Barack Obama says he's done more than just talk

If Obama is an empty suit (he's not but the Repubs wish that) then I guess we could say that Insane McCain is a "stuffed suit" who has psychological problems (100 years in Iraq) and who is nearly 100 years old.

Insane McCain = Bob Dole re-loaded

Mrs Clinton campaign lacks fund and she can only rely on so called debate to make herself heard at low coast by repeating badly rehearsed & memorized slogans such us"Universal Health care is a democratical basic principle!"...We are tired of slogans;change is coming baby to America!

Everytime this Illinois democrat opens his mouth all that comes out are lies. Why should it be any different now?

Obama challenged McCain and all republicans to take public funds for the general election campaign if they won the nomination. McCain called his bluff. Now Obama's saying he's not sure if he'll take public funds. More proof that McCain's word means something and Obama's only means what's politically expedient.

“It was very clear to me that Senator (Barack) Obama had agreed to having public financing of the general election campaign, if I did the same thing,” McCain said a press conference at a Wisconsin aviation museum Friday. “I am going to keep that commitment…I expect Senator Obama to keep his word to the American people as well.”

McCain is calling on Obama to make good on the commitment the IL Senator made in February 2007 –to take the $85 million lump sum in government cash for the general campaign if his Republican rival did the same. At the time, McCain was the only GOPer who took the Illinois Senator up on the agreement.

Obama spokesperson Bill Burton told the New York Times Friday that the campaign will “address that issue in the general election, when we’re the nominee,” adding, “we’re just not entertaining hypotheticals right now.”

Obama absolutely nails it! The reason Americans are rallying behind him, is exactly because he makes such common-sense arguments.

The sad thing is that Sen. Clinton is showing how quickly she would like to get in a mud slinging battle. I am not suggesting Sen. Obama is perfect, but she clearly is appearing desperate.
One import point I would like to make is that many of my republican friends say that they will fight hard against 'Hillary'. Sen. Clinton may bring a lot of counter votes to the table and hurt the Democratic party's chances of winning.

I'd like to be heard at low coast, too. Somewhere near the Outer Banks of North Carolina. That's my favorite low coast.

Every body must show his/her track record when applying a plain job. For a top job Prez, if he is a real doer to make a real change, he must show his track record to turn thing around using a minimum resource within a short time frame for a very large community.
A talker can do a job of Senator, but Prez job does require a doer as it's an executive job.
I doubt if he has any of them, so he must change for the worse !!!

Here! the answer to all questions about him and his ability in simple English that everybody can understand. That is so eloquent, none to beat.

The Empty Suit trotted out his usual bromides: He "brought together" somebody for something, he "worked with" Republicans on "issues". Obama claims, "That wasn't talk". Actually, that's precisely what it was, and is.

The only specific was his grandiose claim that "I fixed our criminal justice system in Illinois to prevent wrongful convictions in Illinois". And on the 7th day He rested...

Obama's not merely an Empty Suit. He's an Empty Suit who nonetheless thinks he's the new Messiah.

I'd like to see a Wisconsin debate between Hillary and Obama but in a quiz format. On a frozen lake. Using sock puppets. Any ideas on a moderator?

Obama spokesperson Bill Burton told the New York Times Friday that the campaign will “address that issue in the general election, when we’re the nominee,” adding, “we’re just not entertaining hypotheticals right now.”

Posted by: Jeff | February 15, 2008 4:48 PM

College Republican Jeffy,

Why don't you tell us what Insane McCain is going to do to fix the economy? you can't do it because even he admits that he knows NOTHING about it...and as far as Iraq goes he want's to stay there for 100 years?!?!

I can't wait for the debates because both Hillary or Obama will run circles around that dumb old man, McCain.

Clinton wants to debate Obama in Wisconsin because (1) she has been seen by some as a stronger debater in the past (2) she wants to distract him from his personal appearances in TX and OH where right now her name recognition is better. It looks like, from the ads that are coming out, we won't want to watch their future debates. I liked the one where they were both nice to each other.

It's sad to see Hillary come unraveled like this. but, you know what they say... adversity doesn't form character, it reveals it. This is the true Clinton - one that loves to stir it up and cause uphevel. It's sad to see personal ambition cloud sound judgement.

It's just really annoying to listen to Sen. Clinton at this point. I can't remember the last time I turned on the T.V. and heard anything positive out of her mouth. She did this before right after IOWA, she started getting mad and attacking and crying all over the place. I just don't want to see the Clintons in my living room for another four years. Go away please.

Yes, Hillary brought up the idea of universal healthcare when Bill was president. She and her husband had 8 years. If Clintons were good at getting healthcare for everyone, why didn't she and her husband make it happen in that 8 year period????

No, Hillary didn't invent universal healthcare. It has been in existence almost all over the world for many years.

Obama is the best thing that ever happend in American poletics he was the under dog who brought himself up not just by making speachs but by organizing the best campagin Clinton is angery because she just can't keep up with him.

he makes common sense arguments, but his position is extremely liberal and I don't think most people have figured that out yet. If they don't agree with his positions, they shouldn't be voting for just charisma.

As pointed out in the above article, Sen. Clinton did support NAFTA when her husband signed it. This is a copy of an e-mail I sent to friends of mine several weeks ago regarding that and her current position. Or has she switched again?

In a speech given on 31 May 2007 before 200 Silicon Valley CEOs and senior officers, Hillary Clinton called for increasing the number of visas granted highly skilled foreign workers, making it easier for more foreign workers to come here to take our jobs.

Why would she support more foreign workers coming here to take our jobs, choosing to make that statement to that particular audience? Because the companies hire them for lower wages than they would pay someone from the American Public, saving them money and earning those executives huge bonuses. These are the same executives whose companies are significant contributors to political campaigns. Oh yes, the executives are significant contributors, too. Of course, she is more interested in the money they can, will, and have given to her own campaigns for both Senator and President, not our jobs.

Her speech is also remarkable because she has more recently stated that she believes that the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), an agreement that caused hundreds-of-thousands (if not millions) of our coincidently highly skilled jobs to go to foreign nations, should be modified. That, in itself, is remarkable because she fully supported it when her husband, President Bill Clinton, signed it into effect. In fact, she supported it until she started running for President herself and realized that many Americans now, finally, understand that their own jobs went elsewhere because of NAFTA.

And, as you all know, she is claiming to have "thirty-five years experience" and basing that claim on being fully involved in all decisions that Bill Clinton made as President. If true, that means she not only "used to support" NAFTA, she helped ensure it was implemented.

So then, at first she supported and helped to decide for NAFTA, sending our jobs elsewhere.

Then, she decided it needed to be modified.

Now, she wants to make it easier for foreigners to come here to take our jobs at lower wages.

Is this who we really want as President?

Sign me as,

LG, a concerned citizen in Santa Cruz, CA.

Anybody who claims that Barack Obama is the "most liberal member" of a Senate which includes Bernie Sanders is clearly not paying attention. Senator Sanders, who I think would be proud to receive such a title, just isn't getting the recognition he deserves - probably because he's an independent.

The National Journal is a joke - they said the same thing about John Kerry in '04. Coincidence? I seriously doubt it.

(Bernie for President!)

Here is Obama's action plan:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html

If people in the USA want real change they should volunteer at a homeless shelter or feed the hungry at a food bank. I don't see any politician left, right or in the middle doing that.

I'm a Ron Paul Republican from Salt Lake City and I have been reading Obama's policies over the past couple of days. While I can't say that I agree with everything Obama stands for (for example, I believe the younger generation should be able to opt out of social security), he has some decent ideas. I'm hoping that Obama wins the democratic nomination because I think he will handily beat McCain, who I feel is an imperialist, warhawk.

Response to Jeff: It would be unwise for Senator Obama to rely only on public funds. As far as I understand it, the "SwifBoating" attack was not made by the Bush campaign but by so called interested parties. If Senator Obama restricts himself to public funds only, how could he respond to such possible attacks if he has a limited budget.

One just needs to look on how these candidates have run their respective campaigns to have an idea on how effectively their will run the country. HRC is miserably failing. Obama has totally and consistantly show how superior a leader he is compared to HRC. Her campain is falling apart. What happened on being ready on "day one"? What happened to the advantage of "35 years experience"? Clearly she wasn't ready in Iowa!

John-

McCain already announced that he will NOT be taking public funding for the general election. Doesn't matter what he said in 2007, matters what he said in the last 2 weeks.

Hey, if Senator Clinton wants to waste her slim resources on lame attack ads, I say she should go for it. It just shows what kind of desperate campaign she's running and, after she loans herself another $5mil, there's always her supporters to pay her back with their donations, right?

Duy said,"A talker can do a job of Senator, but Prez job does require a doer as it's an executive job."

That's true. The problem is that Hillary has done much less than Bakak. Hillary is not Bill

For all her acclaimed "Solutions" that she says she has (and not Barack), how come Hillary is trailing behind Barack in the "Delegate" count?

Hollow speeches of hers will not fetch her the votes! She needs to be fair and run a fair contest and not lower her esteem to being a cheapo.

Cute comment Jeff, I would love to be somewhere around San Diego.

***BUT as I live in IL Obama's home state. I must say. While I am disguated by both parties at this point. Obama just as well start his own party. His idea's have ranged both sides of the Isle and have been grounded in COMMON SENSE and COMPATION for justice and the people he serves. Gov. George Ryan (ex gov) of IL was a NOtoriously corrupt politician but it was Obama and others like him who put aside there own distain for a broken politician and the sytem he left, o try an fix a gross problem of wrongfull convictions in IL. DEM or REP this man is compationate, and not the fake I tell you what I want you to hear George Bush jargon. He a real man. lol Just my op though take it or leave it

I agree with Sen. Obama, these debates are all the same, get in front of the voters and discuss issues. Look at this way, if you own a company and the managers make real bad decisions, the best thing to do would be to bring in new blood. Let us do the same for the White House.

