The Official American Election 2008 Thread

[RandomCharizard]

Lol, I'm posting in the Debate forum...I'm gonna get eaten alive.


Well, heres my first post into the thread. Albeit a bit late but nonetheless I might as well post my input.

I've been watching this election closely. Really, this is the first election I've cared about. Probably because that last one happened when I was 10.

I'm a supporter of Obama, and I've been paying close attention to him since super tuesday. I think hes running a magnificent campaign, and so is McCain. However, I disagree with major issues on McCain. Like the Iraq War, economy, etc. So I'll be calling myself a democrat when I'm older. I gotta say, this thread is full of McCain supporters. Don't get me wrong McCain is an inspirational man who served his country greatly and I commend him for that, but I believe Barack can deliver what we need.

Well enough of me rambling on. I came here because I wanted to post my opinion on McCain's VP pick.

Personally I've never had a problem with McCain. I thought his judgement was in the right place. But when he chose this Alaska governor who is currently in investigation for power abuse I honestly thought he threw his campaign down the drain. Really, this lady has barely any experience, and nothing to make up for that (Unlike Obama, which has shown he can deliver).

So lets see what could have possibly made McCain choose Palin.

A) The GOP wants to appeal to those bitter Hillary voters that were leaning toward McCain.
B) She appeals to the working class
C) She is a washington outsider
D) She out-bushes Bush himself. (Against Same-sex marriage, pro-life, against abortion even in the cases of rape and incest, wants to drill any and everywhere, is literally MARRIED to the oil-industry, etc.) And as Democrats have repeated over and over again, McCain agrees with Bush 90% of the time.

So in case of A, the GOP wants to appeal to those bitter Hillary voters... well I don't think it worked. If you read the comments on CNN, MSNBC, or any other news site that allows comments, you'll see that most Hillary voters are insulted by this choice. They're saying its a slap-to-the-face and that McCain thinks they'll vote for him for just having a woman on the ticket. C'mon McCain! Hillary voters aren't that stupid! Though, some of the more radical ones that just want a woman in the white house are going for him. (read: http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/forumdisplay.php?f=84)

Next, B. She Appeals to the working class. Yeah, but so does Biden... and a lot more.

C? Yeah thats a plus always nice to have a Washington outsider...but so far its the only positive I'm seeing.

D? Well that just adds to the argument that McCain is just another 4 more years of Bush! I guess some people still want this.

IMO, I think McCain just shot himself in the foot when it came to appealing to those leaning democrats. Now they're going back to Obama. One more thing, lets say Grand Ol' McCain hits the bucket (not saying its very likely... but you can never be too sure with a 72 year old cancer survivor), is Palin ready to lead this country? She was a Mayor in a town of 8,000. She Governs a state with a population less than a lot of major cities in the U.S. I guess the GOP is dropping the whole "experience" argument.

Well, thats it for now. I hope I didn't miss anything. Please don't eat me alive

 

[Carlisle]

I disagree with major issues on McCain. Like the Iraq War

McCain wants to finish the job. Obama wants to recklessly pull out.

economy, etc.

Obama has a horrible energy plan and wants to raise taxes.

Really, this lady has barely any experience, and nothing to make up for that (Unlike Obama, which has shown he can deliver).

He has delievered NOTHING. Except a speech.

McCain agrees with Bush 90% of the time.

90%? He's gone up against Bush multiple times.

Next, B. She Appeals to the working class. Yeah, but so does Biden... and a lot more.

Susan has quite a bit to offer, I'm afraid she is just as competitive as Biden.

D? Well that just adds to the argument that McCain is just another 4 more years of Bush! I guess some people still want this.

Proper war management, cutting wasteful spending, drilling, a proper energy policy, a maverick, power to the states, oh yeah, McCain is so like Bush...

is Palin ready to lead this country? She was a Mayor in a town of 8,000. She Governs a state with a population less than a lot of major cities in the U.S. I guess the GOP is dropping the whole "experience" argument.

The same argument reflects right back onto Obama.

 

[BigLutz]

The point of the VP is not to "learn." The point of the VP is to take over for the President if the President cannot serve for some reason. No more, no less.

And what do you think they are doing while they are waiting for the person to die? Learning the inner workings of not only the administration but Congress as well.

Saying that the VP doesn't need any experience is just stupid. At least Obama has some experience, while Palin has none at all. The VP should be ready to take over the presidency as soon as he or she comes into office.

Well for one no they shouldn't as it would be a incredibly rough transition. Second I would say Palin has about the same amount of experience as Obama has.

Plus, is it just me or does anyone else take offense that John McCain thinks that ****** off Hillary supporters will vote for him just because he has a female VP? Does he not think they will see through his glass deception? Anyone with half a brain can see why McBush chose Palin.

You critsize people with half a brain but then go on and say "McBush"? I mean seriously that meme is incredibly annoying. And lets not forget that Palin does come outside of Washington, she is out of the Washington and the regular political establishment. And with Voters looking at Bush with a 30% approval, and Congress with a 9% approval, they want some one that is considered outside of that Political norm.

A) The GOP wants to appeal to those bitter Hillary voters that were leaning toward McCain.
B) She appeals to the working class
C) She is a washington outsider

You forgot that she is also a Maverick just like McCain, and she has had been a dedicated fighter of corruption.

And as Democrats have repeated over and over again, McCain agrees with Bush 90% of the time.

Which is absolutely and utterly wrong. To the point that I would say it is almost pathetically wrong.

So in case of A, the GOP wants to appeal to those bitter Hillary voters... well I don't think it worked. If you read the comments on CNN, MSNBC, or any other news site that allows comments, you'll see that most Hillary voters are insulted by this choice. They're saying its a slap-to-the-face and that McCain thinks they'll vote for him for just having a woman on the ticket. C'mon McCain! Hillary voters aren't that stupid! Though, some of the more radical ones that just want a woman in the white house are going for him

Give it a month, the Democrats hate McCain to the point they are foaming at the mouth. They start to trash Palin and the Hillary Voters will look at her in the same light as Hillary, and look at Obama as just a sexist pig.

Next, B. She Appeals to the working class. Yeah, but so does Biden... and a lot more.

Wrong again. Palin is seen as a PTA mom, a Soccer Mom, and just a overall working class mom. Biden on the other hand is a long time Washington insider.

D? Well that just adds to the argument that McCain is just another 4 more years of Bush! I guess some people still want this.

Want me to go into how detail how ignorant and wrong it is to even compare McCain to Bush?

Palin ready to lead this country? She was a Mayor in a town of 8,000. She Governs a state with a population less than a lot of major cities in the U.S. I guess the GOP is dropping the whole "experience" argument.

Actually as noted already this puts the experience argument front and center on the table. Something Obama cannot afford to have happen.

 

[Asaspades]

Which not only is a utterly stupid platform as it can be negated by McCain's voting record. But it also has been cut down by his VP pick.

Like what, torture? Immigration? Drilling? Iraq? Economic policies? Those are all major issues that he agrees with Bush on. Regardless of his voting record, what he believes now and is campaigning on are those platforms, which are directly in line with George Bush.

Actually he can keep up the experience argument. Palin isnt going to be in the Oval Office on day one, and being Vice President gives her experience. The Vice Presidency is what many thought Obama should take for four years before even trying for the Presidency. So yes they still have experience.

