Video: Barack Obama on the O’Reilly Factor (Pt 1: 9/4)

Senator Barack Obama sat down for an interview with Bill O’Reilly which aired partially tonight. The whole thing happened after much hand wringing by Democrats over their perception of bias by Fox News against Democratic Candidates and a boycott of appearing on Fox for any debates.

Here is the first part which aired tonight, about 8 minutes:

Report on the first part from the Washington Post:

HARRISBURG, Penn. — Sen. Barack Obama made his first appearance on Fox News’s conservative talk show “The O’Reilly Factor” and was pressed on his foreign policy views.

According to excerpts released by Fox, host Bill O’Reilly questioned Obama on two issues that Republicans view as vulnerabilities, his opposition to the troop surge in Iraq and his willingness to talk even with U.S. adversaries.

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama told O’Reilly of President Bush’s decision last year to increase troop levels. “It’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

But he added, “The Iraqis still haven’t taken responsibility. And we still don’t have that kind of political reconciliation.”

Asked to list U.S. enemies, Obama responded, “Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America who have a distorted ideology who have perverted the faith of Islam and so we have to go after them.”

He said he would “never take military action off the table” in the case of Iran. “It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon; it would be a game changer,” Obama said.

I thought it was a good interview as Obama hasn’t been pressed in that manner, especially on the surge which he and Biden both opposed. Sound off below, what did you all think?

The remaining parts will air on Monday (9/8), Tuesday (9/9), and Wednesday (9/10) of next week.

  • MApprivoiser

    Senator Barack Obama did a great job! Goooo Barack!

  • AKlatina

    Great interview so far! O’Reilly is asking good questions and Barack is delivering strong answers. Can’t wait to see the rest!

  • http://therealmccain.com/ nzpudding

    Cheers for this Nate I missed it due “atmospheric interference”. I really wish Bill wouldn’t interupt his guests when they’re halfway through explaining something.

    Not a bad interview, Obama didn’t really say anything though that he hasn’t already said before.

  • http://www.youdecide2008.com madindep

    Good interview so far. Tough questions, very direct, no softballs yet (Unlike the cordial teatime with Sen Clinton). Oreilly likes to ask hypothetical questions and then doesn’t like that Barack has rational, hypothetical answers, that as well show his knowledge of international circumstances. Just IMAGINE McCain having to be in the hot seat. He could never talk off the cuff like that. The only answer Oreilly would like would be for him to say what every neocon wants ,”bomb, bomb, bomb…bomb, bomb..[wherever].” Give me a break Billy Boy.

  • Grey

    I didn’t think that O’Reilly was particularly hard or soft on Obama. I thought that his attacks on Obama were both centered on real issues that people really question Obama on. I enjoyed it very much.

    I also hope he presses Obama on energy, raising taxes, healthcare and education.

    On another note, I totally forgot about the interview, and I doubt that Obama stole any significant source of attention.

  • Todd

    I have never heard Obama say “I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” or that “It’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

    If I missed this I am sure some of you guys can send me the link.

    I have heard him brag that he voted against it and I have heard the entire Democratic party try to associate McCain with it, as if they thought it was bad.

    Again how can anyone think Obama “did a great job” ?

  • Good Times

    Awesome job Obama! I agree with the other comment that O’Rielly should not cut his guests off in the middle of an answer to a question that he asked; it’s annoying and kind of tasteless. There was not really not much O’Rielly could say to counter Obama’s responses. I do not blame Obama at all for not wanting the surge. When you consider Obama’s point that victory in Iraq entails the Iraqis taking over their own affairs, then the surge is counter-productive from all sides–even though violence has been reduced. Great responses. I think Obama will do great in the foreign policy debate against John McCain (3rd and final debate) and (obviously) in the economic/domestic debate. This race will be seen for what it really is when the two candidates are paired together in the same room (in a neutral environment).

  • Frank

    “He said he would “never take military action off the table” in the case of Iran. “It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon; it would be a game changer,” Obama said.”

    You have 10000 nucleair weapons yourself, you hypocritical idiot.

  • Frank

    Why does everybody think that its great judgment by McCain by supporting the Surge.

    Isnt it kind of logical that if you put extra troops in a certain area, the safety level will go up?
    Theres nothing brilliant or special about the surge.