I admire Hillary, but I wish Hillary refrains from this kind of attack on her opponent. She comes across as being desperate, specially about the debate thing. Campaign advisers should rethink their approach, it is not helping her in any way. Please just stick to the issues.

Timothy

The 2007 earmarks list is in!

Once again, Senator McCain is one of only 18 senators and congressmen that did not ask for or receive a single pork earmark in 2007. Fellow Republican senator and earmark-fighters Tom Coburn and Jim Demint made the list, too. Among the democrats honorably not asking for earmarks are McCain's longtime friend Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. These three were the ONLY democrats to eschew earmarks.

Others giving up their pork include Reps. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.; Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas; Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Eric Cantor, R-Va. and House republican leader John Boehner.

No big shock that Ted Stevens and the Klansman Robert C. Byrd AGAIN led their parties in sucking up pork at the trough. Thad Cochran and Okinawa Jack Murtha led on the house side.

You know whose name SHOULD appear on the list of senators not asking for or receiving pork if he really was an "agent of change?" How about Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Oh, I get it, he's for the Illinois version of "change" where you talk a lot and do nothing.

I run the risk inflaming his crazy supporters by pointing out that Rep. Ron "Dr. No" Paul didn't appear with Senators McCain, Coburn, Feingold, and Rockefeller in the honorable category of not asking for or taking pork.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Only_18_lawmakers_shunned_pet_proje_02132008.html

How about a swamp post on Obama's shameful participation in the pork game, McCormick? Forward it to Silva, if you must, he seems to hate pork like me.

he worked with who, worked on what, pushed for this or that. after 20 years. please. Dems are such gullable and starey eyed.nimwits. Just say and promise what they want to hear and they will believe. Like the changes made by the2006 congress. Big on promise,small on delivering.If he becomes president the first thing he will say is NOW WHAT? He couldnt run my 50 employee company let alone a country. What a bunch of fools.

For those who have been bathed in the lies of the Clintons and washed by their falsehood that comes so natural need to wake up. I think one should at least be a high school graduate to vote. It has to be a law, because otherwise we get these dummies who are voting based on just what they have been told. Look for the information of what experience each candidate has, don't just take their word for it. Compare what they have done in elected office only while they have been serving the people. Just because Hillary was living in the white house for 8 years does not mean experience. My husbands experience is not mine and neither is mine his. Please use the god given (or Microsoft/google) tools given to you so for once you can be an informed voter and really take part in this society. Then maybe you wont have to be the (making $40,000 and under and no college degree) Hillary supporter. You may even make it to (The $50,000 plus income, college degree) supporter of Obama.
www.thomas.gov.org
All information on the experience of each candidate can be found here. You will see that Obama has substance and real experience and Hillary, well it's all first lady stuff (Support the girl scouts, library naming, Susan B Anthony day of reading and soft issues)

After 18 debates, does anyone really think anything new will be discussed? In fact, why would there by ANY question that Clinton hasn't already raised in the previous debates?
Only candidates who are down in the polls want debates.

This just may be the beginning of the end for the Clinton campaign...at least for 2008.

It's true.
When Hillary feels the pressure, she goes into furious frenzy mode and starts attacking the other candidates. Though Edwards has dropped out he had the decency to focus on his campaign and not downgrade others. Hillary, stop making your campaign one of attacks, I can only imagine how you will lead this country.

Of course Obama is going to attack back with NAFTA even if it was Bill's policy. But if youre goign to accredit Bill with your experience, than also accept NAFTA, the good comes with the bad.

Nonetheless, it's true i just read a comparison of the number of bills that they both have co-sponsored and co-authored, and I am truly proud to be voting for Obama.
Go Obama!!!

Why is OBAM using the Rheumatoid Arthritis Foundations "Yes I can" slogan for his campaign. Oh my gosh is this just some more plagiarism. Come on OBAM if you can't come up with your own ideas, how will you ever run this country.

This article pokes fun that Barack admits to giving a good speech. If he was modest about his speaking talents but secretly believed that he gave a good speech then that would be dishonest. Hillary def strikes me as dishonest because she will say anything about her opponent to get votes, even if it is false. Unfortunately for her she is running out of new material and people are getting bored with it.

Why should Latinos trust Obama when his track record in actually doing what he says he will do is so poor? Unlike rich white liberal ivory-tower folk and college students that have taken his lofty kool-aid, Latinos can ill afford to trust in a “bonehead” candidate.

Talk to me Obama, be concrete about the ugly realities of poverty, hate, race, and cultural conflict in the neighborhood and how you are different from Hilary in your solutions; and just to say that you were are community organizer and legal services attorney (badges) is not enough. I would also like to see some of your original thinking; stealing Hilary’s plans or playing off the romance of heroes like MLK or others does not cut it.

To John E,

How does Senator McCain get involved in this argument? And where does the "empty suit" reference came from? Even if you do not support John McCain, he deserves fair and respectful criticisms, as do all the candidates from all parties. The real problem in Washington, as well as this country, is civil discord is being displaced by childish insults. By the way, any man who has served his country in war and peace for 54 years and counting, including almost committing suicide because he was afraid he'd dishonor himself and his country after being repeatedly tortured, is obviously displaying "psychological problems".

As a Legislator, Obama Hit the Wrong Button... Six Times
I relate to Barack Obama losing paper, and being disorganized, and sometimes losing things. He's human.
But other campaign correspondents have noted how often Obama blames his staff, and throws them under the bus when mistakes are made.
And then there's this story , which seems a little unnerving:
Barack Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed.

"I was not aware that I had voted no," he said that day in June 2002, asking that the record be changed to reflect that he "intended to vote yes."
That was not the only misfire for the former civil rights attorney first elected to the state Senate in 1996. During his eight years in state office, Obama cast more than 4,000 votes. Of those, according to transcripts of the proceedings in Springfield, he hit the wrong button at least six times.

The rules allow state lawmakers to clear up a mishap if they suffered from a momentary case of stumbly fingers or a lapse in attention. Correcting the record is common practice in the Illinois Legislature, where lawmakers routinely cast numerous votes in a hurry.

But some lawmakers say the practice also offers a relatively painless way to placate both sides of a difficult issue. Even if a lawmaker admits an error, the actual vote stands and the official record merely shows the senator's "intent."
Hey, no big deal. It's not like the biggest, most devastating decision a president could make is represented by the metaphor of "pushing the button."
"Sir, we have outbound ICBMs."
"Relax, President Obama just hit the wrong button."

Obama's Accomplishments:
1)Elected as first black president of the Harvard Law Review
2) As an attorney, represented community organizers and voting rights cases.
3)Taught constitutional law for ten years at University of Chicago
4) Gained bipartisan support in the Illinois state senate for ethics reform, health care laws, tax credits, welfare reform, childcare, fighting racial profiling, and police brutality.
5)Spoke out against the Iraq war from the start.
6)As a freshman US Senator, co-sponsored at least eight key pieces of legislation on immigration, nuclear nonprolifertion, expanding SCHIP, ethics reforms, and bringing our troops home.

If you want to know more, go to his website. Don't parrot the Hillary attack machine without doing your own homework first.

Regarding the campaign financing: Of course Obama is not going to use public financing now, because no one else has pledged to do so. He never said that he would take public financing if no one else did. It would be foolish to do it alone. The point was to try and get everyone to agree to it. They didn't, so he won't either.

I'm not much of a fan of Hillary's, but she is right: Obama gives a heck of a speech, but he has not done jack. Being one of scads of signers on a bill as a senator is close to nuthin.

Name one bill of some substance that he has been the lead on. Let alone that he has not run a single thing: a state, a business, etc.

Good grief - the lack of any real leadership or accomplishments may doom us in the real election.

better that we vet him now, rather than simply give in to blind hope and emotion....

Dear American Friends,
Senator Obama speaks so much sense that you have to be unlearned, void of discernment not to capture that. He is a son of America we should be proud of him! With Him both international and internal policy will have a new direction

Thanks

I, for one, live in the trenches of life and not in the clouds. Meaningful change is concrete. Hilary Clinton understands this to her very core. Obama will tell you one thing and do another; he failed to speak up for Maytag workers during plant closures while taking tens of thousands in contributions from the owner of Maytag. When asked to help in his home state to prevent nuclear waste emissions from nuclear power plants he responded with weakness and sold out to his nuclear power plant donors; nothing changed except the amount he got in contributions from his nuclear buddies.

Hilary delivers the tools we need to build our own lives. We who support her( Latinos, women, and working class people) share in a common value; when we need help, we ask and when we see someone in need among us we come to their aid (Obama will sell you out to his elite friends). Hilary needs our help now, she has been there for us, we should be there for her NOW.

In the memory of my mother and my grandmother whose burdens were heavy and for the future of my sons and daughters whose world is in peril, I support and join Hilary in her lifelong struggle to make solutions real and meaningful change possible. To my brothers and sisters in the Latino community, thank you for standing with Hilary to build the new coalition for change.

Hillary is right, he has no substance and the youth of this nation are like "Hitler's Youth" they are mesmerized by him! He has to just look nice, sound nice, offer no solutions, gloss over the real issues and they think that he is the greatest and newest thing going! To them the autracities of the past are myths and they don't realize what can happen when you elect a power hungry president.

Hillary's desparate. Same old politics, she is. And McCain looks like a hamster.

Obama 08!!!!!

Obama's not merely an Empty Suit. He's an Empty Suit who nonetheless thinks he's the new Messiah.

Posted by: Skeptic | February 15, 2008 5:02 PM

Yeah, I guess we should just shut up and vote for the Republican Messiah (McCain) who promises us LESS JOBS and MORE WAR...