Lets play a little hypothetical. God forbid McCain gets elected and dies in office. This women is going to be president? After governing Alaska for 2 years and having 5 children, one with a mental disablility? That is dangerous. She doesn't know what the hell she's doing. Maybe as VP, which is a pretty do-nothing job, but if McCain were to die, 1,2, or 3 years isn't going to prepare this "soccer mom" to be president of the United States. Obama on the other hand is running a campaign. We can see his ideas and platforms. We know what he plans to do. And we can see how he will go about them. He has a plan for health care, education, ect. No one knows anything about this women, where she stands on issues, or how she would bring about any changes or uinify the country if McCain were to kick off.

Risks do pay off, and mind you some of these pundits are blatently for Obama (MSNBC anyone?). The risk comes with more rewards than pitfalls, and if anything is comparable to the same risk that Obama took with Biden.

Biden wasn't a risk though. He provides expirience and helps with the working class. With virtually no cons, except maybe his mouth.

Except it wasn't inspiration, it was bland, every day, ordinary. It just retreded on Democrat Platforms that have been used for the last 40 years. Infact 12 hours later the general consensis is "Obama had a speach?". Thing is people will remember the crowds, they will remember the setting, they will remember the balloons. But the speach was not Obama's best, and was utterly forgettable.

Did you even watch the speech? if you did then that's the most ludicrous thing iv'e ever heard. That is not the general consensus, every single person iv'e talked to has been inspired by this. Senior citizens, school teachers, Soccer moms, white and blue collar workers alike. How everyday is it when a political candidate draws a crowd that big. The speech was Obama's best and everyone seems to think so too. it is being compared to JFK and MLK like it or not. I don't see McCain treading any new ground either. If you think that the speech was forgettable, then the gettysburg adress must be as common as your morning cup of coffee.

And anyone that compares it to JFK and MLKjr even on their worse days, has some SERIOUS Political blinders on.

Tell that to the millions of people who have, and were inspired by this canidate.

 

[Carlisle]

Yeah, okay. No one is going to be comparing it to MLK or JFK 10 years down the road. MLK's "I Have A Dream" speech actually helped change history. Obama's? It's not going to.

 

[BigLutz]

Like what, torture? Immigration? Drilling? Iraq? Economic policies? Those are all major issues that he agrees with Bush on. Regardless of his voting record, what he believes now and is campaigning on are those platforms, which are directly in line with George Bush.

Torture he disagrees with Bush on and actually led support for a Torture Ban on Detaines. On Immigration he agrees with Bush on but then again so do the Democrats. On Drilling he and just about most of America agree with Bush on. On Economic Policies he disagrees with Bush on, favoring Tax Cuts for all companies, as well as Middle Class, and is against wasteful spending and pork. Something Bush let run rampent during the Republican Congressional Years.

On Iraq you seem to forget that McCain was one of the first to advocate for change in the strategy in Iraq. While Bush and most of the Republicans and Democrats were hoping that the problem would fix itself, McCain was saying we needed more troops in there. His suggestions combined with Petraus' strategy ended up winning us the war in Iraq. While at the same time in 06, Obama's strategy was the same the Democrats were advocating, cutting and running, and leaving Iraq to it's own bloody civil war financed by Al Qaeda and Iran.

Now there are going to be some issues McCain and Bush agree on. They as well as Obama agree on Immigration, although Bush and McCain believe we should also secure our border. McCain and Bush as well as the American people also believe we should drill.

But the Dems would want us to believe they agree on everything which is utterly not true. You have the small things that he has bucked Bush and the Party on such as the Nuclear Option on Supreme Court Choices, to Campiagn Finance Reform, to Increased Gun Control Laws, to HMO reform bill that Bush wanted stopped. And then you have the big things such as saying he will shut down Guitmo as soon as he can, as well as beliving that we need a more pro active approach to combat Global Warming, not to mention how he and Obama both agree on Cap and Trade which Bush utterly disagrees with him on.

McCain many times voted his own way, going against the party for what he thought was right. This is what brought him to the national stage with the "Maverick" image, this is what brought him to the attention of the Democrats in 2004 for being concidered a VP for Kerry. Which of course begs the overall question:

If McCain is McBush as so many Democrats clam he is, why was your party so eager to put him in the White House with Kerry?

Edit: Just to add fuel to the fire, here is your lovely VP nominee talking about a Kerry/McCain ticket in 2004.

"I think that this is time for unity in this country, and maybe it is time to have a guy like John McCain — a Republican — on the ticket with a guy he does like. They do get along. And they don't have fundamental disagreements on major policies."

So either McBush is a lie, or... John Kerry is also just like Bush!

Lets play a little hypothetical. God forbid McCain gets elected and dies in office. This women is going to be president? After governing Alaska for 2 years and having 5 children, one with a mental disablility? That is dangerous.

Excuse me but what does having a child with a mental disability effect her Governing as President? I think that was a incredibly sick comment.

Second you are advocating giving Obama the Presidency with just as little time as a US Senator, something that is below Governor in terms of overall experience.

She doesn't know what the hell she's doing.

And you base this on your years of experience studying her?

Maybe as VP, which is a pretty do-nothing job, but if McCain were to die, 1,2, or 3 years isn't going to prepare this "soccer mom" to be president of the United States.

Yeah it will be, it gives her time to familiarize herself with both the Adminsitration and Congress. As well as make various over seas trips with staffs and advisors as she is being sent around to talk with other Foreign Leaders for the Administration.

Even one year of being able to do that would be tons of experience, two years and you have done even better, three years and she can make the case she is ready to be President after spending three years in the White House (As various VPs have done in the past) as she starts her own Presidential Run.

McCain isnt going to kill over on Day One, McCain is in "excellent health" with "extraordinary energy" as I quote his doctor. The doctor even went on to say "I and my colleagues can find no medical reason or problem that would preclude Sen. McCain from fulfilling all of the duties or obligations of the president of the United States,"

So please lets stop with this utter lie that McCain is on death's door with one foot already in the grave. The man is healthier than most men his age, hell, he is healthier than most men younger than him. By all indications he is going to live through all four years of his Administration before bowing out and letting Sarah run against Hillary for the first Female President.

Obama on the other hand is running a campaign. We can see his ideas and platforms. We know what he plans to do. And we can see how he will go about them.

Well for one you will see the same from Palin in the next few months. You can also see her record as Governor to see how she will Govern, something you cannot see with Obama.

Second with as much double talk that Obama has done, and as many "Present" votes are in his voting history, you really do not have a idea as to what he will do.

Third, with a Veto Proof Congress, Obama is going to look incredibly weak, especially since he has only been a Freshman Senator. You are going to have Congress running all over his Presidency.

He has a plan for health care, education, ect.

So does McCain, My God you and others seriously act as if she were running for President.

No one knows anything about this women, where she stands on issues, or how she would bring about any changes or uinify the country if McCain were to kick off.

For her issues and stands I would refer you to her time as Governor, as well as in the next couple of months. As to how she will unify, she has been no stranger to Bi Partisan Help, placing Democrats and Independents on her council. She has more Bi Partisan Experience than Obama does.

Biden wasn't a risk though. He provides expirience and helps with the working class. With virtually no cons, except maybe his mouth.

