iranians.
Hmmm. PALIN gives Russia the position of helping IRANIANS.
We get to fight a war in the Caucasus mountains, far from any supply lines.
Did she EVER hear of Napoleon and what happens when you fight a war with really long supply lines in difficult terrain?
Does she realize we would need a DRAFT to populate the divisions it would take to continue in the middle east while taking on the Russians?
Palin Armageddon beckons.

PS. The Russians are fighting the CHECHENS. The CHECHENS are training and aiding the AL-Quaida. Palin is apparently willing to make Russia stop fighting the CHECHEN Al-Quaida allies and fight US instead.

REGISTER and vote absentee and end the charade that Palin is ready for prime time.

Posted by: Bruce | September 12, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

PALIN ready to start ANOTHER war with Russia over the Georgian relationship with ethnic Iranians.
Hmmm. PALIN gives Russia the position of helping IRANIANS.
We get to fight a war in the Caucasus mountains, far from any supply lines.
Did she EVER hear of Napoleon and what happens when you fight a war with really long supply lines in difficult terrain?
Does she realize we would need a DRAFT to populate the divisions it would take to continue in the middle east while taking on the Russians?
Palin Armageddon beckons.

PS. The Russians are fighting the CHECHENS. The CHECHENS are training and aiding the AL-Quaida. Palin is apparently willing to make Russia stop fighting the CHECHEN Al-Quaida allies and fight US instead.

REGISTER and vote absentee and end the charade that Palin is ready for prime time.

Posted by: Bruce | September 12, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

1:

If Russia invaded a current NATO member, would you be O.K. with the United States responding militarily pursuant to Art. 5?

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: How nice of you to link to http://www.Electoral-Vote.com/ Did you notice today's news where, thanks to McCain, a third of the people who want to vote absentee can't because he screwed up the form? I mean, McCain only mailed out a MILLION forms.

Or were you too blinded by McCain *finally* having a 2 EV lead (Obama has been up by 30 or more in the past) to notice the dirty tricks?

No wonder McCain hired so many of Rove's people. McCain even hired the Bush adviser who started nasty, racist rumors about McCain's adopted child!

But McCain has always advocated victory at all costs, right? I guess it dosen't matter to him whether we can afford another 4 years or not...

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

"Tim, you're stretching your point quite a bit. The framers of the constitution certainly didn't imply that abortion was a right, which was what you actually said.

Prior to Roe V. Wade, the states decided individually what was acceptable, which is exactly what the framers had in mind. The idea of the federal government interfering in state matters because the supreme court told them to would have horrified them.

Overturning Roe V. Wade would not outlaw abortion, and would not represent the "government controlling women's wombs" - just the opposite. It would put control back in the states hands."

I beleive the reasons why the government has control over the state's choice of abortion is the fact that no one can define what is abortion and what is not.

The question, "when does life begin?" has not been answered because it is too vague. If we implement a law that is based off of vague facts, we get vague lawsuits which lead to vague abuse of rights.

This is similar to the idea that terrorists should not get a trial. Well, what exactly is a terrorist? If a NYPD cop sees a guy spray painting a gov't sign, can he simple call him a terrorist, put him in jail without Habeus Corpus, and execute him without a trial?

Where do the borders stand?

Posted by: Tim | September 12, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Tim if you can get a bunch of blacks to pass a test, then you should be elected president. God knows our educational system in this country needs help.

Posted by: yeah-right | September 12, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Why has no one pointed out that whole "drill here drill now" is an arm of the API (American Petroleum Institute), who accoring to their own website, "is the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry?" Why are we allowing Exxon to dictate public policy? They keep saying "these are OUR resources." So am I going to get the money from the sale of oil or is Exxon???? Hmmmm

Posted by: MaxMax | September 12, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

PALIN ready to start ANOTHER war with Russia over the Georgian relationship with ethnic Iranians.
Hmmm. PALIN gives Russia the position of helping IRANIANS.
We get to fight a war in the Caucasus mountains, far from any supply lines.
Did she EVER hear of Napoleon and what happens when you fight a war with really long supply lines in difficult terrain?
Does she realize we would need a DRAFT to populate the divisions it would take to continue in the middle east while taking on the Russians?
CLUELESS PALIN PS. The Russians are fighting the CHECHENS. The CHECHENS are training and aiding the AL-Quaida. Palin is apparently willing to make Russia stop fighting the Al-Quaida allies and fight US instead. Amazed? Dont be. She is unaware of these nuances.
Someone is with her, now, giving instructions.
She apparently didnt real the news the past few years. Too busy considering what books to ban.
REGISTER and vote absentee and end the charade that moose mom is ready for prime time.

Posted by: Bruce | September 12, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"Brad, Palin never said war was God's plan. Her actual comment had more to do with hoping that there was a plan in all of this, and that the soldiers they were praying for would be part of that. No more, no less."


Even worse. She was PRAYING that this is all God's plan...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Any Idiot can start a war,in fact thats all Bush can claim as his legacy,but it takes brains to use deplomacy.Its just far to complicated for those that enjoy war to understand!!

Posted by: 1 | September 12, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

How about trying deplomacy?Something republicans always forget about huh?

Republican Diplomacy is a US Marine Expeditionary Force.

Palin understands that. We need her up on that wall.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

"Yeah Bob, really... if you had to pass a test to vote there would be no way in hell Obama would have a chance to win an election. Are you familiar with the demographics of his base. Come on get real.."

Every major news source states that Democrats are supported by college educated and republicans are supported by non-educated. Where do you get your info lol?

Posted by: Tim | September 12, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who's spent more than a few years in the Senate is qualified to be president, given the complex legislation Senators deal with on a variety of issues ranging from the economy, international relations, domestic affairs, taxes, health care, military issues, etc, and just because they are in Washington, most Senators have met world leaders. Governors of states like California, New York, Florida and Texas have similar experience dealing with complex issues have also met world business and political leaders. This election comes down to supporting a computer illiterate Bush compadre with a running mate who barely earned her BA from Idaho State and who seems to know little about things that occur outside of Alaska (What is the Bush Docturne?..let's attack Russia, most Vice Presidental candidates have never met a foreign leader) as opposed to a Harvard law school educated candidate who has such an understanding of technology that he could be a corporate official at Microsoft, HP or Dell if he wasn't running for president. In times of crisis, the United States has been served well by Harvard educated presidents, current president excepted.

Posted by: harryo | September 12, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Tim, you're stretching your point quite a bit. The framers of the constitution certainly didn't imply that abortion was a right, which was what you actually said.

Prior to Roe V. Wade, the states decided individually what was acceptable, which is exactly what the framers had in mind. The idea of the federal government interfering in state matters because the supreme court told them to would have horrified them.

Overturning Roe V. Wade would not outlaw abortion, and would not represent the "government controlling women's wombs" - just the opposite. It would put control back in the states hands.

Posted by: Jeff | September 12, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

To W - Your response barely made grammatical sense, but I will try to respond. I would like to know though what "worker" you know of who makes more than $1M a year. Please tell us all because all want that job!