The Rethuglicans are scared to death of Obama and they should be because they know they're going to their butt's kicked by him in the upcoming General Election.

Of the three choices, Obama is the only one who does not carry failed policies forward in their campaign. Why do you think Clinton and McCain get along so well? It's because they're coming from the same place and they belong to the same establishment rooted in the past and supporting the same shadowy groups that influence political decisions so much in Washington.

Is it me or does Hillary really, really, truly sound pathetic? Telling Sen.Obama, "I'll meet you in Texas, "Lets battle", wearing blue boxing gloves as she challenges Obama to another pointless debate, I mean, she sounds like a loser.

Why is OBAM using the Rheumatoid Arthritis Foundations "Yes I can" slogan for his campaign. Oh my gosh is this just some more plagiarism. Come on OBAM if you can't come up with your own ideas, how will you ever run this country.

Posted by: RFB | February 15, 2008 5:33 PM

Bring on the HATE, Wingnuts!

You are scared and you should be because people are sick and tired of the rightwing luntic fringe and their new ringmaster, McCain, the dumb old guy is about as exciting and inspiring as watching paint dry!!!!!

I'm still trying to figure out what Hillary did for the state of New York.

If anyones a talker, it's her. Hillary's solutions are just words like everyone elses until they prove it once in the Oval office.

Hillary, do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself. It's sad!

Hillary's new attack is in line with those of pundits like Joe Klein of TIME who dismissively writes, "(Clinton) simply knows more than Obama."

How do you figure? What has Hillary really done? She so damaged universal healthcare in the '90s that no one has wanted to touch it in the last 15 years. She voted to trust GW's judgment. She laughed at Barack's suggestion to take action in Pakistan if the intelligence warranted it. And when we did, she didn't say "boo" because it was the right call.

The notion that Hillary "knows more" is ludicrous. It falls in line with the reasoning that blacks are "naturally gifted" but that whites are more "intelligent" in professional sports.

If Hillary knows more or has "solutions" to our nation's woes, she sure as heck hasn't shared any in the past 15 years.

Joe,

One of Obama's plans is to give young high school graduates $4,000 a year for serving their community, and he specifically lists working at a homeless shelter is one way to qualify.

18 debates--- I think there was only one debate between the two of them and one with Mr. Edwards and Senator Clinton.

He is twisting the facts like well---a politician--but he says he is not?

To John E,

How does Senator McCain get involved in this argument? And where does the "empty suit" reference came from? Even if you do not support John McCain, he deserves fair and respectful criticisms, as do all the candidates from all parties. The real problem in Washington, as well as this country, is civil discord is being displaced by childish insults. By the way, any man who has served his country in war and peace for 54 years and counting, including almost committing suicide because he was afraid he'd dishonor himself and his country after being repeatedly tortured, is obviously displaying "psychological problems".

Posted by: TC | February 15, 2008 5:34 PM

Why? because right after he became a "war hero" he (McCain) joined the Republican Party and became a flip-flopping, two-faced Liar, that's why.

His own Republican party members call him "Insane McCain" for a very good reason, he is insane.

McCain Loan Could Violate Donor Privacy
http://www.politico.com:80/news/stories/0108/7837.html

McLame's Immigration Insanity
http://www.borderfirereport.net:80/letters-from-readers/mclames-immigration-insanity.html

Video: Liebs says McCain did not support amnesty for illegal aliens
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/05/video-liebs-says-mccain-did-not-support-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens

McCain: "We Are Not Going To Build Fences And Barriers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5G3kH1PvvU

Tom DeLay Disses McCain, Calls New Hampshire Win ‘A Blip’
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com:80/2008/01/09/tom-delay-disses-mccain-calls-new-hampshire-win-a-blip/

John McCain and Our Second Amendment
http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm

John McCain's Skeleton Closet
http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm#keating

The Conservative Case Against McCain
http://thenextprez.blogspot.com/2005/12/conservative-case-against-mccain.html

A Vote For McCain Is A Vote For Amnesty, Open Borders and Never Building A Fence
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/01/a_vote_for_john_mccain_is_a_vo.php

#%&@# You McCain's Unstable Temper Raises More Doubt from Arizona News ( This site will not post actual title. Search Arizona News for John McCain. It's worth the effort to find it. )

Conservative Group Campaigns Against McCain: He's No Ronald Reagan
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Conservative_group_campaigns_again_McCain_Hes_0301.html

Former Senator Rick Santorum sees a lot of problems with John McCain's credentials
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=e96c3803-c542-4a57-98bd-68635a744540&comments=true

John McCain's Temper Preceded Vietnam
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/30/123006.shtml

John McCain's Record of Economic Issues
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/03/arizona_senator_john_mccains_t.php

McCain Would Vote Against The Bush Tax Cuts All Over Again
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/301ccb6c-32b0-4ba7-8330-68d560f67dd8

McCains Stand On Detainees May Pose Risk For 2008 Bid
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801353.html

Democrats Contributed Heavily To McCain's Effort in District 11 Election
http://www.azconservative.org/McCain_Discord.htm

The Conservative Case Against Huckabee And McCain
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/019929f6-5799-479e-a86b-e2e2601330ab

McCain Walks Into Conservative Clothesline
http://www.baltimoregroupblog.com/2007/03/19/mccain-walks-into-conservative-clothes-line/

John McCain Is No Hero
http://www.usvetdsp.com/bengmcan.htm

U.S. Senator John McCain Is No War Hero
http://www.namvets.com/Reading/john_mccain_is_no_war_hero.htm

Flashback: The Real John McCain
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/43aba933-6972-4a36-a25f-a2973e69e4ee

Wife of POW Navy Pilot, Who Had Husband's Remains Sent Home By North Vietnamese in 1989, Was Lied to by U.S. Officials For Years About His Whereabouts And POW Status
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/31-oct-2005.html

Defending America by David Hackworth
http://www.hackworth.com/25jan00.html

IT'S TIME TO GIVE THE U.S. ARMY A GOOD SHAKE
http://www.hackworth.com/19nov01.html

Why Vietnam Vets Split on McCain
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_16/ai_61487324

Luck Of The Admiral's Son Not For "Grunts"
http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.htm

ARIZONA'S JOHN McCAIN: A Fraud, "Rhinestone Hero," and National Security Risk
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/mccain.html

MSNBC questions McCain's temper; Reporter says McCain vexes Senate colleagues
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_Does_McCains_temper_hurt_presidential_0707.html

Jeff, of course McCain doesn't have any earmarks. He's too busy taking care of his lobbyist buddies needs to actually look out for the interests of the people of Arizona.

McCain represents K street, not his state.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/12/30/ST2007123002933.html

http://www.rollcall.com/politics/kstendorsements.html

http://a.abcnews.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251&page=1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080204/pl_bloomberg/aqivdvkpq3s_1

Well put, TC.

As for taking public funds, last I recall, McCain's campaign was out of money, so now he is spinning his not having a choice but to take public financing as a positive. Don't be so naive. Obama has the largest, war chest built of small donors in a very long time. That is as public as you can get. As for Hillary, she does keep changing her slogan based on what Obama is doing, so while she may be a credible candidate, she needs to stick to her own message. Obama speaks change, now she does. He's populist, now she is. I initially supported Hillary, but it was initially out of my perception of the Clintons as being truly "Set Upon" unfairly while Bill was in office. Yet imagine as I began to see them employ the self same tactics used ineffectively against them during Bill's tenure in the White House against Obama. I couldn't stomach it and it really cheapens so much of what President Clinton was able to accomplish. I'm not saying Hillary is not a good candidate, but I am saying that she running on change rings very much of Bush running as a Washington Outsider. It's laughable and sad.

To ChangeWhat...
And what are Hillary's plans? She lies so much it is pathetic just like her universal Healthcare coverage. Do you think the poor, including Latinos want affordable healthcare or FINABLE healthcare? Because that is what her plan involves and is the reason she won't answer.

People keep wanting details, but Clinton doesn't provide anymore details and neither does McCain. Respect as a prisoner of war doesn't make him fit for president. This guy suddenly supports torture and wants to continue to fight in Iraq. We should have used all of those resources to go in Afghanistan and capture Bin Laden. 9/11 was not done by the Iraqi or Saddam and yet look at how much we have sacraficed because we thought they would lay down like when is Father defended Kuwait.
VOTE OBAMA!!!

Hillary Clinton will promise to build a bridge even if there’s no river.

Given the choice of having a 100 year war in Iraq, or Hillary Clinton as president - most voters will surely rather face a 100 year war than have another 4 years of Monica Lewinsky learning to play the saxaphone.

http://www.SherlockHolmesMuseum.com

TC,

You wonder why people aren't fawning all over John McCain the war hero?
It's because he doesn't care about anyone but himself and he will say and do anything to get elected.
I'll gladly vote for Senator Obama over McCain, in fact I can't wait to do so.

John McCain's Imaginary Military Support

Don't let anyone fool you into believing that John McCain is some sort of pied piper who's gained the unquestioning allegiance of the military and veterans' communities, that's how they like to portray it on the cable news shows, but it's just not true. I also realize lots of Republicans have a vested interest in seeing John McCain cast as the patron saint of Militaria, but the numbers just aren't there. Sorry.
I took a look at the CNN exit poll results for each primary state with at least two major military installations. Of the Republican respondents who stated they had served in the military at some point, here are the percentages who voted for McCain:

VA: 51%
LA: 47%
CA: 46%
FL: 42%
OK: 42%
MO: 39%
GA: 37%
Kind of anemic--and not what many would expect.