His Mouth is a huge risk, as is his Experience, as is all the things he has said about Obama. He comes from Old Style Washington, the Washington that Obama has railed against since the start of his campiagn. The risk that voters will look at his judgement for VP and see that he does not practice what he preaches is extremely high.

Did you even watch the speech? if you did then that's the most ludicrous thing iv'e ever heard.

Yeah I did, it was alot of yelling, alot of Democrat Talking Points, alot of saying he will get away from Old Style Politics and then praticing said politics.

That is not the general consensus,

Outside of the Liberal Hand Job that is MSNBC, yeah General Consensus of Commentators is that it was poor.

every single person iv'e talked to has been inspired by this. Senior citizens, school teachers, Soccer moms, white and blue collar workers alike.

You realize "Every Single Person I've Talked to" Isn't valid in a debate.

How everyday is it when a political candidate draws a crowd that big.

Pop Stars draw a big crowd, that does not mean that his speach was filled with anything meaningful.

The speech was Obama's best and everyone seems to think so too.

Everyone? You have talked to Everyone? Seriously this post is filled with so many Debating Pitfalls its laughable.

it is being compared to JFK and MLK like it or not.

Then that is seriously sad and disgusting that people are that politically blind. It also is a disservice to the greatness of JFK and MLK to compare such a pedestrian speach to them.

I don't see McCain treading any new ground either. If you think that the speech was forgettable, then the gettysburg adress must be as common as your morning cup of coffee.

Did you seriously just compare this speach to the Gettysburg Address. Okay you have gone beyond the normal Political Biasness. Asa this post is quickly becoming a joke. I would suggest you retract it, or just leave the Debate Forum.

Tell that to the millions of people who have, and were inspired by this canidate.

And Millions of Women were inspired by Clinton and Palin. That does not mean we should compare one mediocure speach to the greats of MLK and JFK. Obama has made some great speaches but even they do not come close to MLK and JFK on their worst days. And to think so is well... sad.

 

[Asaspades]

Torture he disagrees with Bush on and actually led support for a Torture Ban on Detaines. On Immigration he agrees with Bush on but then again so do the Democrats. On Drilling he and just about most of America agree with Bush on. On Economic Policies he disagrees with Bush on, favoring Tax Cuts for all companies, as well as Middle Class, and is against wasteful spending and pork. Something Bush let run rampent during the Republican Congressional Years.

http://http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/
Heres torture. The fact remains that He agrees with Bush on Immigration and drilling, and wants to make the bush tax cuts permenant.

http://http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/07/09/mccain_taxes/
He man disagree with Bush on spending, but his tax cuts are mucjh greater then anything we've seen with Bush.

On Iraq you seem to forget that McCain was one of the first to advocate for change in the strategy in Iraq. While Bush and most of the Republicans and Democrats were hoping that the problem would fix itself, McCain was saying we needed more troops in there. His suggestions combined with Petraus' strategy ended up winning us the war in Iraq. While at the same time in 06, Obama's strategy was the same the Democrats were advocating, cutting and running, and leaving Iraq to it's own bloody civil war financed by Al Qaeda and Iran.

McCain has said he would keep us in Iraq, Obama will pull us out as soon as possible, while maintaining political stability. Obama advocated for a political solution, and look what were getting. But at the time in 06, McCain thought we should stay in Iraq, fundamentally he agreed with George Bush.

Now there are going to be some issues McCain and Bush agree on. They as well as Obama agree on Immigration, although Bush and McCain believe we should also secure our border. McCain and Bush as well as the American people also believe we should drill.

But that still means they agree. So you can't say they don't or that that isn't factually correct.

But the Dems would want us to believe they agree on everything which is utterly not true. You have the small things that he has bucked Bush and the Party on such as the Nuclear Option on Supreme Court Choices, to Campiagn Finance Reform, to Increased Gun Control Laws, to HMO reform bill that Bush wanted stopped. And then you have the big things such as saying he will shut down Guitmo as soon as he can, as well as beliving that we need a more pro active approach to combat Global Warming, not to mention how he and Obama both agree on Cap and Trade which Bush utterly disagrees with him on.

Well unfortunatly the small things arn't going to get the election, and while he campaigns on finance reform, or gun control, Obama can be off campaigning on the economy and foreign policy. The only thing McCain is a maverick on at the time, seem to be issues that don't really matter in this election. On the big issues, he seems to have ever so slightly altered his views to sync up with the right.

McCain many times voted his own way, going against the party for what he thought was right. This is what brought him to the national stage with the "Maverick" image, this is what brought him to the attention of the Democrats in 2004 for being concidered a VP for Kerry. Which of course begs the overall question:

That was in 2004. McCain has since changed his position on many issues. Not to mention that was for VP. Like we said before, a sort of do nothing job.

"I think that this is time for unity in this country, and maybe it is time to have a guy like John McCain — a Republican — on the ticket with a guy he does like. They do get along. And they don't have fundamental disagreements on major policies."

Well obviously they do disagree on many things, as Obama and Kerry arn't that far removed from eachother.

Excuse me but what does having a child with a mental disability effect her Governing as President? I think that was a incredibly sick comment.

It affects where her focus is going to be and how she divides her time. If she was president, then it would be extremely difficult to do that and be a mother to 5 kids. Especially given her scenario. That's not that disgusting, its just realistic.

And you base this on your years of experience studying her?

My point was that shes not ready. The VP should be ready on day 1 to step in. She is not.

Yeah it will be, it gives her time to familiarize herself with both the Adminsitration and Congress. As well as make various over seas trips with staffs and advisors as she is being sent around to talk with other Foreign Leaders for the Administration.

If thats all it takes to be president then Obama should e plenty ready ehh?

Even one year of being able to do that would be tons of experience, two years and you have done even better, three years and she can make the case she is ready to be President after spending three years in the White House (As various VPs have done in the past) as she starts her own Presidential Run.

Funny how that works isn't it, looks like the "perfect trap" could backfire?

McCain isnt going to kill over on Day One, McCain is in "excellent health" with "extraordinary energy" as I quote his doctor. The doctor even went on to say "I and my colleagues can find no medical reason or problem that would preclude Sen. McCain from fulfilling all of the duties or obligations of the president of the United States,"

I'm not saying he would, but many people are unaware, and it scares them to have someone so inept and obcscure next in line.

Third, with a Veto Proof Congress, Obama is going to look incredibly weak, especially since he has only been a Freshman Senator. You are going to have Congress running all over his Presidency.

What do you mean by that? Veto proof congress? Last I checked there was a democratic majority, and a very real possibility of them getting the veto proof majority. SO anything Obama proposes will most likely sail through.

So does McCain, My God you and others seriously act as if she were running for President.

Well she is the "running mate"

Yeah I did, it was alot of yelling, alot of Democrat Talking Points, alot of saying he will get away from Old Style Politics and then praticing said politics.

I don't quite know how to debate this speech. i guess it could ring hollow with some people. What would make a speech "great" for you?

Outside of the Liberal Hand Job that is MSNBC, yeah General Consensus of Commentators is that it was poor.

Who has said that?

You realize "Every Single Person I've Talked to" Isn't valid in a debate.

Yes i do, but im saying you or the media may be out of touch. Im not saying taht that makes it good, im mearly saying that you make it out to be a failure. When most are calling it historical.

Pop Stars draw a big crowd, that does not mean that his speach was filled with anything meaningful.

But the crowd came to hear meaning, it may have rung hollow for you, but for many it didn't.

