Report Comment

But I will admit I did come to Obama’s defense because i didn’t think the attacks on him were fair. Especially when the other side is just as guilty. When you are a 3rd party follower ( i voted for nader in 2000) you realize that both of these guys are just as bad. McCain followers would attack him for things they were guilty of themselves. Also if he gets in he may be able to end the neo con ideology of Iraq. Being that the plaent seems to like him except the people here he would be good candidate to get us back in good relations with the world. Some people call Ron Paul and isolationist which i agree to an extent. But McCain and the neo cons are also isolationist because they are willing to spread war all over the middle east by themselves while at the same time losing allies and angering other countries who were not hostile to us previously. So they are both isolationist i just think that Ron Pauls wouldn’t be pissing everyone off raising tensions around the world like the neo conmen are doing. And for the crazy ideas he has i figure that Congress would curb him on the rest. ( or i would hope)

Report Comment

Obama earmarks during time in senate / persons living in Illinois.
$980 million / 12.8 million people = $77 per person over his entire tenure….

These do not even remotely equal eachother…

Oh and Palin gave her citizens a rebate of $1200 per person living in Alaska…

That’s not fiscal responsibility, that is not being a “Maverick”

Report Comment

Todd, I came to that conclusion a long time ago. *L* But every once in a great while, we manage to score points for our candidate through debate, and the debate itself makes us dig deeper into our candidate. For the thousands that read this site but don’t participate, they are getting facts (sometimes) that could help them make their decision. I don’t think anyone here thinks they are going to change anyone’s mind, we just open up a debate for the readers, I think.

Report Comment

Report Comment

Report Comment

In 2004 Obama himself said he wasn’t qualified

and McCain has given up his “Maverick” stances in order to satisfy the Sean Hannity wing of the Republican party.

For me I think McCain goes back to the more moderate person he really is, if he wins

Report Comment

Report Comment

Report Comment

I’m just arguing for the sake of arguing!

Report Comment

Report Comment

“Your questions about the contract, bonus, etc. are interesting but it would seem the Obama campaign would clarify this rather than let it stand after the Chicago area newspapers questioned it.”

Well i will say I had that book. And for the most part most of it was true. But the author has a partisan spin on some things and some things he wasn’t truthful about. So Obama may have addressed this but i’m sure he wouldn’t note this anywhere. I’ll tell you some of the things I noticed wrong in his book.

On page xii the author claimed that Obama’s “liberal supporters … support military strikes within the territory of an American ally without that nation’s permission” because “Obama apparently made a slip of the tongue in August of last year and advocated such incursions into Pakistan.” Freddoso’s source cited this article

http://www.reuters.com/ar.....6420070801

But freddoso claimed this was a slip of the tongue. But if you look here it was prepared long time ago. So this was no slip.
http://www.barackobama.co.....he_w_1.php

He also gave some references hoping that you wouldn’t check it out. Check out page 30-31 where he references page 124 of David Mendell’s book Obama: From Promise to Power in characterizing a piece of ethics legislation Obama passed in 1998 as “relatively harmless,” and claiming that the bill merely made Obama “look like a reformer.” In fact, Mendell wrote something very different from what Freddoso claims. He did not in any way characterize the bill as “harmless,” but instead noted that pushing the bill through the state Senate “was a tough assignment for a new lawmaker, since he was essentially sponsoring legislation that would strip away long-held privileges and perks from his colleagues,” and that Obama received opposition from his colleagues regarding the ethics legislation. Mendell further wrote that Obama “worked the issue deliberately and delicately,” and that upon its passage, the bill “essentially lifted Illinois, a state with a deep history of illicit, pay-to-play politics, into the modern world when it came to ethics restrictions.”

If you want i can copy and paste the entire page he references so you can cross reference with your book. But it does show that you have to check that guys references out because in some cases he hopes you won’t or you can’t find them.