Conversely, here are the percentages of those Republican veterans who voted for "Not McCain":

VA: 49%
LA: 53%
CA: 54%
FL: 58%
OK: 58%
MO: 61%
GA: 63%
Wow. Coupled with the fact that both Ron Paul and Barack Obama have raised more money from the military community than John McCain, it seems clear that there is no ongoing love affair between the military and Mr. Bomb-bomb-bomb/Hundred Years Guy.

And that's just the empirical data. Anecdotally, everybody I talk to in the military thinks John McCain is out of touch, largely irrational, and a threat to the health and well-being of our Armed Forces.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

A little bit about John McCain's voting record (0.00 / 0)

John McCain voted
No to funding for transit security

No to the Department of Defense Appropriations, FY2003 bill

Which provided:
- $71.5 billion for procurement of aircraft, missiles, weapons, combat vehicles and shipbuilding

- $7.7 billion for missile defense, $814 million allocated, at the President's discretion, for missile defense or counter-terrorism

- $114.8 billion for Armed Forces operations and maintenance

- $58.4 million for foreign aid, which includes humanitarian assistance, foreign disaster relief and de-mining programs

- $14.8 billion for defense health programs

- 4.1 percent raise for military personnel

Note, this bill passed the Senate with a vote of 95-3

No to Military Construction Appropriations Act FY2003

This legislation also passed with a vote of 96-3

No to the Veterans Affairs and HUD Appropriations Act of 2002

Which provided $51.1 billion for the Veterans Administration
This legislation passed with a vote of 94-5

No to Expressing Support for All Men and Women in the U.S. Armed Forces

S Amdt 2947 to S Amdt 2011 to HR 1585: To reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America give John McCain a "D"

"Iraq, the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy" - General Omar Bradley

Hillary is the best candidate for Wisconsin!
She has cut more cheese than any one else!

I do not like either democrat candidate but if forced to vote, I would vote Obama anyday. Hillary Clinton is a dismal liar whose only true intention is to be called Madam President. She wants to go down in the history books so bad that she gladly spent $5 million of her own.

I think that Obama can get more done by talking his way into motion with both Republicans and Democrats and certainly with the American people. It talks all three to get changes put forward and acted upon. Like a good football, baseball or any sport team, there is nothing like an inspirational coach to motivate them all so that they win!

To any of you who have kids. Look your child in the eye right now. Ask yourself..do you want them to die in Iraq? When McCain says 100 years in Iraq he is talking about killing your children. What gives him the right?! Kids tha were 15 when the Iraq war started are literally DEAD now because of the decisions Bush, Clinton and McCain made. Obama is our only choice to restore common sense and sanity to government.

Karen wrote,

"Just because Hillary was living in the white house for 8 years does not mean experience."

Here are some excerpts from another e-mail I sent to friends a few weeks back regarding her "experience".

Hillary Clinton is claiming to have "more than thirty-five years experience" in government, implying that she has been deeply involved in governmental decisions and actions during that time. And yet, she will not answer questions asking specifics of what she did during that time. Since she will not, or can not, answer such questions I thought I might do so. Don't worry, I'm not going to bore you with great detail on this, there is no need to do so.

Ok. To get the thirty-five years we have to go back to when she and Bill were in Arkansas. He was the Attorney General and she was is wife. She did not hold a public office, elected or otherwise. She had no Administrative, Legislative, or Judicial authority and could not, therefor, do anything on any official governmental level. She may have given Bill some advise, but without actually being able to work within the government, I count that as no real experience.

Then Bill became Governor of Arkansas and she became First Lady of the state. Once again she had no Administrative, Legislative, or Judicial authority. No official involvement in government once more. Again, I count that as no real experience.

Next, we come to Bill becoming President and Hillary First Lady of the U.S. As President, Bill was automatically given the highest of security clearances. This was necessary for him to be fully informed on all issues and, hopefully, enable him to make an intelligent decision based upon that information.

As First Lady, Hillary did not receive a security clearance of any type. You see, one of the qualifications for receiving a security clearance AT ANY LEVEL is to have a "need-to-know" that information. As First Lady, she had no need-to-know any level of classified information for any reason because, once again she had no Administrative, Legislative, or Judicial authority.

She was not given any information that you or I could not also receive. She could not, indeed did not, sit in on Bill's daily briefings of any type because of the possibility that classified information may be discussed. In other words, folks, contrary to what she is claiming she was excluded from the inner workings of our government.

Oh, she could have asked a Congressional Representative to introduce legislation for her, but she didn't. Don't you think her campaign would be making a big deal out of any attempts she had made, even if they were rejected? They would be great evidence that she was involved in the government. Instead, we hear no such claims. And asking for the introduction of a bill is nothing unique anyway. You or I can do the same thing. All you have to do is write or call your Senator or Representative in the House and ask them to do so. Heck, even the President has to ask for legislation to be introduced but has no power to do so under our Constitution.

For the third time I must state that she had no Administrative, Legislative, or Judicial authority, meaning no official involvement in government. Once more, I count that as no real experience.

The only actual experience she does have is as a Senator. She was elected on November 7, 2000 and seated in 2001. That is the only actual experience she has that I can recognize. But even using the "new" math touted a few years back I can not get that to come out to thirty-five years experience.

Once again, please sign me as,

LG, a concerned citizen in Santa Cruz, CA.

Road warrior, you're full of it. Huge percentages of military votes delivered Florida and South Carolina to McCain and his record of supporting the military is second to none.

Michael, you're misinformed. The McCain campaign is now the best-funded republican campaign in the land. And even if it wasn't, it doesn't change the fact that Obama brought the subject up and said he'd go public funds only if his republican opponent would. McCain called his bluff. Now Obama's backtracking.

It was a nice way for him to look honorable BEFORE he was getting tons of money from George Soros but now he's been caught in his lies again so he's changing his story. If it was the right thing back then, Obama, why isn't it now? Liar.

If you go past Road Warrior's DNC talking points and twisted numbers you can see the real truth. McCain supports soldiers and sailors but he doesn't support wasteful government contracts to military suppliers. McCain was behind the investigation that recently put two Boeing executives behind bars for stealing our tax dollars. That's why military contractors who suckle at the government teat fear him. That's why you, the taxpayer, should vote for him.

Keith Ashdown at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit watchdog group said the "Pentagon cash machine" would be much more difficult for companies to access. "If you're a defense company and McCain wins, you know that your free ride at the Pentagon is going to be ending."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7313609

Hillary Clinton is desparate now. Yes, Clinton go His Nafta bill through and it certainly sent American jobs over seas. This was the worst treaty in history and it is a Clinton bill. I would like to hear how Hillary would get rid of this treaty that the Clinton was so happy about. Hillary does not like to talk about these issues. She needs to fix the 3 strikes you are out law that the the Clintons like so well. If Hillary had so much experience Why did she vote for the Iraq War. This war she voted for it draining our country. She has continually voted to give George a blank check. This country would not be in this bad shape since she voted with the other side to go to war.

As a former Republican, thanks to John McCain's nomination, I will be voting for Barack Obama this fall.

Insane McCain (that's what his fellow Republican Congress-critters call him) will say or do anything to get elected, even sell out his "war hero" status:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1188858/posts

Senator John McCain presents himself as a maverick and a critic of the Iraq war. But a close read of his record indicates that his position on the Iraq war has consistently matched President George W. Bush’s.

Before The War:

McCain used many of the same arguments as Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney and President Bush when advocating going to war with Iraq.

McCain co-sponsored the Use of Force Authorization that gave President George W. Bush the green light – and a blank check - for going to war with Iraq. [SJ Res 46, 10/3/02]

McCain argued Saddam was “a threat of the first order.” Senator McCain said that a policy of containing Iraq to blunt its weapons of mass destruction program is "unsustainable, ineffective, unworkable and dangerous." McCain: "I believe Iraq is a threat of the first order, and only a change of regime will make Iraq a state that does not threaten us and others, and where liberated people assume the rights and responsibilities of freedom.” [Speech to the Center for Strategic & International Studies, 2/13/03]

McCain echoed Bush and Cheney’s rationale for going to war. McCain: “It’s going to send the message throughout the Middle East that democracy can take hold in the Middle East.” [Fox, Hannity & Colmes, 2/21/03]

McCain echoed Bush and Cheney’s talking points that the U.S. would only be in Iraq for a short time. McCain: “It’s clear that the end is very much in sight. … It won’t be long…it’ll be a fairly short period of time.” [ABC, 4/9/03]

McCain said winning the war would be “easy.” “I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN, 9/24/02]

During The War:

Senator McCain praised Donald Rumsfeld as late as May 12, 2004, after the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Asked if Donald Rumsfeld can continue to be an effective secretary of defense, McCain: “Yes, today I do and I believe he's done a fine job. He's an honorable man.” [Hannity and Colmes, 5/12/04]

Senator McCain repeatedly supported President Bush on the Iraq War – voting with him in the Senate, defending his actions and publicly praising his leadership.

McCain maintains the war was a good idea.

At the 2004 Republican National Convention, McCain, focusing on the war in Iraq, said that while weapons of mass destruction were not found, Saddam once had them and “he would have acquired them again.” McCain said the mission in Iraq “gave hope to people long oppressed” and it was “necessary, achievable and noble.” McCain: “For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration.” [Plain Dealer, 8/31/04]

Senator McCain: “The war, the invasion was not a mistake. [Meet the Press, 1/6/08]

Asked if the war was a good idea worth the price in blood and treasure, McCain: “It was worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He had used weapons of mass destruction, and it's clear that he was hell-bent on acquiring them.” [Republican Debate, 1/24/08]

McCain defended Bush’s rationale for war. Asked if he thought the president exaggerated the case for war, McCain said, “I don’t think so.” [Fox News, 7/31/03]

McCain has been President Bush’s most ardent Senate supporter on Iraq. According to Michael Shank of the Foreign Policy in Focus think tank, McCain was at times Bush’s “most solid support in the Senate” on Iraq. [Foreign Policy in Focus, 1/15/08]

McCain voted against holding Bush accountable for his actions in the war. McCain opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the development and use of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. [S. Amdt. 1275 to H.R. 2658, Vote # 284, 7/16/03]

McCain praised Bush’s leadership on the war. McCain: “I think the president has led with great clarity and I think he’s done a great job leading the country…” [MSNBC, Hardball, 4/23/03]

Senator McCain has constantly moved the goal posts of progress for the war – repeatedly saying it would be over soon.