Everyone? You have talked to Everyone? Seriously this post is filled with so many Debating Pitfalls its laughable.

Well have you also talked to everyone? because you seem to think that you have, and that the consnsus is it was poor. Back yourself up here.

Then that is seriously sad and disgusting that people are that politically blind. It also is a disservice to the greatness of JFK and MLK to compare such a pedestrian speach to them.

Then what would you call a speech worthy of that comparison.

Did you seriously just compare this speach to the Gettysburg Address. Okay you have gone beyond the normal Political Biasness. Asa this post is quickly becoming a joke. I would suggest you retract it, or just leave the Debate Forum.

That particular piece is not a joke. there's no fallacy within it. it's my opinion.
I think everyone of your posts is a joke. How about that.

And Millions of Women were inspired by Clinton and Palin. That does not mean we should compare one mediocure speach to the greats of MLK and JFK. Obama has made some great speaches but even they do not come close to MLK and JFK on their worst days. And to think so is well... sad.

Well what would you call something worthy of that then

 

[BigLutz]

http://http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/
Heres torture. The fact remains that He agrees with Bush on Immigration and drilling, and wants to make the bush tax cuts permenant.

Think Progress is a far left Liberal Website and is incrediably biased. He vetoed the Waterboarding Bill not becuase of Waterboarding but becuase the CIA would be stuck with using the Army Manual. And that still does not deny the fact that he was the first that stood up against torture. In the form of the McCain Detainee Amendment. On Torture McCain took a stand against it, and took a stand against the President, long before Obama ever did.

Also the American people agree with Bush on drilling, and Obama agrees with Bush on Immigration. OMG OBUSH!

See the thing is, that by thinking that anything Bush agrees on, is wrong. Both you and Obama are acting just like Bush!

When Bush took office in 2001 he went about doing the opposite of everything Clinton did, if Clinton did it then it was wrong.

In the end Bush realized that not everything that Clinton had done was wrong and even adopted some Clinton policies.

By taking the approach that "Bush likes it, then it must be bad." Then all you are doing is acting JUST. LIKE. BUSH.

http://http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/07/09/mccain_taxes/
He man disagree with Bush on spending, but his tax cuts are mucjh greater then anything we've seen with Bush.

He disagrees with Bush on pork spending that is for sure, as well as providing tax cuts only for the rich. McCain's Tax Cuts would help all.

McCain has said he would keep us in Iraq, Obama will pull us out as soon as possible, while maintaining political stability. Obama advocated for a political solution, and look what were getting. But at the time in 06, McCain thought we should stay in Iraq, fundamentally he agreed with George Bush.

Well for one that is a lie, it would not maintain political stabability. It would destroy everything that we have gained in there. In 2006 McCain advocated for the Surge, something that George Bush was coming around to.

McCain didnt agree with George Bush, George Bush agreed with John McCain.

And also in 2006 Obama showed utter stupidity and a utter lack of knowledge for the situation. If we had gone with Obama's plan in 2006, Iraq would have fallen into a Civil War. They would not have come together as he nievely thought, they would have gone to their respective corners to shoot it out.

But that still means they agree. So you can't say they don't or that that isn't factually correct.

Just becuase they agree on two things does not make those two things wrong, nor does it make John McCain just like George Bush, unless you want to say Obama is just like Bush as well.

Well unfortunatly the small things arn't going to get the election, and while he campaigns on finance reform, or gun control, Obama can be off campaigning on the economy and foreign policy.

Small things add up as well.

The only thing McCain is a maverick on at the time, seem to be issues that don't really matter in this election. On the big issues, he seems to have ever so slightly altered his views to sync up with the right.

As you can see below on the big issues, he has been a Maverick on those as well, of course you probably do not understand that.

That was in 2004. McCain has since changed his position on many issues. Not to mention that was for VP. Like we said before, a sort of do nothing job.

So in 3 and a half years he has fundementally changed his position on so many issues? No sorry I do not think so. It is just utter hypocracy that the Democrats are showing now.

Well obviously they do disagree on many things, as Obama and Kerry arn't that far removed from eachother.

So in other words your Vice President Cannidate was telling a lie? Or were they prepared to elect Bush?

It affects where her focus is going to be and how she divides her time. If she was president, then it would be extremely difficult to do that and be a mother to 5 kids. Especially given her scenario. That's not that disgusting, its just realistic.

Nope it is still disgusting and using her child to try and get political points against her is beyond horrible.

Look at her job as Governor, she has been able to have those 5 children, and be able to not only be Governor, but to implement sweeping changes across Alaska. To say that she would have to divide her focus and time is not only false but has been shown to be not true.

My point was that shes not ready. The VP should be ready on day 1 to step in. She is not.

So are you saying that Biden is ready to be President on day one? If so then we should have elected him instead of Obama becuase he carries more experience than Obama.

If thats all it takes to be president then Obama should e plenty ready ehh?

Except Obama doesn't have any of the things that I just mentioned, beyond taking one trip overseas. He hasn't been able to sit in on the Oval Office and watch some one else do it, he hasn't been able to familiarize himself with members of another administration he would take over. Infact he is so new to Congress he hasnt even been able to familiarize himself with them!

Funny how that works isn't it, looks like the "perfect trap" could backfire?

Nope.

I'm not saying he would, but many people are unaware, and it scares them to have someone so inept and obcscure next in line.

It scares them more to have some one so inept and obscure be in the Oval Office on Day One.

What do you mean by that? Veto proof congress? Last I checked there was a democratic majority, and a very real possibility of them getting the veto proof majority. SO anything Obama proposes will most likely sail through.

That is what I mean, a Veto Proof Democrat Majority. Do you honestly think they are going to go with what the Obama Adminsitration wants, or do you think they are going to go with what THEY want. Some of the things Obama wants to propose, to get away with Old Washington and with Tax Increases on the Rich, go against what a Democrat led Congress will want.

They look at Obama, and they see a Freshman Senator, some one who is weak, some one who has no clout in Congress. They get to run their own policy through the Administration becuase to them the President is just a rubber stamp yes man.

Well she is the "running mate"

But she isn't the President. Trying to make her out as one is really getting pathetic.

I don't quite know how to debate this speech. i guess it could ring hollow with some people. What would make a speech "great" for you?

Well to quote another Great President "Where is the Beef". Obama needs to actually give substance to his ideas.

He also needs to practice what he preaches. If he says he wants to get away from old style Politics, than he needs to not practice those same attacks while in the same breath.

He wants to talk about Unity, but he doesn't talk about points in which he disagrees with Democrats and steps away from the party line.

Most of all he needs to give a speach in which he has brought about new ideas. Thursday Night most of his speach was just cut and paste ideas from the past 40 years.

Who has said that?

PBS, ABC, Fox, ABC Radio, Washington Post...

Infact here is a exerpt from the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...R2008082902883_2.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

The delegates left here happy and enthused, believing that the divisive nomination fight was finally behind them. But their star, Barack Obama, on the climactic night of the conclave, gave an acceptance speech that was no match for the keynote address he delivered at the 2004 convention in Boston.

There was no theme music to the speech and really no phrase or sentence that is likely to linger in the memory of any listener. The thing I never expected did in fact occur: Al Gore, the famously wooden former vice president, gave a more lively and convincing speech than Obama did.