  • Douglas

    If supporting the Surge does not show great judgement because it is so logical, then wouldn’t opposing the Surge show stupidity?

  • urban

    Great answers from senator Obama. He answers the questions with sound reasoning unlike Mccain.

  • http://presidentjohnmccain.ning.com/ Babs

    Todd, I agree he’s never said that, and I think only said it under pressure. But probably not pressure from O’Reilly, I think we see Obama changing yet again because of pressure from his running mate who really stood with McCain, I believe, on Iraq. As I understand it, his website was being revamped on the Iraq issues yesterday yet again. I think this is a Biden influence. Just my opinion, but I think he looked a bit uncomfortable.

    The funniest part was the beginning, when Obama alluded that he’s just been pretty busy for the reason he hasn’t been on. Like he never boycotted Fox, like the showdown with Fox officials never happened, and the ultimatim to O’Reilly never happened. In that sense, I agree that it was same old, same old.

  • Pats

    Todd and Babs I really enjoy reading your comments. You definitely show that you know Obama very well, better than Obama knows himself. But becareful there’s a wise saying ” If you point a finger to someone, the remaining three and the thumb point back to you”.

  • Frank

    Can we alle agree on the fact the O’Reilly is a far right lunatic who is an insult to journalism?

  • http://presidentjohnmccain.ning.com/ Babs

    Frank, Bill O’Reilly is an Independent, and supported Hillary Clinton.

    Pats, thanks for the compliment, but I’m afraid I don’t follow where you’re going with the saying. Sorry.

  • Stalin

    I told you guys this would be a softball interview. O’Reilly said that Obama had a good speech in Denver, was right on voting against the Iraq war, and was a stand up guy and not a whimp. If O’Reilly was so right wing, I don’t think he would have said these things.

    The major flaw I saw with Obama during this interview was that he is unable to admit when he is wrong. That is a dangerous characteristic because if you don’t have the ability to admit that you are wrong, you will do anything to justify yourself. That’s not what I want in a leader. It takes courage to admit that you’re wrong…something that Obama doesn’t have.

    Have you guys heard that Oprah doesn’t want Palin on her show? Some much for tolerance and open-mindedness…OPRAH!

  • http://presidentjohnmccain.ning.com/ Babs

    No, Stalin, I didn’t hear that! I’m not surprised though, are you? Oprah doesn’t allow guests who are more popular than she is. ;)

    I’ll be interested to see if Neilson picks up the stats on O’Reilly’s viewership last night. I suspect it plummeted, if all that threatened to turn him off did. I did. And I just skipped through the video this morning. Nothing new to hold my attention.

  • Anne

    Actually, what Oprah said is that she doesn’t want her show to be a platform for anyone during the election. She said that she would love to have Palin on the show after the elections have taken place.

  • Stalin

    Anne,

    Sure…just a platform for Obama. What a fricking joke. She is such a hyporite! She has lost any credibility she had left.

  • http://presidentjohnmccain.ning.com/ Babs

    That’s what I say. Here’s her statement to the Drudge Report:

    “OPRAH’S STATEMENT: “The item in today’s Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over.”

    Underneath the statement, of course, you find the photo of Obama and Oprah on stage on her show. Hasn’t she also had Michelle on? This is what Drudge reported:

    “Oprah’s staff is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

    “Half of her staff really wants Sarah Palin on,” an insider explains. “Oprah’s website is getting tons of requests to put her on, but Oprah and a couple of her top people are adamantly against it because of Obama.”

    One executive close to Winfrey is warning any Palin ban could ignite a dramatic backlash!

    It is not clear if Oprah has softened her position after watching Palin’s historic convention speech.

    Last year, Winfrey blocked an appearance by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, timed to a promotional tour of his autobiography.

    Oprah and executive producer Sheri Salata, who has contributed thousands of dollars to Obama’s campaign, refused requests for comment. ”

    If I were Sarah Palin, I’d refuse an invitation to be on that show, along with The View. They have been trashing Sarah for days.

  • IndiMinded

    Really guys, you think Opera and the View have lost all their credibility? Crap, that only leaves Dr phil, jerry springer, and merecat manner. They better keep their integrity up, for the sake of network television.