January 2003: “But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC, 1/22/03]

March 2003: “I believe that this conflict is still going to be relatively short.” [NBC, Meet the Press, 3/30/03]

June 2004: “The terrorists know that this is a very critical time.” [CNN, 6/23/04]

December 2005: "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have a fair amount of progress [in Iraq] if we stay the course.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]

November 2006: “We’re either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months." [NBC, Meet the Press, 11/12/06]

Senator McCain opposed efforts to end the overextension of the military that is having a devastating impact on our troops.

McCain voted against requiring mandatory minimum downtime between tours of duty for troops serving in Iraq. [S. Amdt.. 2909 to S Amdt. 2011 to HR 1585, Vote 341, 9/19/07; S Amdt. 2012 to S Amdt. 2011 to HR 1585, Vote #241, 7/11/07]

McCain was one of only 13 senators to vote against adding $430 million for inpatient and outpatient care for veterans. [S Amdt. 3642 to HR 4939, Vote 98, 4/26/06]

Senator McCain has consistently opposed any plan to withdraw troops from Iraq

Senator McCain repeatedly voted against a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. [S. Amdt. 3876 to S.Amdt. 3874 to H.R. 2764, Vote #438, 12/18/07; S.Amdt.. 3875 to S.Amdt.. 3874 to H.R. 2764, Vote # 437, 12/18/07; S.Amdt.3164 to H.R. 3222, Vote # 362, 10/3/07; S.Amdt. 2898 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585, Vote #346, 9/21/07; S.Amdt. 2924 to S.Amdt.. 2011 to H.R.1585, Vote #345, 9/21/07; S.Amdt.2 087 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585, Vote #252, 7/18/07; S.Amdt. 643 to H.R. 1591, Vote #116, 3/27/07; S.Amdt. 4320 to S. 2766, Vote #182, 6/22/06; S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766, Vote #181, 6/22/06; S.Amdt.. 2519 to S.1042, Vote # 322, 11/15/05]

Senator McCain has consistently demonized Americans who want to find a responsible way to remove troops from Iraq so that we can take the fight to al Qaeda.

McCain: "I believe to set a date for withdrawal is to set a date for surrender.” [Charlotte Observer, 9/16/07]

McCain called proponents of a congressional resolution opposing the troop surge in Iraq intellectually dishonest. [Associated Press. 2/4/07]

The Future:

Senator McCain now says he sees no end to the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.

McCain: "[M]ake it a hundred" years in Iraq and "that would be fine with me." [Derry, New Hampshire Town Hall meeting, 1/3/08]

McCain on how long troops may remain in Iraq: “A thousand years. A million years. Ten million years. It depends on the arrangement we have with the Iraqi government.” [Associated Press, 1/04/08]

I was a Hillary supporter. All these attacks she's done lately made me fear Obama. After some careful thought, I realized she's acting like a Democratic Bush. Using fear tactics against people is sad.

Sorry Hillary, you've lost one Wisconsin voter forever.

Obama is a weak and will through you under the bus and then say how great he is both before and after his cowardess.

Vote for substance vote for Hilary or Mccain.

America, wake up!

If you believe anuthing coming out of the mouth of Barack Hussien Obama then you may as well follow the yellow brick road to the Land of Oz.

The distinguished gentlemen from the State of Illinois which includes the ravaged poverty stricken zone of East St Lous, Ill is hot air.

He didn't voe for the war in Iraq because he was not a US Senator at the time.

And if he had been a Senator at the time, he wouldn't have voted because he never does and when he does show up he votes present and straddles the fence.

He plagarizes the words of JFK, MLK, RFK and Reagan and calls them his own.

Whose the liar now?

Still inspired?

This former Republican will be proudly voting for Barack Obama in Wisconsin this coming Tuesday.

The so-called "war hero", McCain shows how much of a spine he really has everytime he's around Bush and get's week knee's.

If Bush wants to torture, he gets to torture. McCain was against it before he was for it.

Not a Straight Talker, but good fodder for the general election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujCvVC2GNIY

Library of Congress Records
Obama''s list: (first 8 months) is too substantive, one is coalesced to categorize.
sponsored over 820 bills.
introduced 233 bills regarding healthcare reform,
125 bills on poverty and public assistance,
112 bills on crime fighting,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
In his first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included:
(1)the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 that became LAW,
(2)The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act that became LAW, (3)The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act that passed the Senate,
(4)The 2007 Government Ethics Bill that became LAW,
(5)The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill that is in committee just to name a few.
In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

Library of Congress records:Clinton, served only one full term( 6 yrs) and another year campaigning, has authored and passed 20 twenty pieces of legislation in her term of six years into law. 1 Establish Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2 Support goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.3 Recognize Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4 Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall 5 Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6 Name post office after Jonn A. O''Shea.7 Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8 Support goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9 Honor life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.10 Congratulate Syracuse Univ. Orange Men''s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11 Congratulate Moyne College Dolphins Men''s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12 Establish 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.13 Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14 Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation. 15 Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton''s bills are, more substantive. 16 Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17 Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18 Assist landmine victims in other countries.19 Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.20 Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected.

It's a good thing Hillary has so much experience so she can keep putting names on buildings and congratulating sports teams! what a crock of garabage!

I like Juan McCain for Prezident because he let me continue to live here in America illegally and he let my family come here from Mexico City to live here forever with me.

This lifelong Republican will be voting for Barack Obama in Texas because I hate McCain.

It will be the first time in my life that I have ever voted Democratic in an election, thankyou Senator Obama, you inspire me and McCain puts me to sleep.

as a journalist, i don't exactly detect an objective tone. if this is an editorial, forgive my assessment; however, if this is supposed to be straightforward journalism, you'll excuse me if i don't appreciate your underlying anti-obama tone in the reporting. nothing he said about his accomplishments is untrue, and to dismiss it within the context of a "news" story is irresponsible journalism at best; blatant advocacy in the name of "media" at worst.

Everyone fails to remember, that President Reagan, Bush, Carter also fell short in the experience department. However, they left their mark on the nation, in more ways than we care to think about.
Reagan left his mark with his humor, good looks and Hollywood legacy. But, he led our country for eight years. His memories still live on in some taxpayers minds, as, one of the greater Presidents of our time.
Carter, came to the office with limited experience, but was a professional peanut farmer. His ability to interact with international dignitaries is stellar. He is also credited with helping to build Habitat for Humanity into the organization that it is today.
And our current peanut farmer - President Bush, ooops, I meant to say former owner/manager of a failed baseball teams, records speaks for itself.
So when the argument about surfaces again; do yourself a favor and ask the question "What does Experience have to do with it". Perhaps, OBAMA will benefit from his ability to listen to the likes of former presidents, vice-presidents and other dignitaries, such as does our current preZ. I rest my case!

"the problem is not the lack of good ideas. It's that Washington today is the place where good ideas go to die."

Ha! That is brilliant. And sadly, too true.

I'm from CA and I'm Republican. I am very disappointed with Bush and Schwartznegger. In the end they turned out not what they said they were. I first 'heard' Barrack Obama speak on Channel 7 the Iowa Debate. I just listened to the sound no picture. I have to say I was very impressed with this man. He's smart and is just really himself. No canned speach. The last time I heard anyone sound like that was Ronald Reagan. When I voted for Reagan I really didn't know what I was getting into but I'm not sorry. With Obama one doesn't know really what their getting either. I hear lots of pundits knock him down saying he wants to pull the troups out right away -- I heard the debate that is not what he said. I hear the claims that he's all talk and no policy. That's not what I heard in the first debate either. In fact it was Hillary who basically said nothing except I voted for this I did this. She never outlined specifically what she was talking about. I'm not knocking her but if pundits are going to say he didn't say anything why didn't they say she didn't either? ya know. Anyhow despite all this negative campaigning it doesn't change my mind.

Informed Lifelong Democrat.

You are not informed. Everything you wrote was incorrect, invective, or racially inflammatory. Go pump your fist somewhere else where your arguments might convince some other uninformed Democrats. I would point-by-point refute what your post asserts, but honestly I can't be bothered. It's so preposterous.

So... did anyone else find it funny that a question from the audience made Hilary "find her voice"? What a joke.... when hasn't Hilary had a voice? Maybe when she said she wasn't Tammy Wynette singing "Stand by your man"? Give me a break.

Let's take a closer look at who's really qualified and or who's really working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov

Some comparison link
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

Please pass this on

========
Clinton
========

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.

=============
Obama
=============

During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

NY TImes Obama's record in the Illinois Senate
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded:

1. The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law,
2. The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law,
3. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
4. The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law,
5. The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.

Yes Obama has done more than just talk. Obama has sold out those that he is supposed to represent when it gets tough. This is not my opinion, this is his record.

Go Hilary or McCain

My God, it looks like the petulant GOP is following Hillary's lead by crying all over the place. Pork *sniff* rhetoric *snuffle* inexperience *wipe nose with sleeve*
What a long, strange trip it's been.

Dave,

My problem with Obama's list of achievements are that they are not effective. Obama may have pass 100's of laws and have accomplished nothing. Anybody can sign on or pass bills, but are they effective?