If this were just an off night by a speaker we know can soar, it would be no more than a blip on the screen. Obama picked a bad night to be ordinary, given the huge crowd that filled the Denver Broncos' stadium and the elaborate Grecian setting constructed for his performance.

Yes i do, but im saying you or the media may be out of touch. Im not saying taht that makes it good, im mearly saying that you make it out to be a failure. When most are calling it historical.

So now you have talked to "Most" people now. You know how "Most" people are thinking about it? See I think it is you that is out of touch. You are so deep in Political Bias that Obama could take a dump on stage and you would call it MLK like.

But the crowd came to hear meaning, it may have rung hollow for you, but for many it didn't.

Then the crowd inserted their own meaning into it. Not to mention you do not know how many in the crowd viewed it.

Well have you also talked to everyone? because you seem to think that you have, and that the consnsus is it was poor. Back yourself up here.

The Consensus by the Commentators that try to atleast not show Political Biasness ( Some at CNN and MSNBC ). Have talked about how it was more of the same and overall a let down. No I have not talked to everyone nor have I claimed to.

But I will say this, just twelve hours after the speach it seemed that everyone was going around and talking about Palin, and forgetting everything about Obama's speach. If his speach was so powerful, it would have been landmark, it would have been something that stuck to you. Instead it was just well, more of the same.

Then what would you call a speech worthy of that comparison.

For one I think the speach would have to not be given in what looked like Anger. Second I think the speach would have to transend politic mud slinging. When MLK gave his speach he did not yell about how he hates Republicans. When JFK talked about the New Frontier he didn't talk about how Republicans were the enemy.

He also has to bring new ideas to the table, bring something that goes beyond Democrat and Republican, something that we havn't heard for the last 40 years out of Democrat talking points.

That particular piece is not a joke. there's no fallacy within it. it's my opinion.
I think everyone of your posts is a joke. How about that.

It is fine, but I dont go around acting well pretty sad and comaparing McCain's Speach to some of the greats. You can have your opinion, but it only goes to show how Politically Bias you are.

Well what would you call something worthy of that then

* Points above *

Also I would tell you to watch this:
A New Frontier

and

I have a Dream

And then watch Obama's Speach
Ordinary Speach

If you honestly, and I mean honestly believe those are all the same. Then...words escape me.

 

[Carlisle]

Yeah, get over it. It's not a MLK-esque speech. It's just a bunch of Obama air heads who think so. Trust me, in 15 years no one will remember or care about Obama after he loses this election. And NO ONE, will definitely will remember his speech.

And how can someone possibly say Obama has experience while Palin doesn't? Obama has NO. EXPERIENCE.

 

[John Madden]

Jesus Christ, are you SERIOUS?

Think Progress is a far left Liberal Website and is incrediably biased. He vetoed the Waterboarding Amendment not becuase of Waterboarding but becuase the CIA would be stuck with using the Army Manual. And that still does not deny the fact that he was the first that stood up against torture.

Except for the fact that, you know, he was for torture after he was against it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/politics/17torture.html
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00022

Also the American people agree with Bush on drilling, and Obama agrees with Bush on Immigration. OMG OBUSH!

The American people apparently disagree with their own EIA on drilling, it would seem:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/...natural-gas-production-or-prices-before-2030/

And Obama is hardly in agreement with Bush on immigration:

http://ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Immigration.htm

Just about the only thing they're in agreement on has been the fact that the economy can't function without them. Stop misrepresenting the facts.

He disagrees with Bush on pork spending that is for sure, as well as providing tax cuts only for the rich. McCain's Tax Cuts would help all.

He also disagrees with the facts on the sheer amount of pork spending there is, misrepresenting it as $100B (10 times as much as there actually is).

http://ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Budget_+_Economy.htm

Well for one that is a lie, it would not maintain political stabability. It would destroy everything that we have gained in there. In 2006 McCain advocated for the Surge, something that George Bush was coming around to.

And in 2008, you know, THE PRESENT, the Iraqis' own government wants us out of there sooner rather than later:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

And Bush's own diplomats are trying to do that so the next president doesn't have to - which is looking more and more like the guy who originally wanted us out of there before 2112.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/world/middleeast/22baghdad.html

McCain didnt agree with George Bush, George Bush agreed with John McCain.

And also in 2006 Obama showed utter stupidity and a utter lack of knowledge for the situation. If we had gone with Obama's plan in 2006, Iraq would have fallen into a Civil War. They would not have come together as he nievely thought, they would have gone to their respective corners to shoot it out.

You surge fanboys continue to amaze me with your utter denial of the reality of the situation.

Here's a simple fact:

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/ArticlesIraq4.htm

Civil war was already going on before the surge, during the surge, and after the surge.

Baghdad has lost what little cultural diversity it once had - everyone there is now living in segregated neighborhoods.

Just becuase they agree on two things does not make those two things wrong, nor does it make John McCain just like George Bush, unless you want to say Obama is just like Bush as well.

I'll grant you that much.

It's the fact that John McCain has voted in agreement with Bush 90% of the time in 2006, 95% of the time in 2007, and 100% of the time in 2008 that leads me to think John McCain is just like his old buddy George W. Bush.

Small things add up as well.

Small things like voting with the President at least 90% of the time for the past three years, yes, I agree.

McCain Voted with the Bush Administration 89 Percent of the Time. Since President Bush took office, McCain has supported Bush’s positions 89 percent of the time. McCain’s support of Bush’s policies reached as high as 95 percent in 2007. [Congressional Quarterly Voting Study, 110th Congress]

So in 3 and a half years he has fundementally changed his position on so many issues? No sorry I do not think so. It is just utter hypocracy that the Democrats are showing now.

John McCain has blatantly flipflopped on the following issues:

1. Abortion

1999 McCain: "in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade." [Associated Press, 8/24/99]

2006 McCain:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.

MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done?

MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support…. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states.

2. Torture

1973 McCain to 2000 McCain: Against it
Since then:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008343.php

3. Campaign finance reform

2003 McCain: McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan bill
2006 McCain: http://www.nysun.com/national/campaign-finance-effort-resumes-without-mccain/36949/

4. Taxes

2000 McCain: Voted against $1.35 trillion in tax cuts, one of two Republicans in the Senate to do so
2008 McCain: http://www.washtimes.com/news/2006/feb/27/20060227-123409-3819r/

So in other words your Vice President Cannidate was telling a lie? Or were they prepared to elect Bush?

Look at her job as Governor, she has been able to have those 5 children, and be able to not only be Governor, but to implement sweeping changes across Alaska. To say that she would have to divide her focus and time is not only false but has been shown to be not true.

Governor of a state of less than 1 million is pretty starkly different from being second-in-command over 300 million people, and it's pretty hilarious that you could think otherwise.

So are you saying that Biden is ready to be President on day one? If so then we should have elected him instead of Obama becuase he carries more experience than Obama.

Was Biden vetted intensely and, later, voted on for 18 months to ensure he was the right man for the job for the Democratic Party this year? He is ready to become President in the case of anything happening to Obama, but that does not change the reality of this year's primaries.

Except Obama doesn't have any of the things that I just mentioned, beyond taking one trip overseas. He hasn't been able to sit in on the Oval Office and watch some one else do it, he hasn't been able to familiarize himself with members of another administration he would take over. Infact he is so new to Congress he hasnt even been able to familiarize himself with them!