  • http://presidentjohnmccain.ning.com/ Babs

    Well, Indi, do you think that Oprah lends herself to any credibility or integrity here? If she truly wanted to appear neutral, she wouldn’t have so publicly endorsed Obama, would she? If she truly didn’t intend to make her show a public platform, she shouldn’t have had Obama as a guest, should she? She’s trying very hard to invoke double standards here, and while she considers herself to be more than a Talk Show Host, in fact a media journalist, her argument as to why NOT to have Palin on the show is indicitive of hypocracy. Doesn’t matter to me, I haven’t watched an Oprah episode in years. Apparently neither have a lot of other people, Neilson reported months ago that her ratings dropped 9% after her endorsement of Obama.

  • getreal

    The reason Oprah has the number 1 talk show in the WORLD and is one of the richest women in the WORLD is because she can careless of what people think about her. She does what she feels is right. Oprah will be around after McCain and Obama is long gone.

    The interview went well for Obama, because Bill did not go at him hard enough. bill was clueless on the issues therefore could not respond or challenge Obama. Bill is a bully who got Punked”

  • IndiMinded

    I’m sorry, I guess the sarcasm didn’t come across so well in writing – I honestly can’t imagine how anyone holds Oprah, or any of those daytime talk shows in high esteem. I get a pretty disturbed when I consider how many people in this country actually take those shows seriously. If Oprah won’t have her, hopefully Palin can get on Judge Judy or something equally silly

  • Stalin

    I want to see Palin on Deadliest Catch instead of Oprah anyway.

  • http://presidentjohnmccain.ning.com/ Babs

    *ROFLMAO* Somehow I think she might win that one, Stalin!

    Sorry, Indi, I caught the sarcasm this time around. ;)

  • http://presidentjohnmccain.ning.com/ Babs

    *ROFL* AGAIN

    The Oprah can of worms pulled this out of the AP Archives:

    “Oprah asks Obama to announce presidential run on her talk show
    Dynamic democrat says focus is on congressional race
    By The Associated Press
    Posted: 10/19/06 Section: News
    PrintEmail Article Tools Page 1 of 1 CHICAGO – Democratic Sen. Barack Obama hasn’t said if he’ll ever run for president, but that didn’t stop Oprah Winfrey from asking him to make it official on her show.

    Illinois’ junior senator sat for a taping of the Chicago-based show Oct. 3 to promote his new book, “The Audacity of Hope.”

    It aired Wednesday.

    Winfrey told Obama that Americans “who want to feel that America can be a better place” are hoping he runs for president.

    But Obama said his focus is on the upcoming congressional elections.

    “There are so many major issues, and so I’m putting all my energy into this election,” Obama said.

    Winfrey then asked Obama to announce any future decision to run for president on her show.

    “I’m going to have this show for five more years, would you announce on this show?” Winfrey asked.

    “I don’t think I could say no to you,” Obama replied. “Oprah, you’re my girl.”

  • http://presidentjohnmccain.ning.com/ Babs

    Oh this is getting too funny. Oprah is getting pounded on her own forum:

    http://www.oprah.com/community/thread/87164

  • http://therealmccain.com/ nzpudding

    Indi, might not be a bad idea to put Palin on Dr.Phil, then he could chat to her about talking to your kids about contraception and her daughter becoming a teenage mom. After watching Dr.Phil defend Palin on Letterman, might be a good thing for her.

    I don’t think elections have been won or lost depending on if or when you get on Oprah.

    Would be really cool if Bill O’Reilly got Obama and McCain in the same room at the same time. I can just imagine them all going at it like hammer and tongues.

  • Stalin

    nz

    You had to get that swipe in didn’t you? Maybe we should of had Judge Judy weigh in on the Rezko case…take a look at the Annenberg Project files, and see how many other speeches Biden plagiarized.

    This is fun!

  • Todd

    Someone please explain to me how Democrats can yell about Palin and go after stupid stuff like her child getting pregnant yet when Obama is shown to be a liar, and that’s what he is, we are warned to watch where we point.