To clarify, the top 5% of income earners are those making over $150,000, with the top 3% being north of $250,000. A 5% tax increase on someone making $150,000 amounts to $7500 more in taxes. Now, someone tell me that person can't afford it. Go on. Say that.

That $7500, could then go in $500 allotments to 15 people who are working and making under $30,000. Like a teacher for example. Now, someone tell me that teacher doesn't need that $500. Go on. Say it.

Why do this? Simple. When prices on goods inflate (like gasoline) it hits the lowest incomes the hardest. This is just a fact of life. When those incomes have less to spend, the economy slows down (like it is now). A slow economy hurts everyone, even the guy making $150K.

Now, this is NOT Obama's plan. This is just an example of how you can raise taxes on higher income earners, pass it to lower, and everyone wins. Obama's plan takes this idea one step further, as it has money left over which will reduce our budget deficit and return us to fiscal solvency. Help people and balance the budget. Pretty good deal.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"People who think that being in the military makes you a better leader should remember other military leaders:Hitler,Stalin,Saddam Hussien,Fidel Castro,etc etc etc.."

These people were all very good "leaders" by the definition of the word. But that doesn't mean that they had the concerns of the country on their minds. McCain is similar, he can lead, but not where we want the country to go as a nation.

Posted by: Tim | September 12, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Yeah Bob, really... if you had to pass a test to vote there would be no way in hell Obama would have a chance to win an election. Are you familiar with the demographics of his base. Come on get real..

Posted by: mcain-palin08 | September 12, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

"A slight increase of 5% to 10% from the existing wage base to the total amount earned by the highest paid workers, those making $1 million plus translates to an additional tax payment in excess of $250,000! So your "slight" increase to someone like you, making $20,000 a year as a NOBAMA lackey doesn't really matter. Can you see the difference? I know, it's out of your realm to grasp but try anyway."


You are making a good argument, IN OUR FAVOR. Increasing the taxes of the poor and middle class yields very little money. Decreasing their taxes LOSES very little money. THEY are the consumers that make up most of our GDP.

The rich complain of losing $100's of thousands of dollars, but they still make millions. Lowering THEIR taxes balloons our national debt (see Bush tax policy).

Try to think THIS through. $100 dollars means more to many of us than our whole salaries do to them. They would kill themselves if forced to understand what it is like to live on $20K a year. Fortunately, they have no empathy, sympathy or compassion...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

McCain's a"war hero"
Obama is "black"
Palin is a "woman"
MacDonalds is a great "hamburger"
"God bless America!!!"

Posted by: Jeff | September 12, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

How about trying deplomacy?Something republicans always forget about huh?

Posted by: 1 | September 12, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Well said teritao!!!

Obama is a brilliant strategist who surrounds himself with brilliant people. He obviously thinks things through and puts his plans in action appropriately. I trust him and his team to make wise decisions for our citizens, our troops and our economy.

It's about time we have someone with intelligence as the leader of our country.

No more of the idiotic Bush blabber like..."I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully".

McCain doesn't know what's going on either. He openly states that he is out of touch. He does not know how to use a computer. He does not know how to send/receive email! He admits he is ignorant on economic issues.

We live in a time when we need a leader to be in touch with technology, to be adaptable and understanding of the changing viewpoints of America and the rest of the world. We need someone right now who is capable of getting a grip on our economy.

Obama is that man. He knows the issues and can find the solutions. He has proven his ability to lead and his ability to formulate solutions.

McCain,

You are a dinosaur. You are a liar.

Posted by: annunaki | September 12, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Wow. I was leaning towards McCain until this insane Palin pick. I think he blew it. There is no way on earth Palin should be that cose to the presidency of the United States of America. No way.

And regarding abortion...McCain and especailly his wife, have a VERY long history of supporting a womans RIGHT to choose. It's funny seeing these rabid anti choice people voting for McCain. Makes absolutely no sense.

Posted by: MaxMax | September 12, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

"Actually, Tim, neither the Supreme Court nor the constitution have ruled on whether abortion is a right. Roe V. Wade's ruling was actually about privacy, and the Constitution has zero to say about abortion."

So Roe v Wade is about privacy, and it is ruled that abortion is a private matter, DOESN'T the CONSTITUTION SAY SOMETHING ABOUT PRIVACY?

(Read up on the 4th, JakeD is still wrong)

Posted by: Tim | September 12, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

People who think that being in the military makes you a better leader should remember other military leaders:Hitler,Stalin,Saddam Hussien,Fidel Castro,etc etc etc..

Posted by: 1 | September 12, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

The ones who are more scary than the McCain / Palin ticket are those who are defending their insanity. The USA should have a required civics test before allowing people to vote. We can't continue to have ignorant crackers deciding the fate of civilization.

Posted by: bob | September 12, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

wow incredible

Posted by: boruch yona loriner | September 12, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

CraigF,

People make their choice of their candidate for other reasons, besides 'experience', 'change', or even 'voting records'.

I'm voting for Obama, because of policy issues. ( I used to like McCain's back in 2000 before he changed them ).

I'm voting to keep the government out of a woman's body, to push environmental issues over dirty energy sources, to end the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and "Terror" some time in my life. I'm voting to fix our economy with someone who has actually worked in this field.

I'm not voting to put someone else's version of God in our schools. I'm not voting for war-like foreign policy measures. I'm not voting to send our jobs over seas --- while paying those companies to do it.

That's why I AM voting for Obama.

Posted by: wolf | September 12, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Tim:

Too bad you would have lost your "BET".

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

*
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me three times, I’m a Republican.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A
*
lol

Posted by: lol | September 12, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

1 and Brad:

If Russia invaded a current NATO member, would you be O.K. with the United States responding militarily pursuant to Art. 5?

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a poop head.

Posted by: mccain-palin08 | September 12, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

"If you think Graduation from harward makes a better president, then why dont we go for campus selections. Can you show something that Obama has done smartly in two years of Seneate term, what is the basis for your statement.pls note Good Speeches are not a proof.This election i am not by party but by person because DMS are thrusting a wrong choice and i dont want to stand by that"

Can you show me anything that McCain has done in 26 years in the Senate that is smart? By your logic we should just go for POW selections.

To answer you question though, look at http://obama.senate.gov/votes/109/index.cfm?start=21 for a complete list of every vote Obama has made. I simply do not have to time to educate children.

Posted by: Tim | September 12, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Brad, Palin never said war was God's plan. Her actual comment had more to do with hoping that there was a plan in all of this, and that the soldiers they were praying for would be part of that. No more, no less.

Posted by: Jeff | September 12, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Gibson is a joke, a morning talk show host and a silly womanly program to boot. Put her in front of Ted Koppel, a real journalist. The Gibber is now a journalist. She's ignornant, not bright, but republicans do not elect leaders; they elect people who follow instruction (e.g., George W., Reagan et al).

But something of greater concern to all Americans is the Nazi like tactics of the Evangelical party, the party of the anti-christ. Newt Gingrich is saying an attack against Palin is an attack against Jesus!! You got to be kidding.

VOTING MANIPULATION

State Republicans in Macomb Co, Michigan, though, have a plan to give the McCain campaign an edge: suppress the vote.