For example:
1. 233 bils regarding Healthcare reform

Illinois' Healthcare system didn't improve. There are still millions without Healhcare. We still can't get drugs from Canada. Drugs are still expensive and our co-deduct has risen 300% from $10 to $30. I'm not sure if any of those 233 bills was worth anything to the average Joe. It might be a paper tiger.

2. 97 economic bills.

But companies in Illinois continue to ship jobs overseas to China. So, it created no jobs. All our state fees in Illinois have quadriple or worst. . .

3. 112 crime fighting bills.

The violence and murder rates in Chicago remains the same. Roughly around 600 to 1000 per year.

4. 15 gun control bills.

But it didn't stop the shooting in NIU.

5.60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills.

But how many were prosecuted for hate crime in Illinois? I bet less than 20!

6. 21 ethics reform bills,

Yet, every Illinoians are at the mercy of the Energy Companies. Electricity rate hike & Gas rate hikes! The Politicians are in bed with the Energy Lobbyist! Some Ethics reform. . .huh?

Here is Mr. & Mrs. Clinton's record:

1. Transfer of Technology of the Govt. to public. This helped boost economic growth (the Internet).

2. Balanced National Debt! Not an easy task! How many Presidents have done that?

3. Lower povery and crime rate through a great economy.

4. Attemped Universal Healthcare. She might have failed but like any Great Inventor, even Edison had to experiment with thousands of lightbulbs before he got it right! She'll keep fighting for Universal Healthcare regardless of the Healthcare and Republicans demonizing it. Why would they want the average Joe to have a good Healtcare? That's how they make money: not giving you the best care only the minimum care.

5. Bill Clinton released the oil reserve to drop the price of oil when it started moving upward.

I want proven solutions not just solutions. As you can see, signatures on paper. . .don't do Illinoians any good!

4:58: "Every body must show his/her track record when applying a plain job. For a top job Prez, if he is a real doer to make a real change, he must show his track record to turn thing around using a minimum resource within a short time frame for a very large community."

Ummmm....Just to pick something pretty simple....something we're all familiar with here in the comments section....his campaign? Started without national clout or name recognition, and built a wide base of repeat donors and dedicated activists. Has kept the campaign in the black. Runs a tight, drama-free ship. And won, and won, and won again, on such wild ideas as "every vote matters, every person matters, every state matters." Repeatedly recognized what would work, and executed it. Clearly has an eye for talent. Attracts the respect and attention of a wide range of people, not one little demographic slice.

I want someone with those skills, who also happens to espouse a number of positions I agree with, to be President.

This is such a no brainer to me... Obama is for change.

It really annoys me when people say that Obama and Clinton both share the same ideological issues. Obama = open and transparent government, with the help of the people.

Clinton = closed and secret govt (ie. Clinton library papers they do not want us to see and the FAILED health care reform by HRC in 1992).

*Lastly, HRC insulted Putin, head of state in Russia, with some immature comment.

Why type of leader does America want representing them?

A president with high moral character, integrity, straight shooter on the truth or a president who feels the need to vilify and degrade their adversaries when they disagree or cannot get their way?

Obama is for CHANGE we can believe in and will represent American well at home and abroad.

Obama has won 23 states!

America, thank you, please continue to turn the page!!!

We do not want the dynasty to continue!

I haven't heard a bigger crock than your "list" in a long time.

"1. The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law,"

This is the EXACT SAME ANTI-EARMARK BILL that Senator Coburn submitted in 2004. Coburn's been fighting earmarks since Obama was still pocketing kickbacks as an intern at Sidley-Austin. He should be glad Tom Coburn let him slap his name on it.

"3. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, "

Isn't this bill known as MCCAIN-KENNEDY? Senators McCain and Kennedy worked hard drafting and pushing for this bill's passage. Obama didn't do squat. Lindsey Graham even did more for this bill than Obama did.

"The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, "

This one is the biggest load of BS of the lot. Obama tried to turn this bill into partisan hackery. McCain had to publicly issue a letter of admonishment for his partisan politics. Here's the text. Here's the whole text of McCain ripping the youngster a new one. If Obama was 6' tall when he started reading it, he was 2' when he was done.

McCain was part of a republican committee to reform lobbing. McCain invites Obama to join said committee to promote bipartisanship reform. Obama accepts the invitation, but then sends a letter to McCain that he thinks (paraphrasing) his party has a better committee for this. (the democrats have a similar lobbing reform committee).

This is McCain's response, quite shrewd if you ask me:

February 6, 2006

The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
SH-713
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leaderships preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I wont make the same mistake again.

As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.

You commented in your letter about my "interest in creating a task force to further study this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senates return in January.

Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the publics low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your partys effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.

Sincerely,

John McCain
United States Senate

A quote from Sarah Weaver:

"Yes, Clinton go His Nafta bill through and it certainly sent American jobs over seas. This was the worst treaty in history and it is a Clinton bill."

Actually, it is a fairly bi-partisan "Agreement". It is not a "Treaty". A "Treaty", according to The Constitution, is passed by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. An "Agreement", such as NAFTA, is passed by a simple majority of the entire Congress. Properly, it should be called a "Congressional-Executive Agreement". However, "Treaties" and "Congressional-Executive Agreements" are equal, legislatively speaking. But, no matter what you call it, NAFTA does help the rich, through the corporations they run, to become even richer at the expense of we working stiffs.

It is bi-partisan because the initial steps and negotiations were begun under the direction of Bush The First. It was on his "Fast Track" agenda. Bill Clinton was responsible for finishing the process.

Sign me as,

LG, a concerned citizen in Santa Cruz, CA.

"Regarding the campaign financing: Of course Obama is not going to use public financing now, because no one else has pledged to do so. He never said that he would take public financing if no one else did. It would be foolish to do it alone. The point was to try and get everyone to agree to it. They didn't, so he won't either.

Posted by: Jeff | February 15, 2008 5:36 PM "

Absolute lie, other Jeff! McCain took Obama's challenge back in January of 2007 and said he would agree to use the public funds! If Obama was concerned about running less ads with the public money he never should've made the challenge. McCain called his bluff and has exposed another Obama lie.

You better bring it if you're going to challenge McCain. He's one of the senators who shows up for the tough votes like waterboarding. He doesn't just hide so he doesn't have to take any position like Obama and Hillary.

I won't bother to address individual posters. I will just sum up the following rebuttals to Billary/McCain the insane followers thusly:

Hillary actually has less experience in total years in government. She has flipflopped on Iraq war and dozens of other isues (NAFTA, DOMA, etc.), has more secretive campaign funding than Obama ($5 million of her own money? Puh-leeease, tell me you don't buy that...or maybe you did), has a campaign manager tied to the same nuke industry she is slamming Obama about, and basically she ignores anything that doesn't go her way (see her gracious non-congratulations of Obama and conveniently forgets about the small states that "don't matter") . She uses tired negative tactics, trying to drag Obama down to her level. If she felt so strongly that health care should be universal, you'd think she could've done it during the first Clinton presidency. Why didn't see? Can't work across the aisle....just what we need, old-time status quo Washington, "where good ideas go to die."

McCain's foreign policy experience = the 100 year war argument. Occupation, anyone? This will protect us? Please...America will not be governed by fear any longer.

And if that's not enough, Obama has engendered the broadest, most diverse coalition in the history of American politics, a following that is without question the most energized than any candidate has ever seen. Not to mention his ability to make the youth care about government. If you're against Obama, you are against the message of positivity and live in the Republican-engendered state of fear. Have fun in the shadows...I myself have seen the light.

OBAMA '08!!!

compare this quote from Obama "Washington today is the place where good ideas go to die." to this one from Clinton (curtesy of Bloomberg.com) At a forum in Cincinnati today ``It is shocking,'' she said. ``This has become a government of the few, by the few and for the few.'' hmmm isn't that what makes oligarychy so bad...?? Put the crown down billary

Well, Dave you're posting is a bit inaccurate...as are most from Obama fans.

Exelon (nuclear power) - Donated $200,000 to Obama's campaign - the BILLS Obama signed regarding nuclear power benefited Exelon!!! Why do you think informed people in Nevada are so mad?

One day after Obama denounced Big Money control of U.S. politics in Iowa City, Iowa, the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama "raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital."

"The junior Senator from Illinois denounces the corrosive influence of private political cash on U.S. democracy while cozying up to Chicago's notoriously corrupt Big Money Mayor Richard M. Daley (with whom he shares the same high-priced campaign consultant (David Axlerod) and raking in campaign largesse from wealthy world-capitalist interests. His top career sponsors include Goldman Sachs, Exelon (the world's leading nuclear plant operator), the Soros Fund Management, J.P Morgan Chase & Co., leading corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, Sidley Austin LLP and others), top Chicago investment interests (including Henry Crown & Co and Aerial Capital Management) and the like.

Obama's reliance on such deep-pockets supporters helps explain why he voted for a business-driven "tort reform" bill that rolled back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations. It is certainly part of why he opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. It is undoubtedly related to his vote against a bill that would have killed an amendment to the 2005 energy bill that Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste called "one of the worst provisions in this massive piece of legislation." Under the amendment, which passed with Obama's help, U.S. taxpayers are providing millions of dollars in loan guarantees to power plant operators. They "risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default," as Ken Silverstein wrote in the November, 2006 issue of Harper's Magazine ("Barack Obama Inc.: The Birth of a Washington Machine").

Special interest influence is certainly behind Obama's constant plugging of federally subsidized ethanol ("E-85") as an environmentally friendly "alternative fuel." Reliance on corporate cash and power is also likely related to Obama's opposition to the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the curious grounds that such a welcome social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry and that "voluntary" solutions are "more consonant" with "the American character" than "government mandates." The latter judgment is advanced despite the fact that a large U.S. majority supports government-mandated universal health insurance.