    The fact is Obama is a young inexperienced POLITICIAN who has been blessed by the money folks in the liberal party! Had he continued on he real change path he started on then Ok I did see his appeal. Now that he is just another politician you still have this devotion to him as if you can’t see the change e talks about is already here. He changed over the course of 19 months. But stay loyal & stay blind, ignore his contradictions (even though he says he is a change agent) and do it all so you can feel good about HATING Bush. But do this also, remember you ignore all of these things about Obama out of HATE for Bush not a love for what Obama says he is/was or even what you profess. You also do it with visceral hate in your guts, the kind of hate that makes you close your mind to anything logical, it blinds you. You use to admire McCain and I understand he has changed also, but you grab onto his change (while you ignore Obama’s)- so you can feel better about Hating him now. McCain stands your way and has an “R” beside his name so at any cost you attack, attack attack and attack while you say you just want to talk about the “issues”. Tell us how good Obama is when you know he doesn’t compare to McCain–in his manhood or his life experience.

    He was caught on the wrong side of the troop surge which he cannot escape. If he really thought the stance on the war or the surge was a reason to vote against someone, as he and y’all apparently hold it against McCain, then how is he running with Biden who voted for the war ? How does he remain in a party that is led by Pelosi who demanded more troops be put into Iraq ? “to stabilize things for the formation of the new government” (that was before Bush did it then of course she was against it.) Obama can’t even hold a candle to Ron Paul, who is what a real change agent looks like. Paul slams Republican’s just as much as Democrats yet he IS a Republican. Obama has nothing bad to say about his own party-why because he would not be here without them.

    The fact is Obama supporters are so full of hate for Bush you refuse to admit or acknowledge any Republican success. You refuse to admit the economy was slightly worse under Clinton (and I’m not saying it was bad under him) and today’s unemployment #’s are still 1% lower than Clinton’s highest. It’s all the big bad Republican’s.
    Republican’s are certainly the bad guys. We want you to be able to send your child to a school that actually teaches, we want to reinforce belief that right is right and wrong is wrong, we want to defend our country BEFORE it gets attacked NOT AFTER, we want the government to control it’s spending not raise our taxes so they can spend more, and we want ladies to stop killing the being’s inside their bodies just because it came along at an inconvenience time. But it’s Ok, I see how we are the bad guys we stand for such evil stuff, we are scourge of the world. So stand firm in your hate, blind yourself for the sake of Bush. You condemn Our VP pick because she has no experience yet you support Obama who at best has spent 2 years in federal government (he says he has been running for president for 19 months). You have hated us and tried to convince everyone that we are the rich white males who exclude everyone who is different from us yet when we put a woman on the ticket you can’t even acknowledge the effort to be more inclusive.

    You spend so much time on hating us that you cannot look at the available facts, from neutral sources, and come to your own decisions. The country is so screwed in your opinion yet you can’t even compare the two unbiasedly so you can actually help it.
    You say Obama is right on everything. You say Republican’s are wrong on everything and you totally ignore members of your party who try to warn you. You turned Liberman, your own VP to the beloved Gore into a pariah despite the fact you went to the Supreme Court to get him and Gore in office in 2000. Now you think he is evil and a traitor because he knows McCain and trust him over Obama. You have become blind to what you yourselves once wanted. The liberal woman’s right movement cannot bring themselves to support the only woman on either ticket,yet they profess to be all about women seems top me you would get your woman and then try to work with her, but that’;s not really what you want is it ?

    None of you are who you say you are ! none of you are anything more than liberals who want a liberal in office and you will do and say anything, ignore anything to accomplish that. You are not only screwing your own party values to do it you are showing yourselves to be the ultimate hypocrites in doing it, next time you slam the Republican’s remember your own party has tossed out it’s since on ethics and morals in what you are doing, remember that your own party no longer stands for women or minorities, you stand for liberals, nothing more. Just as you judge us for standing for conservatives. You are nothing more and nothing less-you are partisans. So when it’s all over you can stop telling us you are all that you are not and just admit you want it your way and nobody elses. But you better understand that in doing so you’ve cut of your very own life support system. You have become what you hate most, political beings who will do whatever they have to do, at what ever cost–enjoy it !

    and yes I am an angry Republican, but I WAS just a Republican who thought about voting for Obama, BEFORE he changed. I was a Republican who tried like hell to understand and respect your thoughts, but your unwillingness to return the act has taught me a lesson, I was was just naive.

  • http://therealmccain.com/ nzpudding

    Stalin I wasn’t swiping, the fact that you automatically assumed I was shows not only you’re ignorance, but that you’re looking on the negative and not the positive.