The chairman of the Republican Party in Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the GOP's effort to challenge voters on Election Day. "We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren't voting from those addresses," party chairman James Carabelli told the local paper in a telephone interview earlier this week.

State election rules allow parties to assign "election challengers" to polls to monitor the election. These volunteers can challenge the eligibility of any voter provided they "have a good reason to believe" that the person is not eligible to vote."

The Michigan Republicans' planned use of foreclosure lists is apparently an attempt to challenge ineligible voters as not being "true residents."

The scheme would, of course, disproportionately affect African-American families in the area, who are more likely to vote Democratic, and more likely to be in foreclosure as a result of sub-prime loans.

This is just part of a "comprehensive voter-challenge campaign" Michigan Republicans are launching this year, which will coordinate with the regional McCain campaign to train volunteers in challenging those who wish to vote on Election Day.

Asked about the GOP's efforts, Carabelli said, "I would rather not tell you all the things we are doing."

THEY DID THIS TO SOLDIERS SERVING IN IRAQ IN 2004.

Posted by: basementfrog | September 12, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Palin says we might have to go to war with Russia!!Is she some kind of NUT?Shes very scary and only a seat away from being president!!Funny,after almost 8yrs with Bush and most people havent learned anything.Hows one republican differ from another one?ANSWER:they dont,they all have the same Ideology and political views!! Trickle Down,and thats what our whole country has done trickle down to almost nothing!!The federal tranportation dept. is bankrupt,11 major banks have folded this year and the FDIC says because of it they are getting low on money.Whats wrong with you people?Go ahead just keep listening to the band while the Titanic sinks,whats it going to take to wake everyone up?
8 is definatly enough!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: 1 | September 12, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Republicans can tell lies and stretch things all out of proportion and right in front of their supporters and what do they get, APPLAUDED for it. I truly think they could announce they are going to war with Russia next week and very likely will use nuclear weapons with significant loss of human life and these "conservatives" that so value human life and god will be chanting their war cry "Bring It On".

This is SHEER MADNESS and INSANITY all because of ignorance. I hope you’re willing to die for the next Republican that starts a war(albeit based on lies)because they don't have enough INTELLIGENCE to find a better way to solve a problem!!!

Like Palin would say "War is Gods Plan".

I'm Religious myself but I'm not irrational, unreasonable, or just plain NUTS!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w

Posted by: Brad | September 12, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"I consider myself a REAL Christian, and I do not think that McCain-Palin are "evil". Do you think that REAL Christians believe abortion is "evil"?"


Abortion is not the only issue facing this country.

Pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion. Like many other issues, it is more complicated than that.

What do you suppose we do with the extra one million unwanted children that would be born each year? You are the same people that want to cut Medicaid and Welfare. This is REAL LIFE. Everything is not black or white...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Actually, Tim, neither the Supreme Court nor the constitution have ruled on whether abortion is a right. Roe V. Wade's ruling was actually about privacy, and the Constitution has zero to say about abortion.

Posted by: Jeff | September 12, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

"Tell me why not ONE high powered law firm didn't go after NOBAMA after he graduated law school? To listen to you DEMO CRAPS, he's smarter than John Kerry....who by the way had a lower GPA than George W. Bush. Perhaps the reason NOBAMA FAILED to land a real job upon graduation was because of his continued DRUG USE! Most employers today require drug screening before offering employment. I guess a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER can continue to smoke dope and use coke. NOBAMA IS A JOKE!"

How can you speculate without any FACTs? If you want to know what firms Obama turned down WHY WOULD YOU ASK SOME PEOPLE ON A COMMENT BOARD?

Go look it up yourself and stop being lazy.

The FACT is that Obama CHOOSE to help his community INSTEAD of getting rich at a law firm.

INSTEAD OF SPREADING RUMORS HOW ABOUT YOU FIND SOME FACTS AND PROVE ME WRONG.

Posted by: Tim | September 12, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

That McCain never bothered to learn how to use a computer demonstrates just how dependent he is on his staff. Bush is easily manipulated because he's too lazy and dumb to seek outside knowledge beyond what his inner circle (mostly Cheney) tell him. McCain, more of the same. Not that either of them think facts or knowledge are prerequisites for making good decisions anyway, acting from your gut and showing resolve is so much more important than knowing what you're doing or the consequences.

Posted by: Aleks | September 12, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

A slight increase of 5% to 10% from the existing wage base to the total amount earned by the highest paid workers, those making $1 million plus translates to an additional tax payment in excess of $250,000! So your "slight" increase to someone like you, making $20,000 a year as a NOBAMA lackey doesn't really matter. Can you see the difference? I know, it's out of your realm to grasp but try anyway.

Posted by: w | September 12, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I like how all the Obama supporters will take the so called "right answers" as opposed to experience. Problem is they aren't the right answers. And wasn't it Hillary Clinton that exposed Obama's in- experience with the 3AM call and what would he do? Even she knows there is nothing there. See the pattern here.. Not the right answers, No experience on what to do? And to the person who said I'll vore for him and get free health insurance, let me advise you no health insurance is free.. We the tax payers pay for it. By the way name one piece of legislation that Obama has introduced or helped help the good people of Illinois. Oh wait, let me answer that for you,,NONE!

Posted by: CraigF | September 12, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

i think mccain should be president

Posted by: ashely simpson | September 12, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

----------------------------------------
**Obama graduated top of the class from Harvard Law all the while being the editor of one of the most prestigious college news papers. McCain barely graduated naval academy with a D- average.

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

If you think Graduation from harward makes a better president, then why dont we go for campus selections. Can you show something that Obama has done smartly in two years of Seneate term, what is the basis for your statement.pls note Good Speeches are not a proof.This election i am not by party but by person because DMS are thrusting a wrong choice and i dont want to stand by that

Posted by: MRN744 | September 12, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Not to worry, Tom C, every Independent I know ( incl myself ) is voting for Obama-Biden.

Even a few of my Republican friends are, too.

Posted by: wolf | September 12, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Jaked,

Of course you are for a Policy that will only take freedom away from Americans.

The supreme court and the CONSTITUTION have already deemed abortion as a freedom.

Posted by: Tim | September 12, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Tell me why not ONE high powered law firm didn't go after NOBAMA after he graduated law school? To listen to you DEMO CRAPS, he's smarter than John Kerry....who by the way had a lower GPA than George W. Bush. Perhaps the reason NOBAMA FAILED to land a real job upon graduation was because of his continued DRUG USE! Most employers today require drug screening before offering employment. I guess a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER can continue to smoke dope and use coke. NOBAMA IS A JOKE!

Posted by: George | September 12, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

W ranted "the tax payers CAN NOT afford his [Obama's] "dreams" of allowing an additional 80,000,000 people of not paying taxes but receiving some silly tax credits.

- Actually, we can. If those people received $500, which I think is the amount Obama is talking about, that would cost a mere $40B. 4 months of Iraq occupation. And that money would be spent here in the U.S. and help create more U.S. jobs. That's a good thing.

