Reaction To The Campaign Response To The Palin Case

[Guest]

Wow! Barack Obama must have an amazing ability to foresee the future.

The McCain campaign responded to the report on Sarah Palin's abuse of power as Governor in a completely appropriate manner until it got to the last paragraph of their statement. There, they accused Barack Obama of initiating the investigation for partisan political purposes.

Don't the people who write this stuff ever do their homework? As reported in the Anchorage Daily News today, "In authorizing the investigation on July 28, the members of the legislative council voted 'to investigate the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former public safety commissioner Monegan, and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch'." If the Obama people really did initiate the investigation, they did so before John McCain was even nominated to run for the Presidency and long before Governor Palin was selected as his running mate. Beyond that, the panel that did the investigation was non-partisan and voted 12-0 in support of their final conclusions.

Why don't we just take this story and put it in the same trash can as the press releases by those same writers accusing Barack Obama of being a terrorist because he associated occasionally with a distinguished professor at the University of Illinois, who admits he was a radical anti-war activist when he was a college student, a time when Obama was only 8-years old. C'mon, let's get serious.

By the time Bill Ayers held a coffee in his house to introduce his neighbors to Obama in his first political campaign, Ayers was already a distinguished professor at the U of I and his wife, another youthful radical, had achieved similar academic prowess at the Northwestern law school. In fact, by the time Obama had his first association with Ayers, he was already a respected advisor to Mayor Richie Daley and Deputy Mayor for Education for the City of Chicago. I've seen accusations that Obama helped Ayers spend the $50 million Annenburg grant in training Chicago public grade-schoolers in radicalism. If the partisans had done their research, they'd find that Ayers was awarded the $50 million grant by a panel of three distinguished educators who included the President of Brown University, the former dean of the Harvard Business School, and a man who served as the Deputy Secretary of Education for President George H.W. Bush. Further, it wasn't a $50 million grant, it was a "matching" grant which was quickly matched with an additonal $100 million, half from private corporations and half from both the state and federal government. Ayers was a bad guy as a student, but was never convicted of anything. But by the time Obama had any association with him, he was a highly respected educator. Wow! What an awful guy....not even in the same class as Charles Keating, who did spend many years in prison. And John McCain's friendship with Keating was a whole lot closer than Obama's was with Ayers.

Both stories demonstrate very selective partisan research and neither is of sufficient concern to question the character of either Senator Obama or Governor Palin or their qualifications to hold high office in the U.S. government.

That's how I feel about it, but I'd be willing to bet that the partisans on both sides continue to try to make a big deal of both these stories. After all, if the campaign strategists can get the public to get worked up over these incidents, they figure we won't take time to think about what the candidates have to say about the important issues that will effect the country. How dumb do they think we are?

Ooops, I shouldn't have asked. Maybe the know how dumb we are.

[Guest]

After all, if the campaign strategists can get the public to get worked up over these incidents, they figure we won't take time to think about what the candidates have to say about the important issues that will effect the country. How dumb do they think we are?

Ooops, I shouldn't have asked. Maybe the know how dumb we are.

Interesting conundrum. Possibly they do. In fact, based on the successful marketing tactics used, I suspect they most certainly have a real good idea.

[Guest]

VK, i totally agree with you. WELL PUT!!

[Guest]

A good common sense post, Kahuna. But I think people believe what they want to believe. If you're against Obama, you'll grasp at any straw, no matter how illogical, simply because it bolsters your position in some emotional way. I just hope the independants are looking at all the facts and not being swayed by all this crappola.

[Guest]

Kahuana....you try so hard to talk eloquently and have it come across as unbiased but just about every post you make is slanted and you talk about those who are in the profession of politics ????

[Guest]

Hi Bucco..........Kahuana at least tries which is more than some do. Don't believe he has ever said he didn't have an opinion.

What I rally want to address is your "profession of politics?" Am I correct you don't believe politics is a profession? It is as much a profession as plumber, carpenter, lawyer, doctor, nurse, etc. It takes unique knowledge and skills like all professions. The most important skill of a politician is to bring people with different opinions together to find common ground to solve problems. Not a Profession???

[Guest]

Well thought out, mrhetzel.

[Guest]

I sometimes get the impression it is Obama VS Palin........but NEVER get the impression it might be McCain VS Biden.

Now why is it the Obama gang feel obligated to go after Palin and the McCain gang doesn't bother much with Biden?

Hmnnnnnn!

Could Obama feel the other new comer with no experience is his bigger concern?
Or does he want exclusivity on the no experience issue.

For sure she is of concern to him....I just don't understand why!
Could be as simple as he doesn't like to be upstaged!!!!

Tsk. Tsk.

BTK

[Guest]

I sometimes get the impression it is Obama VS Palin........but NEVER get the impression it might be McCain VS Biden.

Now why is it the Obama gang feel obligated to go after Palin and the McCain gang doesn't bother much with Biden?

Hmnnnnnn!

Could Obama feel the other new comer with no experience is his bigger concern?
Or does he want exclusivity on the no experience issue.

For sure she is of concern to him....I just don't understand why!
Could be as simple as he doesn't like to be upstaged!!!!

Tsk. Tsk.

BTK

or is it Palin going after Obama at McCains order. Terrorist???? Now your post make alot of sense?? Of course McCain doesnt bother Biden, he knows bettter. Biden knows DC as good as McCain, or better. I know you dont really believe that McCain on the Membrane had nothing to do with her calling obama a terrorist, if you do your the only one. He spends more time trying to get Palin to spread that whole deal than he does anything else.