So because Obama has zero years of executive experience (and not, you know, four years of dealing with other countries through Senate foreign policy legislation and sitting on the Senate Committee on Foreign Policy for the past four years) he therefore has zero reasoning to become President of the United States? You have just told me you support McCain suddenly dying on the campaign trail and Palin becoming the nominee.

It scares them more to have some one so inept and obscure be in the Oval Office on Day One.

I agree, it scares rational people to have Candidate McCain in the Oval Office, because you never know what he's going to flip-flop on next.

Not hitting the big red button to launch nukes at Russia in 2000? Try hitting it over and over in 2008!

That is what I mean, a Veto Proof Democrat Majority. Do you honestly think they are going to go with what the Obama Adminsitration wants, or do you think they are going to go with what THEY want. Some of the things Obama wants to propose, to get away with Old Washington and with Tax Increases on the Rich, go against what a Democrat led Congress will want.

They look at Obama, and they see a Freshman Senator, some one who is weak, some one who has no clout in Congress. They get to run their own policy through the Administration becuase to them the President is just a rubber stamp yes man.

Which explains why the entire House of Representatives basically treats him like a rock star every time he passes by, even with all of his policies pointing toward him not being a yes-man for 50 different agendas.

Because the Democratic Party is really that self-destructive with competent leadership!

But she isn't the President. Trying to make her out as one is really getting pathetic.

She is McCain's irregular heartbeat away from the Presidency. Trying to make that out as some kind of impossibility, her ascending if McCain gets elected, is just screaming "blind".

Well to quote another Great President "Where is the Beef". Obama needs to actually give substance to his ideas.

I never knew Walter Mondale was elected President, since it was him who said that quote in the first place.

He also needs to practice what he preaches. If he says he wants to get away from old style Politics, than he needs to not practice those same attacks while in the same breath.

You also need to get a grip on reality. Electoral reformers still have to get elected in the old way to institute their reforms, otherwise the reform wouldn't actually be necessary.

He wants to talk about Unity, but he doesn't talk about points in which he disagrees with Democrats and steps away from the party line.

Because he votes the Democratic Party line 96% of the time, you twit!
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/04/03/cq_2509.html

Most of all he needs to give a speach in which he has brought about new ideas. Thursday Night most of his speach was just cut and paste ideas from the past 40 years.

Cut and paste ideas like universal health care - I'm wondering where that was mentioned before 1992 - and ending the Iraq War - I'm wondering where that issue was before 2004 - and alternative energy - I'm wondering why that issue wasn't solved in the 1980s.

You are so adorable.

So now you have talked to "Most" people now. You know how "Most" people are thinking about it? See I think it is you that is out of touch. You are so deep in Political Bias that Obama could take a dump on stage and you would call it MLK like.

Or, you know, I could just cite Gallup polling data from just yesterday:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109948/Obama-Acceptance-Speech-Gets-High-Marks-From-Public.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- Fifty-eight percent of Americans give Barack Obama's speech a positive review, including 35% who describe it as "excellent." Both marks surpass those given to the 2000 and 2004 presidential candidates, with the excellent ratings for Obama's speech 10 percentage points higher than any other recent candidate has received.

Then the crowd inserted their own meaning into it. Not to mention you do not know how many in the crowd viewed it.

Ironic, since you are inserting your own meaning into reality throughout this post!

The Consensus by the Commentators that try to atleast not show Political Biasness ( Some at CNN and MSNBC ). Have talked about how it was more of the same and overall a let down. No I have not talked to everyone nor have I claimed to.

Which explains why Bill Kristol, member of the FOX News-led LIBERAL MEDIA, gushed about it.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/obama-speech-glow-may-dim/story.aspx?guid={BA1BDAC4-E90C-4527-99C5-10AFBE0F4676}&dist=msr_2

"Barack Obama faced very high expectations tonight and honestly I think he met them and I honestly think he exceeded them," Kristol said on Fox Thursday night.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/u...21&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8/29/AR2008082900104.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR

Even Peggy Noonan, of the Murdoch-mouthpiece WSJ, didn't think it was just "more of the same":

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121998875327382805.html?mod=todays_columnists

But I will say this, just twelve hours after the speach it seemed that everyone was going around and talking about Palin, and forgetting everything about Obama's speach. If his speach was so powerful, it would have been landmark, it would have been something that stuck to you. Instead it was just well, more of the same.

You might have also noticed that the vast majority of that coverage of Palin has been "is McCain stupid or something?"

It is fine, but I dont go around acting well pretty sad and comaparing McCain's Speach to some of the greats. You can have your opinion, but it only goes to show how Politically Bias you are.

Then I guess the vast majority of the media is, in fact, part of some vast left-wing conspiracy, since damn near everyone in TV, in newspapers, in radio (except for the usual 3 Stooges of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Babington) was, in fact, putting Obama's acceptance speech up there.

* Points above *

Also I would tell you to watch this:
A New Frontier

and

I have a Dream

And then watch Obama's Speach
Ordinary Speach

If you honestly, and I mean honestly believe those are all the same. Then...words escape me.

And if you honestly believe anyone in here is arguing that they are "all the same" and not that they are each some of the greatest speeches in the history of this nation - JFK's "A New Frontier" because of its soaring rhetoric in a time of international instability, MLK's "I Have A Dream" because of its soaring hope in a time of fear and racism, and BHO's acceptance speech because of its sheer significance in American history, the first African-American on any major party ticket, the first Democrat in 32 years to not roll over and take it from the Republicans - then it is definitely not you that words should be escaping.

 

[John Madden]

Yeah, get over it. It's not a MLK-esque speech. It's just a bunch of Obama air heads who think so. Trust me, in 15 years no one will remember or care about Obama after he loses this election. And NO ONE, will definitely will remember his speech.

I suppose you think close to the entirety of the media are a bunch of Obama airheads, then.

And how can someone possibly say Obama has experience while Palin doesn't? Obama has NO. EXPERIENCE.

“If your campaign is weak on the issues, go after a weakness in your opponent unrelated to the issues. If your opponent has no weakness, make one up. Then repeat it often enough to make people believe it is the main issue in the campaign.”

Was it Roosevelt's political experience or his personal experience that enabled him to do what he did as President?

Clinton's?
Reagan's?
Eisenhower's?
Kennedy's?
Johnson's?
Lincoln's?

If experience really mattered, why would an incumbent president ever be voted out of office: Clinton should have lost to the first Bush; Reagan should have lost to Carter; Carter should have lost to Ford; and Roosevelt should have lost to Hoover.

And even pretending this "experience" bull is actually relevant:

Obama has 11 years of state and national experience. (Not 9; unlike his opponent he's actually bothered showing up to vote in the past two years)
Palin has 2 years of managing a state smaller in population than Detroit, Michigan.

 

[BigLutz]

I suppose you think close to the entirety of the media are a bunch of Obama airheads, then.

Alot of the media were the first ones to point out how Pedestrian and Weak the Obama speach was.

Was it Roosevelt's political experience or his personal experience that enabled him to do what he did as President?

Clinton's?
Reagan's?
Eisenhower's?
Kennedy's?
Johnson's?
Lincoln's?

If experience really mattered, why would an incumbent president ever be voted out of office: Clinton should have lost to the first Bush; Reagan should have lost to Carter; Carter should have lost to Ford; and Roosevelt should have lost to Hoover.