W ranted "Does anyone really believe by increasing the taxes on the highest paid 5% of the population we can accomplish his goals? Where is the incentive for this 5% to continue to bust their humps to support the masses? Ask yourself, "if I were in that 5% group would I continue to work 90 hours a week just to support everyone else?" "

- Yes. Take a look at the break down of income taxes and you will see a slight increase in the upper brackets will create a large amount of tax revenue. Additionally, I don't know who you think the top 5% are, but they don't work 90 hours getting an hourly wage! The top 5% typically get their income from dividends and investments, meaning, they don't work for it. So, taxing them slightly on money they didn't work for so you can give a break to people working two jobs at minimum wage, that doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

Posted by: Andrew S | September 12, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

tennesseeindependent, that's really, really good! Something everyday folks can relate to. You ought to submit that to Obama's website.

Posted by: JudiNV | September 12, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Fellow independents and liberals (and basically the rest of the world -- everyone but the 29% who want McCain to win); we need to keep the heat on.

The McCain campaign has stated that "this election won't be about issues," it'll be about personality.

**WE CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN**. First, even though I think that even on the personality front, Obama-Biden win, that's irrelevant: this election is *MORE ABOUT ISSUES* than any other election I've seen in my almost forty years on this planet.

I mean our economy is in free-fall, we're still (despite token troop cutbacks) embroiled in a seemingly endless war in not one but *TWO* sovereign nations, spending billions of dollars (we can't afford) each month, losing American lives and countless more civilian lives. We've pretty much squandered almost all of the international goodwill we earned after 9/11. We've got a government threatening wars in multiple other locations (Iran, Russia/Georgia, what's next? China?) Affordable healthcare still isn't a reality for many people, and is getting more unlikely every day. The largest corporations in the US, while reaping billions of dollars of profits, on average pay ZERO taxes, while you and I shoulder an increasing load.

The Republicans have shredded the Constitution -- the backbone of our entire nation's government. The Republicans have turned America into a nation that spies on its own citizens without a warrent, arrests people without charges, holds them indefinitely without a trial, and then tortures them without consequence. We are no longer even in the top ten in most lists of the most influential nations in the world, except in military spending (where we spend more than double the amount of the next five countries combined!)

Basically, the past eight years of Republican rule have turned a nation that was enjoying an almost unprecedented period of peace and prosperity into a country that is almost broke, almost universally despised, and going downhill fast.

If THAT doesn't make you think that this election IS ABOUT THE **** ISSUES, I'm not sure what will.

Fellow anybody-but-McCain-ites, let's not let the McCain campaign pull the standard Rove smear tactics. This election isn't about who you admire or who you'd like to have a beer with. It's about who you think can actually pull this nation out of its precipitous nosedive: Obama, a smart, motivated, outspoken agent of change, or McCain, one of the guys who got us into this mess to begin with?

KEEP THE FOCUS ON THE ISSUES!

Posted by: Tom C | September 12, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I am a 55 year old female Independent voter. I have voted since I was eighteen, sometimes for Republicans, sometimes for Democrats for the President of the United States. I have always tried to vote for the person who seemed to have the most wisdom, courage, and ethics, NOT necessarily the most experience, because experience does not always equate with wisdom, courage, and ethics.

I am tired of hearing the McCain “experience” argument. Experience does not equate with WISE leadership. Obama stood up against an unjust war when it was unpopular. He is intelligent and well-educated, thinking critically about the long range effects of the actions of the U.S. government. He has served the American people in many ways from the ground up. He has been a courageous leader for positive changes in people’s lives.

Bush sold the war with lies, lies, and more lies. No weapons of mass destruction. If there were any, we supplied them when our government was friendly to Sadam Hussien when we were in favor of him having them. The terrorists responsible for the 9-11 attacks did NOT come from Iraq. Most of them came from Saudi Arabia, a country that the Cheney-Bush regime cowers to for their own economic benefit.

Too many lives have been lost in the Iraq war – our soldiers and their civilians. The U.S. has destroyed their country and has spent almost a trillion dollars and still counting to do so. Now, we must spend additional billions to rebuild what we have destroyed. I wonder who owns ammunition stocks and such…

John McCain supported this war and continues to support the war. His kind of experience we do NOT need. Such experience has made the U.S. look like terrorists to the rest of the world. We need someone to return us to a GREAT nation because of our wisdom and intellect.

I am confident that Obama and those he selects to help him govern will protect our country with wisdom rather than with experience toting guns, killing, and lies. God, help our country regain ethics, integrity, and wisdom.

Posted by: teritao | September 12, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Phil Waste:

I consider myself a REAL Christian, and I do not think that McCain-Palin are "evil". Do you think that REAL Christians believe abortion is "evil"?

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

As the desperation sets in Obama's deterioration will continue to accelerate. Even some of his hardcore followers will notice it and become concerned.

Posted by: Obama scared | September 12, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama is cute and has my vote.

Posted by: Tom J | September 12, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

When is the reality going to strike home with you NOBAMA fans? He has no EXPERIENCE! Get it? NONE! As far as his "ideas" are concerned, the tax payers CAN NOT afford his "dreams" of allowing an additional 80,000,000 people of not paying taxes but receiving some silly tax credits. Does anyone really believe by increasing the taxes on the highest paid 5% of the population we can accomplish his goals? Where is the incentive for this 5% to continue to bust their humps to support the masses? Ask yourself, "if I were in that 5% group would I continue to work 90 hours a week just to support everyone else?" The answer should be obvious to any third grader.

Posted by: W | September 12, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

MRN744,

"Now Obama cant match Mccains experience he is down to saying Mccain doesnt know how to use computer how to swithc on the plug, how to inflate his own Tires. ha ha ha..
Knee down before Hillary and Bill they might adice you"

Do you really beleive this? McCain HIMSELF said that inflating your tires IS A GOOD IDEA! You can't say that McCain is more experienced then Obama and cite and example that the two agree on. It proves nothing.

You mention the fact that Obama said McCain can't use a computer, but you never agrued against that statement.

Can McCain use a computer? NO. So Obama is right.

I will take the side of the candidate that has the right statements over the one that has more experience.

Besides, The little bit of experience that Obama does have is worth more then McCain's experience, BECAUSE OBAMA IS SMART AND MCCAIN IS DUMB**.

**Obama graduated top of the class from Harvard Law all the while being the editor of one of the most prestigious college news papers. McCain barely graduated naval academy with a D- average.

Posted by: Tim | September 12, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

AHH!!!!!

I cant stand it! So now BOTH sides are going to mud sling! That should encourage the electorate to make wise decisions and vote. I am about ready to not vote at all!

Is this highschool elections or what?

Posted by: monica | September 12, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, you need to recheck your electoral data:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/electoral-vote-tracker.htm

DEM: 248
REP: 135

Posted by: Amie | September 12, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

What exactly is Obama doing?

He's not releasing smearing attack ads like McCain is. I challenge any of you McCain supporters to come up with real, actual smears that Obama has done. Not this fake "lipstick" attack you've created, but actual attacks and smears on McCain.

Go for it.

Posted by: Andrew S | September 12, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

I like saying Obama's name, so I'll vote for him. Plus he'll give me free health care to boot.