    Obviously Palin having a teenage pregnant daughter and a special needs child is an issue with some people. Getting the message out there that there’s nothing wrong with having a special needs child (I have 2 special needs nephews MD) and there’s nothing wrong having a teenage pregnant daughter so long as there’s a loving supporting family around her, but the virtues of talking fully through about contraception is important. To me that’s a positive and where else better to get that positive message out than Dr.Phil.

    Yeah we could have Rezko stuff on Judge Judy. Then we could talk about Charles Keating, Joseph “Joe Bananas” Bonano and the fact Cindy McCain stole hard drugs from a charity she was running…..now THAT would be fun!

  • George Moss

    Bill O’Reilly clearly tried to shore up Barack Obama by starting off the interview on National Security, considered by the pundits as Obama’s weak suit, but Obama showed that he was not the political novice he has been made out to be by conservative commentators such as Sean Hannity. Barack Obama handled himself with the kind of cool and calm, not to mention thoughtful manner that validated what Bill Clinton stated about Obama which is that he is ready to be President of the United States. Any objective observer of the first segment of O’Reilly’s interview would have to conclude that Obama, a Harvard graduate, the first black to head Harvard’s Law Review, is the real deal. This man is no light weight, regardless of what the pundits are saying, and the first segment of the O’Reilly interview did nothing to dampen such an assessment.

  • PeoplePower

    Todd – OUCH!!

    Though, I can definitely empathize with the vehemence. Those very same thoughts can be turned on the hard-core partisan Republicans/Conservatives.

    And I’m sure in your tyrade you were actually referring to *some* Liberals. Those Liberals who would rather die than cede a point to a Conservative.

    I’ve tried being that kind of Liberal and it never felt right to me. I’ve tried hard to not be of the mindset that my views are the only correct views. It’s lost me many arguments against staunch supporters of any issue (political or otherwise) because they refuse to give ground and I’m okay with the idea of giving ground, if the argument is sound.

    Here are the things I feel about both McCain and Obama:

    1. They turned towards their hardcore supporters to garner enough support and votes to win their Primaries – Obama to the far-Left and McCain to the far-Right
    2. Both will work their way back to the middle to pull in supporters from the other side
    3. Both will lead effectively, but in different ways
    4. Both will fail to achieve every promise they have made, for those promises are the candy they offer to win elections
    5. Both will fail to bridge the divide if none of the constituents or Congress members follow their lead

    I trust that Obama will make course changes in his policy decisions, because sometimes course changes are necessary.

    I worry about whether McCain will be willing to make course corrections, although I think he’ll be more amiable to it than it might seem.

    Leadership is more than just picking a course and sticking to it come hell or high water. And it’s more about following the polls and the winds of change. There’s a middle ground – if you have a course that you believe the country *should* be one, you inspire the populace to believe you and support it. If you can’t inspire them, you find a similar course that will result in the goal you want and allow you to persuade the populace then.

    There are partisan hacks out there who are pretty awful and would take any admission of being wrong and air it to death to make Obama look weak and indecisive. Plus, O’Reilly tried to get him to have a flip-flop moment which would also have gotten a sick level of airtime.

    I believe very honestly that you and I could sit down in a room and discuss issues until we were blue in the face. There are some things we could find common ground on and other things we could not. I believe fiercely that we could do so w/o getting personal or violent or probably even angry. And I also believe we could probably broker some sort of balanced solution for the things we couldn’t agree on.

    But we seem to be a rare breed in the political discourse. Often times people’s statements sound open-minded and multilateral, but they’re laced with code words or subtle jabs at the “opposition”.

    How is it that we will ever bridge the divide if we cannot be civil?

    This being said, please bear in mind that Democrats, Liberals and Progressives have been facing at least 3 decades of the labels: Traitor, Weak, Tax-and-Spenders, cut-and-runners, communists, socialists, etc. etc.

    It has been especially bad in these last 8 years when the Rovian-way has not given any credence to any idea of the Democrats (until they could do so later and claim credit). Democrats are *tired* of getting attacked and have started to attack back.

    Bush, and company, have accused anyone who disagrees with him as not being patriotic, as hating this country and other awful claims. He is the biggest “I-must-have-my-way” president I think we’ve ever had.