Obama, it is worth noting, received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. His wife Michelle, a fellow Harvard Law graduate, is a Vice President for Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a position that paid her $273, 618 in 2006. For what it's worth, she also received $51,200 for attending a few board meetings of TreeHouse Foods, a giant firm where she was made a director after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate.

The orders must be out for the Obama trolls to call themselves "lifelong Republicans" when they post here.

Since that's the game, I'll just say that Obama's extremist voting record will cause me, a lifelong Democrat, to vote Republican this November.

The shaking in our boots that this country has been doing for the last eight years is beneath a great nation.

From my discussions with Republicans and Republican-leaning individuals in my home town it is obvious that they are scared shitless of their shadows... and proclaim themselves to be the Big Daddy Party all day long. In fact, they are cowards who shiver and cower behind the cloak of Bush and Cheney who they proclaim to be Big Brave Men. The Texas National Guard AWOL story tells you everything you need to know about Mr. Bush and tells you quite a bit about what you need to know about the rest of the Republican Party.

I have no respect for fearful, whiny people who crave a despotic tyrant to protect their tiny little existences and who scurry toward tyranny at the first sign of a crisis. That is exactly what the Republican party represents. Our present administration is nothing if not an embarrassment to anyone who believes in freedom, open government and democracy.

Ironically, it is those who are not sufficiently afraid of terrorism who are called cowards by the Scaredy Pants Rightwing. If you are not shitting in your pants in fear of the taliban coming to your local school board, then you are unpatriotic!

Those who view the taliban and their ilk as a bunch of piss-ants who should not be accorded the status of soldiers in a war but merely criminals are viewed as Un-American. Those who believe the 'war on terror' is a power-grab orchestrated by the Republican/military industrial complex are called cowards! Those who are insufficiently hyperventilating are sissy-pants!

It's long past time to throw this whole sack of nonsense back in their faces.

I am not averse to telling people to their faces that they are more likely to be struck by lightning than a taliban boogeyman. I try to make people think about it, but I am not above making fun of their fear.

If you are dumb enough to vote for Yosemite McCain then I hope you get what you deserve, 100 years in Iraq, and may you, your kids and your grandkids serve in that s*&%mess for the whole time.

Me, I'll be voting for Barack Obama this Tuesday in Wisconsin!

Jason,

If you believe your 50-person company is as complicated and difficult to manage as an incredibly successful, nationwide upstart campaign for president that has to juggle thousands of staff members and volunteers, raise resources on the fly and respond to last-minute exigencies every day, you're either running a company that controls the weather or you have given no thought whatsoever to the skills it takes to pull off what Obama has done so far.

I'm not saying that a campaign is the best test of presidential timbre, but it says plenty about the skills of the person at its head. Barack Obama's organization has been awe-inspiring, and whether he wins or loses, politicians and political pros will be stealing pages from his playbook for a generation. To call this guy an empty suit is ridiculous, or just wishful thinking on the part of people who oppose his candidacy.

Go Hill!

I'm tired of Obama supporters not being able to state one accomplishment he has achieved? Let's face it, without quickly googling it, they haven't a clue.

He's built his entire campaign around being a gifted speaker, he can't deny that now. I don't trust him for a minute.

Hillary for Pres!

I'm glad I'm an independent voter because I'm not beholden to any party. However, I will say that in all my years, I have never seen such blindness about a candidate like Obama.

Obama and his staff have run a great campaign with a lot of energy. They have injected themes of race and class warfare in the appropriate places. Combine their effort with Clinton running one of the worst campaigns in recent history and he deserves to be in the position he is in.

I do not think that the Republicans are be on the passive side if Obama is the Democratic nominee. Obama will be forced to address issues from his Chicago days that have nipped at him in this campaign thus far. He has been allowed by Clinton and the national media to handle these neatly with a press release. It should be obvious to every one that many people, in particular, the mainstream media are afraid to question Obama on any thing out of fear of being labled a racist.

As a Black man, I will tell you this - it is not racist to question some one about an issue. He's running for President of the U.S., not the local PTA. I would like to consider voting for Obama, but he has to address my concerns:

1) Please explain your relationship with your spiritual advisor, Mr. Wright? I don't have a problem with you being a member of Trinity United Church of Christ (www.tucc.org). That is your right to be a member of that church.

My problem is that you should be held to the same standard as every other candidate in presidential elections. What does that mean? That means, if you were a White candidate, you would have had to disassociate yourself with that church.

There is no way in hell and it cannot be argued otherwise, that a White candidate who attended a church that was "unashamedly White" with a non-negotiable commitment to Europe" would be allowed to remain in the race for the nomination. The media woud have been on this story all day, every week.

2) I understand that your church's magazine issued a Lifetime Achievement Award to Louis Farrakhan. It is your church's right to give that award to any body they want to. I find it disgusting to award a man for his hate mongering just because he rehabbed some people in jails and organized a big march.

My problem is this - there is no way that Obama did not know Farrakhan was getting that award. There is no way his minister was going to hurt his campaign. Don't be naive and think Obama didn't tell the minister he could handle the heat if the issuance of the award made its way to the public air waves.

I don't want to hear about degrees of seperation and all that nonsense. The bottom line is this - there is a double standard being played out in this campaign thus far. One for the White candidates and one set for the minority candidate. These are the new "Obama Rules".

By staying a member of Trinity, Obama has basically approved of the award going to Farrakhan. I don't care what his press release said regarding his disdain for Farrakhan's anti-semitic rants. I will not believe Obama until he gets on national TV and denounces Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam for their beliefs. We would expect a White candidate to denounce the KKK, Obama should be held to the same standard.

This will never happen because Obama knows that there are a lot of Blacks who "buy the B.S." that Farrakhan sells and he does not want to upset his largest voting bloc and be called a "sell out" or "Uncle Tom". That's reserved for us Blacks that don't believe what ever the Jacksons, Sharptons, etc. tell us to think.

3) I would like Obama to explain how he got elected as a State Senator in Illinois, representing the Hyde Park neighborhood without the endorsement of Farrakhan. That is Nation of Islam territory and every one knows that you don't get that seat without being in bed with the Nation of Islam.

4) I also want him to address the fact that he has Nation of Islam members on his Senate and campaign staff. Once again, this is Obama's right, but it is not worthy of a Presidential candidate who wants to represent all races. Don't forget - David Duke said the same thing when he ran for office.

Lastly, Obama supporters, I appreciate and respect your energy and enthusiasm for your candidate. I only urge you to read every thing you can about Obama and all of the candidates. Then make your decision. Don't just look at their web site and listen to their speech. Read the information from the media (left, right, moderate, etc.). The truth is always in the middle some where.

For example, stop saying Obama is about change. I know you realize every candidate says they are about change. If Obama is so much about change, his campaign and Senate staff and advisors would be fresh faces, instead of the same old Washington insiders from the anti-Clinton wing of the Democratic Party.

Sorry for the long post, but I hate to see misleading information about the Nation of Islam posted. They do some good things in some tough neighborhoods, but they are still a hate group.

As I said before, if Obama would address my aforementioned concerns, than I would consider voting for him. However, I do not think that's going to happen.

It takes real courage to start a revolution and enact real change. - unfilteredopinion.com

Posted by Unfiltered Opinion

All I hear from Obama is statements like "Our Time has come and change is on the way". Who's time has come and what sort of change are you talking about Obama. The choices are indeed poor for this election however Obama is truly a wish candidate. People look at the blank slate and wish for what they would like to see.

"I understand Sen. Clinton, periodically, when she is feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," Obama said in Milwaukee.
-
Obama is talking about himself here. Hillary has been running against the repubs while Barack has been attacking Hillary from the get go.
As a Democrat, I am ashamed of Obama's campaign. And I am ashamed of my fellow Dems who can't hate Hillary enough.

Published on FOXNews.com on February 1, 2008.

"Make no mistake about it: If Hillary Clinton is elected president, her husband will be her rogue co-president, causing constant chaos, crises and conflicts for her new administration.

And sometimes, that will be exactly what Hillary wants.

Chaos is Bill Clinton’s signature style and he’s not about to suddenly change. No way.

Nor does Hillary necessarily want him to be a new Bill. In many ways, his divisive role in her campaign has been carefully crafted by Hillary and her team. It might come in useful in the White House, too.

Throughout Hillary’s campaign, Bill has given us an unfortunate preview of what we can expect of him in the White House. And, it’s not a pretty picture.

Forget about the elder statesman, the international philanthropist, the charming idealist. Those veneers, carefully created and promoted in the past eight years, were washed away by the race-baiting, snarling, finger-waving, press-bashing partisan who talks about himself for hours at a time. And because of YouTube, voters have had the novel experience of personally witnessing the Clinton meltdowns on video without the sometimes cleansing intermediaries of the national press. It is one thing to read that Bill Clinton confronted a reporter; it is quite another thing to see the red-faced former president angrily pointing his finger in the face of a journalist who dared to ask him a legitimate question. For the first time, the public is seeing the Bill Clinton known to anyone who has ever worked for him.

But don’t think that Bill wasn’t working from a carefully plotted script, personally approved by Hillary. He was. He was the designated hit man. And Hillary and her aides didn’t even bother to hide their glee at his escalating personal attacks on Obama. Gravely misunderstanding the mood of the electorate, they believed it was a great strategy, and patted themselves on the back as they leaked the story of their own brilliance. As the New York Times reported:

“Advisers to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton say they have concluded that Bill Clinton’s aggressive politicking against Senator Barack Obama is resonating with voters, and they intend to keep him on the campaign trail in a major role after the South Carolina primary.”