Posted by: Issues Voter | September 12, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

We get the government we deserve. Our elected officials reflect our believe system. If Obama was a white male called John Smith this election wouldn’t even be close – and we all know it. We deserve the government we get because we have not mastered our fears and prejudices.
I am a white male who is going to vote of Obama simply because he is the better qualified.

Posted by: Andrew | September 12, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Mccain is doing Right, Obama is a little man with no experience compared to mccain,Adn this is the way he needs to be treated there is no need of debates with person who hasnt experienced any issue he will start talking to air of all possibilites with out knowing how to do them

Posted by: MRN744 | September 12, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"I think you may be confused at McCain. He started with a "no smears" campaign and quickly threw that idea out the window when he realized that he doesn't stand a chance debating policies."

What exactly is Obama doing?

Posted by: ?QM? | September 12, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Tim:

I approve of McCain's POLICIES on abortion.

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Yes, every other Senator is deeply in touch with the people. Life in DC is just like life in the real world.

Posted by: EagleView | September 12, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

neither of them is as qualified for the job as they should be, but hey, at least mccain isn't sketchy like obama. if the worst thing anybody can say is that he broke his word and used negative ads in his campagne, well, good for mccain. obama, however, buddies around with hamas and has attended a racist chuch for twenty years. i dont care what he says, if he's smart enough to be president, he would have picked up on what the church's outlandish beliefs are and recognized them as racist, hyprocritical, and dangerous. but whatever. the liberal press always loves the more "politically correct" lying liberal candidates and throws down the conservatives. because the press believes that the american people will believe every godd**n word they write, they twist everything. i read both sides to get a decent view. i hate the f***ing liberal media. especially msn.

Posted by: f*** the press | September 12, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Allegories for voters who don’t care about politics 



Voters who don’t care about politics are the only voters left up for grabs at this point.
If you go on about the issues to these people you only make them uneasy.

Meanwhile your opponent keeps dropping easily digestible one-liner references to narratives his campaign has beaten into everyone’s head. So guess who starts to look dumb? The smart guy. 


So what do we do? We don’t sacrifice our principles. We illustrate them through allegory.



John McCain: Used Car Salesman.


Hi I’m Barack Obama and I want to tell you a story about buying a car. It pretty much sums up this election.


John McCain is trying to sell you a used car.

It was just dropped off on his lot by the previous owner, George Bush.

It looks real nice, and has a plush leather interior and a killer sound system. But it only gets 10 miles to the gallon!



McCain says "Don’t worry about that mileage. In ten years the price of gas might come down when we get all those offshore oil-wells in, and we open up our wilderness areas for drilling” he says, "You know, Drill Baby Drill!" 


10 years? Do you want to wait 10 years for cheaper gas? 

Sounds like John McCain wants to sell you a lemon! 



At this point, the main work of this narrative is done. John McCain is a shady used car salesman, with non-solutions to real problems.

Posted by: tennesseeindependent | September 12, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Now Obama cant match Mccains experience he is down to saying Mccain doesnt know how to use computer how to swithc on the plug, how to inflate his own Tires. ha ha ha..
Knee down before Hillary and Bill they might adice you

Posted by: MRN744 | September 12, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

From The Nation:

"John McCain has been hammering rival Barack Obama for being little more than a vapid "celebrity" and "elitist." But The Nation has obtained a photo revealing just how star-struck a straight-talking maverick can become when offered the chance to celebrate his birthday aboard a yacht filled with celebrities--even if one of those celebrity types turns out to be an A-list con man.

The McCain-Follieri Love Boat Presidential Election 2008

Mark Ames & Ari Berman: What are we to make of a straight-talking maverick who spends his 70th birthday on the yacht of an A-list con man?
The War We Don't Know Russia

The photograph substantiates reports that in late August, 2006, McCain celebrated his 70th birthday aboard a yacht, the Celine Ashley, rented by A-list con man Raffaello Follieri and his then-movie star girlfriend Anne Hathaway. In the current edition of Vanity Fair, Michael Schnayerson reported that Follieri rented the Celine Ashley for the month of August 2006. Montenegro's leading daily newspaper, Vijesti, earlier reported that during McCain's visit in 2006 he celebrated with birthday cocktails and sweets aboard the Celine Ashley yacht. In the photograph, taken in Montenegro at the end of August, McCain is shown boarding the yacht ramp towards the smiling Follieri and Hathaway. Just ahead of McCain and shaking hands with Follieri appears to be Rick Davis--McCain's top aide and now co-manager of his campaign, who accompanied him on the trip and advised the government of Montenegro. A few months after McCain's yacht party, Follieri strengthened his ties to McCain's orbit by retaining Rick Davis's well-connected Washington lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, and offering Davis both an investment deal and help in securing the Catholic vote for McCain's presidential bid.

Follieri, who posed as Vatican chief financial officer in order to win friends and investments, pleaded guilty Wednesday in a Manhattan district court to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, eight counts of wire fraud and five counts of money laundering. As part of the plea, Follieri admitted to misappropriating at least $2.4 million of investor money and redirecting it to foreign personal bank accounts that were disguised as business accounts.

At the time he met McCain, Follieri was adept at collecting friends in powerful places and using those connections to attract investments in projects which later turned out to be bogus. Yet Follieri's ties to McCain's orbit have been largely overlooked by the media. Follieri first met McCain when the Arizona Senator visited Montenegro from August 29-31 as part of a Congressional delegation that included Republican senators Lindsay Graham, Richard Burr, Saxby Chambliss, Mel Martinez and John Sununu. [We'll have more on what else McCain was doing in Montenegro in a forthcoming article in the print edition of The Nation.]

What, exactly, was McCain doing aboard Follieri's yacht? Or put another way, was this McCain's 70th birthday wish--to spend an evening floating on the Adriatic with one of Hollywood's top actresses and her smooth-talking Italian beau?

An even bigger mystery is how Follieri's boat came to be docked in Montenegro on McCain's birthday. According to a journalist in Montenegro, the yacht had been anchored there for several days before McCain's arrival, and only sailed away after McCain boarded. According to Vijesti, locals were told that McCain was meeting "friends from Florida" on the yacht.

McCain aides later confirmed the encounter with Follieri, but said it was "entirely social and nothing came of it." Follieri, they told the New York Daily News, was just a "passing acquaintance." (Though the McCain campaign promise to comment on the encounter, it did not respond to The Nation's request by the time this article was published.)

It must not have seemed that way to Follieri. According to the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, in January 2007 Follieri sent Rick Davis a packet of information on his companies Follieri Capital and Follieri Media, apparently hoping to get financing from Pegasus Capital Advisors, a hedge fund in Connecticut that Davis represented. "Follieri's proposal to Davis had two dimensions to it--first, as an investment opportunity for Davis's fund; but secondly, there was the political dimension, in which Follieri offered to help deliver Catholic votes to McCain," said Claudio Gatti, a reporter for Il Sole 24 Ore, who investigated Follieri for eighteen months.