    I believe that this tactic of political hackery is the primary reason we are having such a difficult time finding concensus for the betterment of the country – we’ve gotten so terribly paranoid of the “slippery slope” that we won’t sit down & listen OR give ground…

  • Darren

    Todd,

    I feel your frustration. Can’t say that I would ever consider voting for a pathetic excuse for a president like Obama. But your decernment on liberals is correct. They are full of hate.

    Bottom line is, when you peel back they’re lies all the issues they feel are important and needed for our country, they are not American’s!

    I propose a new tax on America. But only for American’s (the real ones). Let’s have a one time tax, and use all the that money to pay all expenses nessecary to move all the liberals too…. Oh let’s just let them have California. They can take the whole do nothing congress to start their own government. Obama can be their leader. We will continue to build the fence at the border but leave it open at California, just build it around California. The lib’s can have all the things the hope for in a government. We will go back to doing business the old school way ( by following the Constitution to the letter) And let’s just see who has a prospering future.

    I think America, even though this might be expensive, would be glad to spend this money this way. Hell I’ll even be willing to go help them move in! With the BIGGEST SMILE ON MY FACE.

  • Todd

    PP,

    you are right I could and would sit down with you and I know we could come to several agreements. But agreements are only possible when we admit we are wrong.

    What has gotten me upset is the fact that your are right, for the most part, on Republican faults over the years but they are politicians their faults are not the fault of the conservative base who really believe in God/Guns/and Punishment. Do democrats really believe conservatives sit around thinking of ways to kill people ? Do they think we want people to lose their homes ?(I could talk about that one for days) to listen to bravado it seems they do. Our beliefs are true heartfelt beliefs, belief’s that with the exception of guns, I have tried to live by. They are actual belief’s that I try to raise my son by. If he fails I do not need a liberal telling me he failed, I know it it is my belief system that failed when as he did. I would be trying to pull the family up and make the best of it. I would not throw the belief system out. Democrats seem to love the fact Palin’s daughter failed in their family belief system and they want to make it a election issue, they want to rub conservative noises in the fact a 17 year old girl got pregnant, they want to say gotcha on an issue that we feel personal sorrow about, I don’t get it.

    I don’t get it because it’s coming from the party that supposedly stands for individual rights. A party that says folks should be able to make their own decisions. Well isn’t that what Palin’s daughter did ? Make her own decision ? It is no person’s right to make lite of Palin’s family failure. I don’t make lite of a person’s decision to have an abortion, I don’t look at them as failures I do think the decision is wrong but I don’t celebrate the fact they did it.

    I do not try to ignore or minimize your belief that people should be able to decide on abortion or not. I do not minimize your belief that more taxes should be raised to give to the needy. What I am saying though is your belief’s are not spiritual belief’s and are therefore not individual or personalized, I mean they are yours I know that but what is your personal connection with beliefs that apply to society as a whole ? how are they personal if they fail ?. Ours are individual. It is GOD and my parents who taught me and if I fail it is them who I hurt. I don’t believe that you (no disrespect meant) feel a real emotional hurt if someone in your community makes the wrong or decision fails because the choice they make. As personal religious based beliefs I do feel very disappointed when I cannot stop what I believe my God disproves of. I feel it when I do something that I know I should not have.

    Listen Republican’s tried to excommunicate McCain b/c he opposed them on immigration, finance reform and at one time taxes. The Republican’s will never put up a more moderate candidate yet democrats cannot be satisfied. There is no halfway with your party. I have acknowledge a need for the middle road. McCain has offered that and as you said once he gets it he will return to the middle or moderate side but democrats cannot accept it. McCain agrees with you guys on several issues yet you cannot support him because of the ones he does not. I understand a disagreement on issue matters but the party who has lectured us on understanding the others view is now the party that tells us about Palin’s down syndrome baby, tells us about her unwed daughter getting pregnant and as Pudding just pointed out Cindy McCains apparent pill problem. From where I sit, as a Republican, who wants to work with the other side, I don’t see a lot of democrats standing up and doing it. I see democrats following someone just for the sake of change. Which tells me they are just as republican’s were accused of being with Clinton, self righteous mouth pieces who are not interested in anything but getting a liberal in office at this point.
    It also leads me to tell you as a democrat if you loose the common sense side of your party you will loose your entire party.