So we can assume that Hillary approved the use of the race card and thought that it would work. She was wrong. Very wrong. After universal condemnation (well, almost universal — Hillary has never criticized him) for his antics in New Hampshire and South Carolina, Clinton has now quieted down. The Obama endorsements by Caroline and Ted Kennedy dramatically stunned the Clintons. They had no idea of what was coming, but immediately understand the enormity of the defection. So, they’ve retooled and Bill is now earnestly playing the supportive spouse who stays on message. But that’s just an act. His shelf life in that role is extremely limited. And when Hillary wants another attack dog, she’ll call on Bill — whether it’s in the campaign or the White House, if she gets there.

But there’s more to worry about with Bill. His temper has always been there, even if it was carefully hidden from the public. But his thirst for big bucks that has led him to dubious new endeavors is a new development that can cause trouble for Hillary.

At the core of Bill Clinton is a bold recklessness that cannot be harnessed. That inherent quality about him, combined with his arrogance and certitude leads him to test all boundaries. As a result, he involves himself in questionable financial deals, partners with inappropriate businesses and ignores blatant conflicts of interest. These arrangements will cause serious problems for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Consider the case of Kazakhstan. The U.S. State Department has described the election of its current president as one that was filled with anti-Democratic procedures that prevented opposition parties and candidates from participating in the election. All power in the government is concentrated in the president and there is widespread corruption. There is one opposition member in the Parliament. Human rights violations are rampant. Freedom of the press does not exist.

Yet, in late 2006, as his wife was laying the ground work for a presidential race and serving in the U.S. Senate, Bill Clinton flew on a lavish private plane to the former Soviet State and met with its President, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, known best for eliminating all opposition in his country. In the short time that he was there, Clinton promoted Nazarbayev for chairman of a U.N. committee – a position that the United States government, and his own wife, had opposed. That made no difference to Clinton. Of course, he never mentioned anything at all about the rampant human rights violations.

Clinton was there as the guest of Frank Giustra, a Canadian billionaire who wanted to buy the country’s uranium rights. Although he had no experience in this area of the world, he was suddenly awarded the contract which the New York Times termed a “monster deal…. [that] suddenly transformed the company into the world’s largest uranium producers.”

Clinton made sure that the Kazahstan President understood that Giustra and Clinton were an item.

After the deal was closed, Clinton’s foundation received a $31 million contribution from Giustra and a pledge of another $100 million.

What’s wrong with that? Well, aside from deliberately and publicly undermining the articulated policy of the United States government, Bill Clinton traded his power and his prestige in exchange for an unprecedented contribution to his foundation, which refuses to release the names of its donors. Clinton has considerable latitude in how the foundation funds are spent and the foundation board is filled with his cronies.

But there’s something else: Bill Clinton’s conduct raises a serious question about whether any other promises were made that might relate to favors that could be done by a future Clinton administration. Whether there were any promises or not, it just doesn’t look good. It’s an inappropriate role for an ex-president. Did Kazakhstan make a contribution to the library, too?

Bill Clinton’s contacts with that country didn’t stop with the short visit. After Hillary announced her candidacy for president, Giustra arranged for Clinton to meet with a government representative from Kazakhstan at his Chappaqua home to discuss the government’s plan to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse. At first, Clinton and Guistra denied any such meeting, but then the government representative, who had earlier handled the uranium matter, produced a photo showing him at the Clinton home with the former president.

No wonder Clinton lied about it. He knows that he should not be meeting with representatives of foreign governments who need favors in Washington — favors that could be delivered by his wife if she becomes president.

Then there’s the issue of Bill’s financial partnership with the Emir of Dubai and his buddy Ron Burkle. Should the husband of a presidential candidate — or even a U.S. senator — be in business with the head of a foreign country with growing interests in the U.S.?

The answer is NO. Bill knows that — that’s why he’s trying to get a $20 million buy-out. Should we be wondering what he did for all that money?

Finally, there’s Bill’s ‘consulting’ for InfoUSA, an Iowa company that is under investigation for creating telemarketing lists used to fleece the elderly out of their life’s savings. He’s made millions from the company and has still not terminated his contract.

And his foundation has received $10 million from the Saudi government and millions from Dubai and other countries.

Do they expect something in exchange?

The first thing that Bill Clinton needs to do is release the names of every donor to his library. The voters have a right to know who is paying his bills.

Bill Clinton will definitely be a problem for a Hillary Clinton presidency. Remember when he was advising Dubai on how to get the Port Deal done while she was opposing the contract?

Look for lots more of that.

There’s no question that Bill Clinton’s recent public and private behavior have been extremely unbecoming for an ex-president and would be equally so for a co-president. And there’s no reason to think he’ll change.

At last night’s Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton was bluntly asked what Bill Clinton would be like in a Hillary Clinton White House. Not surprisingly, she never really answered the question.

Hillary’s ignored the question and, instead, talked about how thrilled she is to have her husband campaigning for her, while insisting that but that she will be the president and the only one who makes decisions in the White House.

Even if were true that she made all of the final decisions, that would not stop Bill Clinton from stepping into the role of rogue co-president. He’s been trying out for the part for the past few months and has succeeded with flying colors.

The American presidency isn’t just about making decisions; it’s about setting examples, avoiding conflicts of interest, creating positive perceptions, unifying the electorate.

Those are not Bill’s strong points. His appalling conduct in South Carolina stunned even the strongest Clinton partisans.

Playing the race card was not something that anyone ever expected from Bill Clinton. But people underestimate Bill’s sense of purpose: He wants his wife elected president and he wants to be back in the White House. To rewrite his legacy, he’ll do anything.

And then once he gets there, he’ll be a rogue co-president who Hillary won’t even begin to be able to control."

By Dick Morris and Ellen McGann

Dick Morris served as Bill Clinton's political consultant for twenty years, guiding him to a successful reelection in 1996.

Copyright Eileen McGann and Dick Morris 2006.

Isn't it about time we see Hillary start to cry? "it's so hard, you just don't understand, it's so hard sometimes"

Do all you Hillary supporters remember that? Is that what we want in the White House? A drama queen looking for the next sound bite?

Monica?, Whitewater?, Saying what ever she thinks the crowd wants to hear?

Here is the best post so far...
"It's sad to see Hillary come unraveled like this. but, you know what they say... adversity doesn't form character, it reveals it. This is the true Clinton - one that loves to stir it up and cause uphevel. It's sad to see personal ambition cloud sound judgement."

Amen brother, Wisconsin for Obama...then Texas...then Ohio

Once again no detaikls just more fluff from Mr Fluff. I worked with Republicans, I brought justice to Il, I cmae up with a failed nuclear proliferation policy that I let Com Ed/Exelon write because they are my biggest contributer. How can anyone take this guy seriuos. I feel like I am living in a dream world where everyone is stupid. I guess what can you expect from people who voted Bush in for a 2nd time and now want this clown to run the country even further into the ground. Lets see a War Hera who has served his country for 50 years or a guy who never has done anything, takes bribes from Rezko, steers money to his wife's work, oh but he gives a good speech. Also I love now how he is going back on his promise to take public funding. This guy is a joke and is Jimmy Carter all over again. Do not let your hatred for Bush over take your judgement and vote a Crooked County Pol into the most important office in the world. He isnt qaulified to run a McDonalds let alone the greatest country in the world.

Jason,

If you believe your 50-person company is as complicated and difficult to manage as an incredibly successful, nationwide upstart campaign for president that has to juggle thousands of staff members and volunteers, raise resources on the fly and respond to last-minute exigencies every day, you're either running a company that controls the weather or you have given no thought whatsoever to the skills it takes to pull off what Obama has done so far.

I'm not saying that a campaign is the best test of presidential timbre, but it says plenty about the skills of the person at its head. Barack Obama's organization has been awe-inspiring, and whether he wins or loses, politicians and political pros will be stealing pages from his playbook for a generation. To call this guy an empty suit is ridiculous, or just wishful thinking on the part of people who oppose his candidacy.

Wow!!! I always thought Dick Morris was a right-winger, but I really appreciate all of the info that is brought to light in the above post. IT'S ALL LAID OUT in one easy-to-read post. OBAMA MAY NOT BE PERFECT, but tell me ONE human BEING who IS!!

l will tell you Hilary's experience:

- voted for the war in Iraq

-voted for war with Iran

-Nafta ( sending our jobs abroad)

-Head of commission of Wal-mart (never fought for the right of unions or of women)

- failed health care of the 90's and now again she will fail because she can never pass anything through the congress.

- people do not trust her.

- have high negative and therefore will loose in the general election.

The more l hear of Obama the more l like what l hear. just for the fact that he is able to run his campaign this way makes me believe that he can run this country effectively.

Obama '08

its True he has...see below...OBAMA THE CHANGE AGENT
Obama said he goofed on votes angered fellow Democrats in the Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed! Also announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote. He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said. Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.

But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.

The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office. being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.Obama replied "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger, I was not aware that I had voted no on that piece of legislation.

I am ecstatic Obama refused to debate her in Wisconsin. She's such a spoiled brat thinking she must get her way all the time. I feel as though he shouldn't even have agreed to the 2 he has agreed to, especially given the fact she refuses to release her tax returns which I hope he brings up at the Ohio and Texas debates!

All the hard work of Obama's campaign has been done by the media. Just like in 2004 when they torpedoed Blair Hull, who was WAY ahead of Obama in the polls, before the primaries. Don't cite running a campaign as a reason to elect anyone. All you'll get then is a career politician who can't do any kind of real job.

Nurse Hillary says, "The medicine's only good for you if it tastes bad." Clinton attempted this week to resurrect her old storyline that Obama is all style and no substance, despite the obvious fact that fewer and fewer people are believing it anymore. Clinton appears to be trying to discredit Obama based on the very fact that he does have style while she does not, as though his very ability to inspire and excite an audience must mean that he is weak on substance. To me this tiresome narrative suggests that it is Clinton, not Obama, who has run short of ideas.