In February 2007, according to a recent article in the New York Daily News, Follieri retained Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort. According to the paper, "on Feb. 27, 2007, Davis Manafort partner Rick Gates signed a confidentiality agreement drafted by the Follieri Group. In the contract...Gates agreed not to disclose any information about Follieri's deal to get Clinton pal Ron Burkle to buy Catholic Church properties." (Gates did not respond to repeated requests for comment.)

Two months later, Burkle sued Follieri, who later repaid the $1.3 million owed to Burkle's Yucaipa Funds. That fall, the Wall Street Journal exposed Follieri's life as a high-society con man. In June of this year, Follieri was finally arrested and charged. Following his guilty plea this week, Follieri now faces up to five years and three months in jail."

Posted by: Bullwinkle J Moose | September 12, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

McCain shows his old age more everyday with the comments he makes. He might even have an onset of Alzheimer. He has old style thinking in every sense of the word. Wake up McCain!

Posted by: Ron K | September 12, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

In my opinion, voting should be treated as important. I think that consent flows from the act of popular participation in government.

Of course, Mike, I know there are people like you who sneer at the idea. And, of course, McCain's people seem to be in agreement. The only votes they want are the ones that protect their money and privilege.

But given that so much blood and rhetoric and cash has flowed promoting Democracy in Iraq... I would think that you would be in support of the same thing here. But, personally, I think that the GOP used Iraqi elections to dress the pig of conquest up a little.

Posted by: blip | September 12, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I cant believe John McCAin last night admitted he was out of touch? Wow.!
If you want to see the video http://www.veeppeek.com

unreal, If you want to watch the forum over
http://www.watchdebate.com

Posted by: pastor123 | September 12, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Did any of you watch the forum? I'm thinking you didn't if you're defending McCain and attacking Obama. Obama's "yack" comment was clearly a joke, as he said smiling and chuckling. McCain's comment was clearly NOT a joke, and was rather telling. In fact, there was almost a reaction on his face of "Oops. Shouldn't have admitted that."

Posted by: Andrew S | September 12, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

"It's funny listening to 2 millionaires (and their supporters)argue about who is or isn't more out of touch. It's depressing that these are the 2 choices we are left with. "

True, although at least Obama's wasn't inherited. :P

Posted by: Xander | September 12, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

A One-Woman Truth Squad

Some of that criticism springs from Alaskans like Sue Libenson, a public relations consultant for conservation and sportsmen's issues.

Libenson used to support Palin. In fact, last year Libenson sent a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News extolling the governor.

"Palin's got us on the right course," Libenson wrote. "Kudos to Gov. Sarah Palin for calling an end to Ketchikan's 'Bridge to Nowhere.' From ditching the jet to revisiting oil taxes, Palin has shown leadership."

Once Palin stepped onto the national stage, however, Libenson says the governor started misrepresenting her positions.

In her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Palin said, "We are expected to govern with integrity and good will and clear convictions and a servant's heart. And I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States."

The governor's actions, Libenson says, prove otherwise.

In that same speech, Palin told Americans she will be an advocate for children with special needs. "In fact," Libenson says, "just this summer she cut funding for Alaska's Special Olympics."

Libenson cites the governor's line-item veto trimming the Special Olympics budget by $275,000. Palin also slashed funding for statewide independent living centers and transition housing for homeless young adults, Libenson says.

Libenson points out that in a state with one of the highest substance abuse rates in the country, Palin squelched funding — some $325,000 — for a substance abuse education and prevention program aimed at young people. And that she also pared the state's financial support of a Fairbanks community food bank, a drop-out prevention program and an addiction rehabilitation facility.

There is a tradition in Alaska, Libenson says, that when people see something wrong, they come right out and say it. "When something happens, you step forward and do something," she says, "especially when someone is going around saying things that aren't true."

Posted by: freedomrider1 | September 12, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

MCCAIN PALIN SUPPORTERS, THIS IS A MUST READ --- PASS THIS ON ....

make up your minds OBAMATTACK hounds - did she cut government spending too much OR is she a phony reformer ???????? you can't have it both ways >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

AND as for the comparison of palin to "pontius pilate" solely because she's a "governor" - when it was time for a tough decision, pontius pilate voted "present" - who does that remind you of ???????

MCCAIN/PALIN supporters THIS IS A MUST READ

Posted by: tojoley | September 12, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

"It's funny listening to 2 millionaires (and their supporters)argue about who is or isn't more out of touch. It's depressing that these are the 2 choices we are left with. "

True, although at least Obama's wasn't inherited. :P

LOL, NEWS FLASH! Working class american becomes millionaire! Republicans cry elitist!

Posted by: Tim | September 12, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately alot of Americans are going to walk into that booth and vote based on
John McCain said the word change and Palin said Guns and Jesus.
They might also vote based on Barack is not a "normal" name and isn't he part black?
A shame but a simple reality still in 2008.

Posted by: Jeff | September 12, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

How is it possible that a good Christian woman would allow herself to be on the same ticket with one of the NeoCons (who believe in world domination) and brought us the never ending war in Iraq? This same good Christian woman says she is ready to be President and start a few wars herself. How is it possible that a good Christian woman could be corrupted so completely is such a short time.

See for yourself, watch the McCain approved ads and see the nastiness, meanness and down right unchristian, untruthful, thoughts of the devil himself.

Real Christians will not support this evil.

Posted by: Phil Waste | September 12, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

HERE WE GO AGAIN.

I BET theat Bill and JakeD have nothing to say about Mccain's policies.

But I'm sure they will talk in droves about Rev. Wright, Ayers, pig comments, and any other tabloid rumors about Obama.

Face it guys. Obama is smarter, and has better ideas then McCain. The only the McCain has going for him is the will to lie and deface without remorse.

What ever happend to cheaters never prosper?

Posted by: Tim | September 12, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

A One-Woman Truth Squad

Some of that criticism springs from Alaskans like Sue Libenson, a public relations consultant for conservation and sportsmen's issues.

Libenson used to support Palin. In fact, last year Libenson sent a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News extolling the governor.

"Palin's got us on the right course," Libenson wrote. "Kudos to Gov. Sarah Palin for calling an end to Ketchikan's 'Bridge to Nowhere.' From ditching the jet to revisiting oil taxes, Palin has shown leadership."

Once Palin stepped onto the national stage, however, Libenson says the governor started misrepresenting her positions.

In her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Palin said, "We are expected to govern with integrity and good will and clear convictions and a servant's heart. And I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States."

The governor's actions, Libenson says, prove otherwise.

In that same speech, Palin told Americans she will be an advocate for children with special needs. "In fact," Libenson says, "just this summer she cut funding for Alaska's Special Olympics."

Libenson cites the governor's line-item veto trimming the Special Olympics budget by $275,000. Palin also slashed funding for statewide independent living centers and transition housing for homeless young adults, Libenson says.

Libenson points out that in a state with one of the highest substance abuse rates in the country, Palin squelched funding — some $325,000 — for a substance abuse education and prevention program aimed at young people. And that she also pared the state's financial support of a Fairbanks community food bank, a drop-out prevention program and an addiction rehabilitation facility.