    If Obama wins and God Forbid something catastrophic happens to this country you will have lost your party, the middle of the road folks will not forget that change for change sake is what you picked, without any thought of experience.

    I will ask you this. Given what you said about the two candidates and what they have done and likely will do doesn’t it make more since to go with the one who has experience and something in his life that demonstrates a concern for others over a concern for self ? I don’t discount Obama’s community service but he did not make a decision that could have resulted in his death by helping the way he did. McCain has and despite my disagreement with him over immigration I believe he has shown the ability to make decisions with others in mind, Obama hasn’t yet done that. I’m frustrated with democrats acting as if he has. But like I said I believe they have been blinded out of the hate for Bush and Chaney not out of devotion to Obama.

    Darren we have to practice what we preach it is our failure to do so that gives a lot of them their talking points

  • http://therealmccain.com/ nzpudding

    Darren, your post made me laugh so much I had a tiny trickle of pee coming out…very…VERY…funny. Do you do stand up comedy by chance?

  • Dreadsen

    Todd

    Understand don’t group all of the democrats as supporting of the madness which is going on with Palin attacks now. Those are the radicals.
    Just like people who say Democrats would rather lose a war to win an election. That is an awful thing to say. Or that Democrats want to kill children. Or that Democrats want to put our children in danger.

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

    Now is there evidence that the Democratic party is behind these attacks on Palin’s family? From what I saw two women one quinn who is democratic but very religious and laura who is far right conservative then some media dumb asses started talking about it. Even Bill O’Reily entertains this by having her on his show. Did you see Joe Biden when he pointed out that it is those in the media’s fault that this came alive?

    Also something to think about. if you think you are voting the lesser of two evils you are still voting evil.

    “If Obama wins and God Forbid something catastrophic happens to this country you will have lost your party, the middle of the road folks will not forget that change for change sake is what you picked, without any thought of experience.”

    Todd is this fear mongering again? If Obama gets in something bad might happen? There is an argument that McCain and his neocon agenda will be putting us in danger as well.

  • http://therealmccain.com/ nzpudding

    Seems McCain is spoiling for a war with Russia, wants to bomb Iran and is keen to be in Iraq for 100 years. Yet Obama gets ridiculed for wanting to go into Pakistan and kill Bin Laden…WTF?

  • Dreadsen

    Todd

    One other thing. The McCain you described is Senator McCain not candidate McCain. McCain now is very different from the old Senator McCain. He is even against or criticizes his own bipartisan bill. Senator McCain was suggested to be John Kerry’s running mate. I’m willing to bet you that Candidate McCain would not have been suggested.
    Remember some issues are more major than other ones. Almost all of the Dems are against the war. They wouldn’t trade that policy in because of the few things which he used to agree with them on. Like Lieberman. he is for the war so he can’t rally with the rest of the dems. Even though with the exception of the war Lieberman may be more liberal or just as liberal as some claim Obama is as far as his voting record but the Republicans still embraced him and he embraced them. I believe the average independent or moderate repub or dem thinks the same way. like all the republicans for Obama or democrats for McCain. They know that Obama or McCain is way off on all of their core issues. But they support him because of a few major issues.

    I do agree with you about tons of people having blind support for Obama out of their disgust for Bush. That was the majority of his Foreign support. Those 200,000 that showed up in England were not FOR Obama ( well some had to be) but against Bush. This is the same country that burned our flags when we invaded Iraq but when they saw Obama they were chanting USA and waving American flags.

  • PeoplePower

    Todd -

    I have to say I am rather insulted by your post. Although, perhaps I have read it wrong.

    It seems to me that you are saying that because your morals and ethics are based in religious belief that they are more valid than my morals and ethics. This view is exactly the reason I have such an issue with tying religion into government and fear a true social conservative in power.

    If you only do good deeds because your mom/dad/God will be dishonored/hurt if you don’t, then I submit you’re not doing good deeds.

    This is not a personal attack (it’s the plural ‘you’ here) – If you do good deeds because they are the right thing to do and work hard not to fail your ethics/morals than you truly are living a good life and will honor your parents and God inspite of your actions, rather than simply because of them.

    As for me, I came from a mixed marriage. My mom is Lutheran and my dad was Catholic. ;) I have my foundation in morals and ethics from a Judeo-Christian base. I added to this further belief structures and philosophies.