Babs

The Change platform has belonged to Obama in THIS election. McCain has never mentioned change. The media, friends and foe have all talked about his “Change” platform. (I’m sure you have heard the joke “the only change he’s going to bring is change in my pocket”) Like a musician who does a cover song of a past artist and it becomes a hit. Imagine if another popular artist who competes with him tries to release the exact same cover song at the exact same time his opponents is at the top of the charts.

I looked at the link. It says that Obama has pledged to not request any earmarks. But where did he say that he is against them? Not requesting them in no way means that someone is against them. Has he actually stated that he is against them?

And there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE from Palin coming out the gate making anti earmarks a platform of her campaign and Obama being really quiet or not saying much about his stance on earmarks. ( i may be wrong about his stance but i have never seen or heard anything). She hired a lobbying firm for the purpose of getting pork for her. But i looked at the list and i will say all 27 million bucks she got for only 6,700 people looked like things they actually needed. A couple things looked like something only a liberal person would have gotten. I see why the town liked her so much. It’s a shame she can’t use this to help her because she is now campaigning against making those types of efforts when her example would be one of “not wasteful spending”.

Report Comment

Platforms are the thing. If you truly compare the platforms of sponsored by McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden, you just vote for the one that suits you.

However the GOP is making it very hard to compare platforms. My Mom saw the Palin speech and really liked her. When I informed her that Palin’s policies supported abstinence-only education and was pro-life (even in cases of rape or incest), she was shocked. Now if you support those things, that’s fine – everybody is entitled to their beliefs. However all my mother saw was the speech, and she had no other information on Palin at all. This is what the media needs to do – inform people of the platform that the candidates support.

Report Comment

Palin-lies, earmarks, or pork barrel spending, is requested through bills in legislation. Mayors and Govenors don’t submit bills to Congress, Senators do.

Report Comment

Report Comment

And what exactly are you insinuating by drawing attention to this?

Report Comment

In as far as the bridge to no where, Palin, yes, was for the bridge before her election. After her election, she denounced the bridge as wasteful spending. This of course came after there was ridicule about the bridge and funding was denied. The statement that she told them if they (Alasks) needed a bridge they would build their own is incorrect also. They infact told her that if the great state of Alaska wanted a bridge they would have to build it themselves. She didnt tell them that until they told her first.

As you can see, there are a lot of unknowns about this person. I am scared to death that many of her songs of praise about herself are not accurate. We should all do our homework before we allow someones style, gender and spoken words sway our vote!

Please think and research your canidate before your vote~regardless of who you vote for.
Do we really want more of the same?

Report Comment

Report Comment

News Flash for everyone here – http://www.cagw.org/site/.....008_Senate

Barack Obama has pledged NOT to request any more earmarks to the CAGW. Which is saying he’s NOW against them. Now we can start the discussion over.

For a more detailed listing of Obama’s previous stand on earmarks, check my previous commentary “McCain Pins the Tail on the Donkey”.

Report Comment

As for the 1 million in funding for University of Chicago, is this directly linked to Obama in any way or another coincidental fact that is used conspiratorially? Was the allocation of such funds irregular? How much did it comprise of the University’s budget? Was it allocated for a specific project? And, if so, was an application submitted for those funds and when was it submitted? Before Obama’s election or afterwards? I don’t these answers but I would say that $1 million is chump change for an organisation the size of the University of Chicago. Moreover, the hospital is under the auspices of the University but that is more in name than actual running of the place.

Come on, it’s important to think critically about these things rather than specious information to confirm already held prejudices. Moreover, if you don’t like the guy and don’t intend to vote for him, that’s fine. I’d have more respect if you could just admit that you’re a racist.

Of course, I’m not serious about that accusation – it might be true but I can’t determine it from your comments on this page. It was more intended to serves as an example of the distinction between facts (in this case, your citing of funding/salary) and interpretation (claiming to know your motive in citing such figures).

Report Comment