There is a tradition in Alaska, Libenson says, that when people see something wrong, they come right out and say it. "When something happens, you step forward and do something," she says, "especially when someone is going around saying things that aren't true."

Posted by: freedomrider1 | September 12, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"It's funny listening to 2 millionaires (and their supporters)argue about who is or isn't more out of touch. It's depressing that these are the 2 choices we are left with. "

True, although at least Obama's wasn't inherited. :P

Posted by: Xander | September 12, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Qualification to be president is he is computer literate.blogging ,giving good speeches

Mccains Qualification his long standing in Seneate and americal politics, his sucess with reforms and legistlation.His Experience


How does Obama think Being a seneator qualifies him more than a Governer.looks like a person who insist Rabit i caught was born with 3 legs only

Posted by: MRN744 | September 12, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

HAHAHA--- so true

Great...another lovely morning at the Washington Post water cooler....It's like a train wreck!! You hate to see it, but you just can't help looking

Posted by: Antonio | September 12, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

MA:

"That's assuming the Democrats keep control of the House of Representatives. You are aware that McCain is in the lead in the Electoral College polling too, right?"

If you think the Dems are going to lose control of either body of Congress, when in fact they're going to gain seats in both, you need to rethink your sources.

This WH race is a dead heat. And NH, CO, OH and VA, are the only states that are actually in play.

If Obama wins in OH, or CO or VA, he's going to win the WH

You can spin it anyway you like. And I'm not saying McCain isn't going to win, because he might.

But you're already chugging McCain's victory champagne. And the votes don't get counted until November 4th.

Posted by: MA | September 12, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

It's funny listening to 2 millionaires (and their supporters)argue about who is or isn't more out of touch. It's depressing that these are the 2 choices we are left with.

Posted by: Mike | September 12, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"I think that Obama and McCain are both saying the same thing...that Washington is out of touch with the day to day challenges people face.

At least McCain was "frank" enough to admit it.
"

Actually, McCain was saying that HE is out of touch, not Washington. Bit of a difference there.

Posted by: Xander | September 12, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"I think I liked Obama before he lost his mind. "

Obama hasn't changed his policies on economy, government, foreign relations, energy, or the way to conduct a campaign.

I think you may be confused at McCain. He started with a "no smears" campaign and quickly threw that idea out the window when he realized that he doesn't stand a chance debating policies.

Posted by: Tim | September 12, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Palin also lied in her interview with ABC. She said that she never denied man-made climate change. But she has on several occasions.

For someone who wears her Christianity on her sleeve... but lies with such false sincerity... I cannot imagine that people would continue to support her. It just seems bizarre that someone who spends so much time talking about values and change and being real would be such a fraud.

Posted by: blip | September 12, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

John McCain does not know how to send an email? No wonder he picked Sarah palin as his running mate. He wants a secretary who will sit on his lap to whom he can dictate a message. Then Sarah can get up straighten her blouse and walk to a computer to type it in as an email. Now is there really a need for McCain to learn how to send an email when Sarah Palin is around?

Posted by: Joe Moranis | September 12, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"A desperate comment by the most left-wing member of the Senate with anti-white associations and anarchist advocates. OF course Obama is putting down the Senate saying all they do is YACK. He is saying his job is BS.

McCain is honest and righ on. Presidents ARE protected from the outside world. They meet other big shots and meet with their cabinet. Obama is the MOST INEXPERIENCED guy to ever run for President. If he were not half black he would not have gotten this far. McCain/Palin EASILY. Wake up liberal jerks. You are going down."


That is alot of BS that only says "Obama is bad." You fail to explain specific reasons why Obama is bad, and yoiu fail to explain anything that supports McCain's policys.

You can have a D- for you comment, but do be sad. McCain graduated college witha D- and he has a chance to be president.

Posted by: Tim | September 12, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

"McCain is honest and righ on"

How exactly do you figure this? I mean have you been paying attention at all? This man has been fabricating lies for quite a while now. He's been called out on it too, and yet he still plays along with the same lies. This man is too senile to be president. I swear, John McCain keeps putting his foot so far into his mouth that his shoelaces are dangling out of his nose.

Posted by: Xander | September 12, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

I think I liked Obama before he lost his mind.

Posted by: This is getting weird folks | September 12, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Blip,
Where do you get the idea that voting is a "sacred" right? What makes a right "sacred" anyway?

Posted by: MikeS | September 12, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Jeff:

Morally too. Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Computer glitch. I know it is "Per diem"

Posted by: Jeff | September 12, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I think that Obama and McCain are both saying the same thing...that Washington is out of touch with the day to day challenges people face.

At least McCain was "frank" enough to admit it.

Posted by: MikeS | September 12, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

McCain is out of touch. The GOP is trying to purge voters who lost their homes to foreclosures.

This is a disgusting manipulation of the most sacred right we have.

Posted by: Blip | September 12, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

MA:

That's assuming the Democrats keep control of the House of Representatives. You are aware that McCain is in the lead in the Electoral College polling too, right?

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

"I would be curious to know how he can even do his senatorial duties without a computer?"

His staff does it for him.

Just like when he was asked how many homes he owned and he didn't know, McCain said "I think — I'll have my staff get to you."

Posted by: MA | September 12, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Pe diem legally allowed? How about morally?

Posted by: Jeff | September 12, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Great...another lovely morning at the Washington Post water cooler....It's like a train wreck!! You hate to see it, but you just can't help looking

Posted by: Tom | September 12, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

A One-Woman Truth Squad

Some of that criticism springs from Alaskans like Sue Libenson, a public relations consultant for conservation and sportsmen's issues.

Libenson used to support Palin. In fact, last year Libenson sent a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News extolling the governor.

"Palin's got us on the right course," Libenson wrote. "Kudos to Gov. Sarah Palin for calling an end to Ketchikan's 'Bridge to Nowhere.' From ditching the jet to revisiting oil taxes, Palin has shown leadership."

Once Palin stepped onto the national stage, however, Libenson says the governor started misrepresenting her positions.

In her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Palin said, "We are expected to govern with integrity and good will and clear convictions and a servant's heart. And I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States."

The governor's actions, Libenson says, prove otherwise.

In that same speech, Palin told Americans she will be an advocate for children with special needs. "In fact," Libenson says, "just this summer she cut funding for Alaska's Special Olympics."

Libenson cites the governor's line-item veto trimming the Special Olympics budget by $275,000. Palin also slashed funding for statewide independent living centers and transition housing for homeless young adults, Libenson says.

Libenson points out that in a state with one of the highest substance abuse rates in the country, Palin squelched funding — some $325,000 — for a substance abuse education and prevention program aimed at young people. And that she also pared the state's financial support of a Fairbanks community food bank, a drop-out prevention program and an addiction rehabilitation facility.

There is a tradition in Alaska, Libenson says, that when people see something wrong, they come right out and say it. "When something happens, you step forward and do something," she says, "especially when someone is going around saying things that aren't true."

Posted by: libenson | September 12, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Even Britain and Europe know Obama is the better candidate. The only people who don’t get it are the brainwashed right-wing puppets or small town folk who think that just because someone has a speech draw and likes to fish that somehow makes them like them or the best candidate to run the government. I like Clint Eastwood too, that doesn’t mean he should run the country. Are we really this foolish?