    I have a very different perspective on religion and spirituality nowadays. I think it is extreme arrogance for *anyone* to act as if they *KNOW* the mind of God. That their interpretation of a book that has been re-translated many times from its original form is the only correct view. Notice I say *THEIR* interpretation, not a commonly widespread consensus (i.e. Jesus is Love).

    And yet, the social conservatives seem to think that they can constrict and control me based upon their belief structures. Few say it out loud, but it is very clear that it is *only* acceptable to social conservatives if that religion is Christianity. And there may even be only a few specific sects that are to be included.

    How can anyone honestly say that they know better when it comes to God’s intentions or desires? Belief is wonderful, but not when it tramples upon others’ beliefs – for instance, Sarah Palin’s sect (Assemblies of God) has a typical line that Catholics are not Christians. How friggin’ arrogant!

    And that brings me to Bristol Palin. It is wrong to attack her for this situation, her or her parents. (BTW – O’Reilly defends the Palins while calling Brittany Spiers’ parents reprehensible, for the same situation – typical hypocrisy).

    However, the Republicans are excitedly trumpeting that it was Bristol’s choice to keep the baby. Great. I’m glad she made the choice for herself.

    The problem is, social conservatives want to take that choice away from everyone else. They’re happy about the choice made because it was “the right one” in their opinion.

    They talk about people who are Pro-Choice as if that means Pro-Abortion. Nobody is pro-abortion. Some people just feel it is not their business to force a baby upon someone and Sarah Palin is on record saying she would do just that, even in the case of rape.

    So, why do people get up in arms about this situation? For that exact reason – having choice is okay, so long as that choice is for the baby’s life.

    This control and demand for people following their particular view is why I personally (and pr’ly the many “stuck on Obama because he’s not Republican” others can’t bring themselves to vote for McCain). I cannot risk more social conservatism affecting the courts and the country. By legislating belief you take away free will.

    Do I believe social conservatives love their country? Yes.
    Do I think they are entitled to their beliefs? Yes.
    Do I think that a social conservative agenda is good for the country? Honestly, bits of it, yes – but mostly no.
    Does that mean that I am non-religious or hate this country? Hell NO!

    Just because my belief structure is not the same as someone else’s doesn’t mean we can’t find common ground and fight for the people of this country.

    Just because I’m Pro-Choice does not mean I’m in favor of abortions. And accepting that can be a common thread by which we work together to fix the situation to our best abilities.

    Ethics and morals are the humanistic and religious sides of the same coin.

    Oh, and one very interesting argument I’ve heard is the following:

    If God gives us free will and it is our greatest gift and his highest law, than mothers should have the free will to choose to keep their baby, abort it or give it up for adoption. Truly, if life begins at conception and thus abortion is murder, they will be punished with eternal damnation – but it is *their* choice and *their* free will to make it.

  • PeoplePower

    One other thing.

    I think the Separation of Church and State is extremely critical for two reasons:

    1. I don’t want someone elses version of religion to tell me how I must believe. While I think it’s perfectly fine to have someone who is guided by religious convictions being in office, so long as they don’t pass laws specific to their interpretations, I don’t want our Government to adopt a specific version and force it upon all of us – like we all must be Southern Baptists and that’s the only choice we have.

    2. Whenever a Government ties itself to a specific religion, that religion is diminished by the Government controlling how that religion is acted upon. The state-sponsored religion loses its freedom to spread the word according to God’s laws and is infected by the whims of the politicians in control at the moment.

    No Religion in Government. No Government in Religion.

    Again, this does not mean that a particular candidate cannot be religious.

    Check out JFK’s speech about the separation of Church & State:

  • PeoplePower
  • IndiMinded

    Todd, if you’re having trouble understanding how people could still want to vote for Obama because of his dishonesty, then let me explain: I don’t expect any politicians to be honest all the time. But fortunately for us, we have factcheck.org :-D

    And if we look at their analysis of Obama’s acceptance speech: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html

    and compare it with their analysis of McCain’s acceptance speech: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html

    They both could have been more honest, but McCain was definitely several whoppers ahead in the final sum of things.

    On a side note, thank god for sites like factcheck.org – they’re a great boon to democracy