With the exception of Lincoln, all of those that you just named had some sort of executive experience or legislative experience that far surpasses what Obama has. And in the case of Lincoln, the world, even the national problems that Obama would be facing are far more extensive than the problems that Lincoln would have faced.

Obama has 11 years of state and national experience. (Not 9; unlike his opponent he's actually bothered showing up to vote in the past two years)

State Legislative Experience does not count, unlike State Governor Experience, State Legislative Experience gives you nearly nothing when it comes to things that he would face against a National Congress or in the White House.

Palin has 2 years of managing a state smaller in population than Detroit, Michigan.

And was the largest state of the Union as well, as well as near two other countries, one of which is hostile to the United States.

 

[John Madden]

Alot of the media were the first ones to point out how Pedestrian and Weak the Obama speach was.

Mind actually citing anything? I've just shown three links that seem to tell me you're distorting reality.

With the exception of Lincoln, all of those that you just named had some sort of executive experience or legislative experience that far surpasses what Obama has.

Kennedy had maybe 12 years of legislative experience, 1 more than Obama.
Clinton had 9 years of executive experience in the 32nd largest state in the Union. Reagan had 8 in the largest.

Eisenhower was a general during World War II, true, but that hardly prepares one for the highest office in the land - merely the highest level of command below it.

Johnson is the only one I named whose experience blows Obama's out of the water.

And in the case of Lincoln, the world, even the national problems that Obama would be facing are far more extensive than the problems that Lincoln would have faced.

Are you seriously trying to say that a war in Iraq and a health care crisis are collectively more "extensive" than the very country being ripped in half and driven to civil war?

State Legislative Experience does not count, unlike State Governor Experience, State Legislative Experience gives you nearly nothing when it comes to things that he would face against a National Congress or in the White House.

So then you'd agree with me that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 3 years of "state governor experience" as governor of New York sort of destroy this whole "experience above all" argument?

You can't have it both ways with "state experience" - either count both or count neither.

And was the largest state of the Union as well, as well as near two other countries, one of which is hostile to the United States.

Russia would not be hostile to the United States if we would stop antagonizing them at every step of the way, and electing someone who has explicitly said he would try to get Russia kicked out of the G8 definitely counts as antagonism!

 

[BigLutz]

Except for the fact that, you know, he was for torture after he was against it.

I already told you as to why he voted against the bill, having the CIA conform to one book would basically tell Al Qaeda exactly what will happen to them if they were captured. Also the McCain torture bill was passed and signed into law long before the Waterboarding bill came.

The American people apparently disagree with their own EIA on drilling, it would seem:

The EIA report has been proven wrong by both those inside the oil industry and scientists outside of it.

And Obama is hardly in agreement with Bush on immigration:

They may disagree on a border wall but both agree on a Guest Worker Program as well as Amnesty. OBUSH!

Stop misrepresenting the facts.

Funny seeing that is just what you have done.

And in 2008, you know, THE PRESENT, the Iraqis' own government wants us out of there sooner rather than later:

Yes now that the Surge has worked. May I also remind you that Iraqi Generals have also said that they want us to stay longer. The Iraqi Government wants to get elected and is pandering to their own people instead of protecting their National Security.

And Bush's own diplomats are trying to do that so the next president doesn't have to - which is looking more and more like the guy who originally wanted us out of there before 2112.

Now it is you that is misrepresenting the facts. The entire 100 year argument has been utterly debunked.

Civil war was already going on before the surge, during the surge, and after the surge.

So wait, a Civil War is going on now? Where may I ask? Becuase certainly not in Iraq.

Baghdad has lost what little cultural diversity it once had - everyone there is now living in segregated neighborhoods.

The Cultiural Diversity is what was beginning to spark off everything. Both sides needed a long time out before they can actually work together.

It's the fact that John McCain has voted in agreement with Bush 90% of the time in 2006, 95% of the time in 2007, and 100% of the time in 2008 that leads me to think

Source those numbers, becuase from what I heard they are actually much lower in 2006 and 2007. Not to mention many of the bills that he voted on for Bush, were passed unanomously.

Small things like voting with the President at least 90% of the time for the past three years, yes, I agree.

Again source? And lets see how many times Obama has voted for Bush. Many of these bills that brought about those numbers were passed Unanomously so lets see what high percentage Obama brings?

McCain to 2000 McCain: Against it
Since then:

2005 McCain brings about a law that would prevent all torture of Detainees in US Custody. So you were saying?

2000 McCain: Voted against $1.35 trillion in tax cuts, one of two Republicans in the Senate to do so
2008 McCain:

And he was right to say he supports them now, becuase repealing them would be tantimount to a Tax Increase in a time in which the economy is doing very poorly.

Governor of a state of less than 1 million is pretty starkly different from being second-in-command over 300 million people, and it's pretty hilarious that you could think otherwise.

Executive Experience is Excutive Experience, trying to deminish it only makes you look worse.

Was Biden vetted intensely and, later, voted on for 18 months to ensure he was the right man for the job for the Democratic Party this year? He is ready to become President in the case of anything happening to Obama, but that does not change the reality of this year's primaries.

Oh he is? He is ready on day one to take up the policies of the Obama Administration?

So because Obama has zero years of executive experience (and not, you know, four years of dealing with other countries through Senate foreign policy legislation and sitting on the Senate Committee on Foreign Policy for the past four years) he therefore has zero reasoning to become President of the United States? You have just told me you support McCain suddenly dying on the campaign trail and Palin becoming the nominee.

So wait, its 2009 already? You just said Obama sat on a committee for four years? Not to mention he wasn't there most of the time for four years. And from the looks of it his European Committee really did nothing when it came to Foreign Policy. But hey! Obama took a trip to Europe so he must be qualified!

I agree, it scares rational people to have Candidate McCain in the Oval Office, because you never know what he's going to flip-flop on next.

That actually sounds like Obama and some of the major flip flops that he has taken.

Not hitting the big red button to launch nukes at Russia in 2000? Try hitting it over and over in 2008!

Atleast he would be there, where was Obama during the Russian Crisis? Out eating snow cones and surfing on the beach!

She is McCain's irregular heartbeat away from the Presidency. Trying to make that out as some kind of impossibility, her ascending if McCain gets elected, is just screaming "blind".

And Biden is one KKK member away from the Presidency, and that makes Nancy Pelosi one irregular heartbeat away from the Presidency. Or if the Republicans gain back the House in 2010, that makes a Republican one irregular heartbeat away from the Presidency.

If you want to play "Old Guys can die" that is fine, but your President is black, and your Vice President is a old guy as well.

You also need to get a grip on reality. Electoral reformers still have to get elected in the old way to institute their reforms, otherwise the reform wouldn't actually be necessary.

Well first I would say you are the one that has lost touch on Reality.

Second I would say where is the reform that Obama has brought so far? Where is the change? There was none in Chicago and there was none here. Hell even Palin with her "Two Years" of experience has brought about more change than Obama has in his entire career.

Because he votes the Democratic Party line 96% of the time, you twit!

So in other words he isnt a Post Partsian Cannidate, he isn't a Uniter, he is just another Democrat.

Cut and paste ideas like universal health care - I'm wondering where that was mentioned before 1992 - and ending the Iraq War - I'm wondering where that issue was before 2004 - and alternative energy - I'm wondering why that issue wasn't solved in the 1980s.