When conservatives call liberals elitists I take it as a complement. What they are really saying is conservatives are low class, ignorant, uncultured, backward-thinking sheep. So this “elitist” says go “F” yourself and your small-minded 50 year dated mentality.

Posted by: sue | September 12, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

A desperate comment by the most left-wing member of the Senate with anti-white associations and anarchist advocates. OF course Obama is putting down the Senate saying all they do is YACK. He is saying his job is BS.

McCain is honest and righ on. Presidents ARE protected from the outside world. They meet other big shots and meet with their cabinet. Obama is the MOST INEXPERIENCED guy to ever run for President. If he were not half black he would not have gotten this far. McCain/Palin EASILY. Wake up liberal jerks. You are going down.

Posted by: Bill | September 12, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

JOHN MCCAIN, TRAITOR 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
*********** ************* ************** *********** ***********
Activists accused McCain of stonewalling the release of POW records because they contained evidence he had collaborated with the North Vietnamese.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MUY9S6iCvk
========
i love this ignorant ideology that if someone doesnt do the exact same things i do in a day that they arent focused on our same ideals.

obama tossed a rose into the pond while mccain gently laid it, i do that every time i visit the graves of those people who matter to me. that is a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly even most all of us do that obama has no sense in, and mccain does.

if you won the lottery tomorrow, and had more than mccain, would you be out of touch with other people?

whos to say mccain doesnt still treat his money with reverence and respect.

obama makes fun of small town america, and john mccain is teh one who is out of touch? come on blinded liberals, your messiah is walking on water and you say hes on the same level as the people.

just remember uh er uh er uh in interviews, was a strategy of bush, and you voted him in twice. make the same mistake with the opposite side and you got 4 more years with an out of touch over budgeting liberal. (yes i count bush as a liberal because he has a budget record that reflects democrats in history).

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 11:54 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

MA:

"I was using a computer in 1980"

Like I said, most Americans weren't though.

You sound like you're measuring the drapes in the WH already for McCain.

I wouldn't be so sure. NH and CO are still leaning towards Obama and OH is a dead heat. In fact, this race is still either candidates to win.

And Obama only needs 269 to win, not 270.....he gets 269 and the incoming Democratic controlled House will elect him president in January.


Posted by: MA | September 12, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I would be curious to know how he can even do his senatorial duties without a computer? I could not get through the day without my laptop, no real businessman could. But a U.S. senator, WTF. It shows he doesn't even take his current job serious. He is in fact a do nothing and always has been all the way back to his school days with all his drinking and failing grades.

=======
What was he thinking, Obama needs to keep attaking him on the fact he cant use a computer too. I think this is a fair attack exspecially now adays. It goes to show how out of touch McCain is in this day and age. How many world leaders do you think their are that cannot use a computer??? It kind of reminds me of the Video of McCain getting Frustrated with his Black Berry and Throwing it, on the Straight Talk express.!!! Look even the self proclaimed redneck Levi johnson has a myspace page? He is more computer literate then McCain.Levi Johnson Brisol Palins Boy Friend Has quite an extensive myspace page I just dont think McCain has what it takes to be Pres at this point

Posted by: pastor123 | September 12, 2008 11:41 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

McCain is an out-of-touch elitist who owns words will be his campaign's destruction. Even in McCain's service forum, you could clearly see he was detached from national service unless you joined the military. McCain just doesn't get it?! We all can't go marry someone rich to alleviate our financial concerns.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | September 12, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

MA:

I was using a computer in 1980 -- but, I'm not interested in baseball as much as San Diego Chargers -- SUPER BOWL HERE WE COME!!!

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

i love this ignorant ideology that if someone doesnt do the exact same things i do in a day that they arent focused on our same ideals.

obama tossed a rose into the pond while mccain gently laid it, i do that every time i visit the graves of those people who matter to me. that is a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly even most all of us do that obama has no sense in, and mccain does.

if you won the lottery tomorrow, and had more than mccain, would you be out of touch with other people?

whos to say mccain doesnt still treat his money with reverence and respect.

obama makes fun of small town america, and john mccain is teh one who is out of touch? come on blinded liberals, your messiah is walking on water and you say hes on the same level as the people.

just remember uh er uh er uh in interviews, was a strategy of bush, and you voted him in twice. make the same mistake with the opposite side and you got 4 more years with an out of touch over budgeting liberal. (yes i count bush as a liberal because he has a budget record that reflects democrats in history).

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

"Ronald Wilson Reagan didn't use a computer either."

Most Americans didn't use computers in 1980.

Reagan was 69 the day he took office and he looked 60. McCain is already 72 and he looks like he's 82.

I met McCain four years ago, he looked bad then.

Oh, as long as you're peering in to your crystal ball concerning the election, can you tell us who will win the world series too ?

Posted by: MA | September 12, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

As I am sure you know, those hundreds of millions are Cindy McCain's separate property -- did you complain about John F. Kerry's wife's wealth -- and Gov. Palin was legally entitled to collect "per diem" even from her home. I hope you guys have more than this and the fact that McCain doesn't use a computer ...

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

"pastor"123:

Ronald Wilson Reagan didn't use a computer either. As for that "fake" Levi MySpace page, please keep it up -- you really don't get it, do you? Barack HUSSEIN Obama is never going to be inaugurated President of the United States.

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

McCain has been a hundred-millionaire for more than 25 years. He spent his recent b'day on a yacht in Montenegro.......I spend all my time on yachts in Croatia though...........don't you?

I wonder if he got a per diem for that trip, oh, no, right.....that only applies when you stay at your own home.....

Posted by: Chris | September 12, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

What was he thinking, Obama needs to keep attaking him on the fact he cant use a computer too. I think this is a fair attack exspecially now adays. It goes to show how out of touch McCain is in this day and age. How many world leaders do you think their are that cannot use a computer??? It kind of reminds me of the Video of McCain getting Frustrated with his Black Berry and Throwing it, on the Straight Talk express.!!! Look even the self proclaimed redneck Levi johnson has a myspace page? He is more computer literate then McCain.Levi Johnson Brisol Palins Boy Friend Has quite an extensive myspace page I just dont think McCain has what it takes to be Pres at this point

Posted by: pastor123 | September 12, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

LOL McCain said that??? Wow, Mark that as GAff number 1023. He is a Gaff machine! Surpised McCain didnt talk about.

The Alledged Affair Palin had
http://www.hotpres.com

The Book Banning Scandal
http://www.veeppeek.com

Todd Palins Wild Life
http://www.duihelpguide.com

Posted by: pastor123 | September 12, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

So, Obama concedes all they did was "yack" in the U.S. Senate, but that's not as bad as McCain saying the U.S. Senate is "divorced" from reality that average Americans are struggling with?! That, and the fact that McCain doesn't use a computer, is all they got lately? LOL

McCain is not "completely" out of touch with America. The bump in his polling over Obama has finally given him the lead in State-by-State ELECTORAL COLLEGE numbers too:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company