You are so adorable.

Congragulations, the main key issues Obama mentioned you have just shown that they have been around for a while and come in different forms. So I ask again, where is the new stuff? Where is the originality?

Or, you know, I could just cite Gallup polling data from just yesterday:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109948/Ob...om-Public.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- Fifty-eight percent of Americans give Barack Obama's speech a positive review, including 35% who describe it as "excellent." Both marks surpass those given to the 2000 and 2004 presidential candidates, with the excellent ratings for Obama's speech 10 percentage points higher than any other recent candidate has received.

Giving it a Positive Review does not mean they think it is ground breaking or anything more than the same old stuff Obama has given. If anything only 35% of the Country, those die hard Obama fans thought it was actually excellent.

You might have also noticed that the vast majority of that coverage of Palin has been "is McCain stupid or something?"

More of "This is a big risk for McCain" and "This is a great choice for Conservatives". But please, continue to live in your own little fantasy world.

Then I guess the vast majority of the media is, in fact, part of some vast left-wing conspiracy, since damn near everyone in TV, in newspapers, in radio (except for the usual 3 Stooges of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Babington) was, in fact, putting Obama's acceptance speech up there.

Then how about actually providing quotes that have Obama's speach up there with MLK and JFK?

And if you honestly believe anyone in here is arguing that they are "all the same" and not that they are each some of the greatest speeches in the history of this nation - JFK's "A New Frontier" because of its soaring rhetoric in a time of international instability, MLK's "I Have A Dream" because of its soaring hope in a time of fear and racism, and BHO's acceptance speech because of its sheer significance in American history, the first African-American on any major party ticket, the first Democrat in 32 years to not roll over and take it from the Republicans - then it is definitely not you that words should be escaping.

So in other words Obama's speach was not great becuase of anything said in the speach, but becuase he was black? How absolutely pathetic.

Mind actually citing anything? I've just shown three links that seem to tell me you're distorting reality.

If you have read you will see that I already provided you with a Washington Post link.

Kennedy had maybe 12 years of legislative experience, 1 more than Obama.

As a US Senator and as a Member of the House. The bulk of Obama's Legislative experience comes as a State Senator. Nothing even comparable to being a US Senator. Try again!

Clinton had 9 years of executive experience. Reagan had 8. Eisenhower was a general during World War II, true, but that hardly prepares one for the highest office in the land.

Being a General also gives you executive experience. So out of all of those, all three has more experience either on the national stage or in the army, that far outweighs Obama.

Johnson is the only one I named whose experience blows Obama's out of the water.

Actually all of them you named blow Obama out of the water.

Are you seriously trying to say that a war in Iraq and a health care crisis are collectively more "extensive" than the very country being ripped in half and driven to civil war?

Apples and Oranges, the amount of problems that Obama and McCain will inheriet are extremely different than the problems that Lincoln inherited, and may I remind you that the civil war didn't happen until after Lincoln assumed the Presidency.

So then you'd agree with me that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 3 years of national experience as governor of New York sort of destroy this whole "experience above all" argument?

Actually I would say 3 years of Executive Experience far outweighs the 1 1/2 years of Legislative Experience of being a US Senator. Executive Experience always trumps Legislative Experience.

Russia would not be hostile to the United States if we would stop antagonizing them at every step of the way, and electing someone who has explicitly said he would try to get Russia kicked out of the G8 definitely counts as antagonism!

Oh yes, the "Blame America first". Here is a little clue, Russia is going to be hostile to anyone becuase Russia wants its dignity back. They lost it after the Cold War and they want to be seen as a Super Power again by the rest of the world. Sucking up to them will not change that.

 

[Cutiebunny]

Well, well...it looks like the Democrats have finally figured out how to insult Palin...

Say that's she's too attractive!!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/31/biden-palins-good-looking/#comments


If Obama is trying hard to get the female vote, he might want to consider shutting up Biden. Making comments regarding her inability to govern because she is attractive is akin to saying that Obama is unqualified to govern because he's young or black.

 

[Carlisle]

This just in from CNN:

There was NO, I repeat, NO bounce for Obama after the convention. Before the convention, it was 47 to 47. Now, it's 49, to 48. Obama went up by two, and McCain by one. And McCain hasn't even had his convention yet. Guess the Democrats chose the wrong nominee.

 

[BigLutz]

If Obama is trying hard to get the female vote, he might want to consider shutting up Biden. Making comments regarding her inability to govern because she is attractive is akin to saying that Obama is unqualified to govern because he's young or black.

Oh it gets worse, you have people like Asa going about saying how she can't Govern becuase she has children. It's as if a woman cannot have a child with special needs and hold down a job at the same time.

But you know what is worse? You know what is alot worse, is what sites like Daily Kos and Democrat Underground are saying. They claim that the baby isn't even her's. That it was her Teenage Daughter's and that she was so ashamed of it that she claimed it was her own and has tried to lie about it.

You can find more of this story here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/why-dailykos-embraced-the_b_122790.html

And yeah Carlisle, they picked a Unexpierenced man to be the front runner, and he mad a horrible choice for a Vice President. If Hillary were VP or even President I doubt we would see some of these blatently sexist attacks against Palin.

 

[ironknight42]

"The Cultiural Diversity is what was beginning to spark off everything. Both sides needed a long time out before they can actually work together."
Ah...I understand now just so they can become more bigoted against each other because there never exposed to one another.
"Oh yes, the "Blame America first". Here is a little clue, Russia is going to be hostile to anyone becuase Russia wants its dignity back. They lost it after the Cold War and they want to be seen as a Super Power again by the rest of the world. Sucking up to them will not change that."
I agree Russia thought is lost face after Kosovo(hope I spelled that right) so they want to regain some dignity.

 

[BigLutz]

Ah...I understand now just so they can become more bigoted against each other because there never exposed to one another.

Actually just the opposite happened, it allowed the killing to stop and allowed both sides to cool down. Before the military check points happened you were having daily killings, one group would get bombed, so they would go out and bomb the other group. It truely was not only becoming a civil war but a Proxy war between Al Qaeda and Iran.

With both sides seperated the killing stops, both of them can calm down, and in many ways get seperated from the extremists which were driving the killing. And start to focus on rebuilding their lives and their neighborhood. That kind of understand, that kind of realization that there are more important things to do than kill, will benifit Iraq in the long run, and keep them from going at eachothers throats again.

 

[Cutiebunny]

Oh it gets worse, you have people like Asa going about saying how she can't Govern becuase she has children. It's as if a woman cannot have a child with special needs and hold down a job at the same time.

Then obviously Obama is not qualified to be president because he is the baby daddy of 2 children(that we know of...I'm sure there are a few 'love children' around, and we'll probably hear about them after the election when the bribe money runs out).

But then, I suppose Michelle will be the one raising the children because women are just assumed to be the ones to do that sort of thing. The male can run around and do whatever he likes instead. Why can't Palin's husband be the 'stay at home' dad?

But you know what is worse? You know what is alot worse, is what sites like Daily Kos and Democrat Underground are saying. They claim that the baby isn't even her's. That it was her Teenage Daughter's and that she was so ashamed of it that she claimed it was her own and has tried to lie about it.

It's one thing to bring up the canidates and their personal affairs, but it's another thing to drag their children(especially a minor) into it. That's pretty darn low.