[Guest]

Hi Bucco..........Kahuana at least tries which is more than some do. Don't believe he has ever said he didn't have an opinion.

What I rally want to address is your "profession of politics?" Am I correct you don't believe politics is a profession? It is as much a profession as plumber, carpenter, lawyer, doctor, nurse, etc. It takes unique knowledge and skills like all professions. The most important skill of a politician is to bring people with different opinions together to find common ground to solve problems. Not a Profession???


First you are correct about Kahuana...I have complimented many of his posts...well thought out. I am open about where I stand, and can accept anyone who is open. I get a bit defensive when someone talks as if they were giving BOTH sides but are not. But Kahuana makes great posts and I read all of them and have learned from them all.

Profession was a stretch and I apologize for giving WAY to much credit to many many folks :)

[Guest]

prostitution is one too......so what?

The 545 professional politicals are as tainted as prostitution.

Does tagging it as a profession attempt to put validity on their job?

Has nothing to do with it.

The 545 are mainly lawyers....another profession. Oh tes that should make us all feel good.....where is that :cus: barf icon????

BTK

[Guest]

Kahuna, you said "(Obama) associated occasionally with a distinguished professor at the University of Illinois, who admits he was a radical anti-war activist when he was a college student"

That is perhaps the worst understatement of fact describing one of the founders of the radical terrorist group, the Weathermen, I have ever heard. His little radical group were violent terrorist bombers who detonated devices at Federal buildings, bombed a judge's house, robbed banks, killed cops and murdered the innocent. The only reason he was not convicted was because wiretap evidence was thrown out of court by a liberal judge. In a famous address Ayers said, "guilty as hell...free as a bird. His autobiography celebrates his criminal conduct. Ayres is a self acclaimed terrorist. He has stated publicly, "I am a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist ... [Laughs] Maybe I'm the last communist who is willing to admit it."

Perhaps putting a human component into the equation, will put the real Ayers and Weathermen into a more befitting characterization.

William Ayers, your respectable professor and his Weathermen also robbed banks and murdered real people. I'm sure the survivors of their families would take exception with your charitable resume of a founding member of the Weathermen. As I stated in an earlier post, the victims of these felons had names. Maybe if I put names to those who were ruthlessly gunned down and murdered after stopping a van containing Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, both Weather Underground members, co-conspirators of William Ayres, a driving force of the Weather Underground and their BLA accomplices (a whole other issue), maybe you will reassess your dismissal that Ayers was just a "bad boy" in college.

Google this......During the Brinks bank robbery Nyack police officers Sgt. Edward O'Grady and Officer Waverly "Chipper" Brown were shot and killed by Weather Underground and BLA members . Boudin was caught at the scene. Gilbert fled.This same group of cold blooded killers had just killed Brinks guard Peter Paige during the Brinks bank robbery an hour earlier. William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn frequently are considered driving forces of the Weather Underground and were closely associated with Boudin and Gilbert. Every legitimate source will reference Ayers, Boudin, Dohrn and David Gilbert as Weather Underground principals. Ayers and his wife were the legal guardians of Kathy Boudin's daughter Chesa after she was convicted in the Brinks robbery and murders.

When members of the Ayer's family of radical bombers blew themselves up in Greenwich Village, it was determined they were making anti-personnel nail bombs to be detonated at a non-commissioned officers club dance in Ft. Dix New Jersey. How do you think the loved ones who had family in Ft. Dix at that time would react to dismissing this scum as "youthful radicals" like they were just college students doing fraternity pranks? I can only speak for myself...and you don't have to read between the lines to know how I feel on this topic.

Ayers, his Weathermen, the BLA, the United Freedom Front and other splinter radical groups were very real to me. I do not appreciate those that were not there, cleansing or dismissing them as "bad" boys. They were murdering scum who killed real people. New Jersey State Trooper Phil Lamonaco was gunned down while conducting a MV stop, by radicals who were responsible for 19 bombings and 10 bank robberies. Phil was a great guy, family man, Trooper of the Year, colleague and friend. I watched William Kuntsler, who defended his killers, put his feet up on the desk in court, take his socks off and pick his toes to show disrespect for the court, Trooper Lamonaco and his family. I will never forget that.

I've said this before in another post. It is appropriate in the context of comments in this thread to say it again. I was working the day BLA radicals (who frequently joined the Ayers weathermen in criminal activity and bombings) and Joann Chesimard , gunned down execution style Trooper Werner Foerster just off the Turnpike in New Brunswick, NJ. He was also a family man. William Ayers, the Weathermen, the BLA, the United Freedom Front and their ilk were not just "youthful radicals", "respected" anything or just "anti-war activists" I wonder how the families of their victims, the wives, sons, daughters, mothers and fathers would feel about the benevolent dispensation that is being given ruthless, murdering thugs. The degree of Obama's relationship to Ayres is not the point of this post. Its about conveniently forgotten victims.

Ayers, your distinguished professor, to this day is unrepentant for his trail of terrorism and unapologetic about the lives he and his Weather Underground destroyed. If the intensity of this post fails to meet the civility standard of this forum, I will accept any sanction but remain unrepentant in my hostility and animosity toward those that bombed, robbed, murdered and terrorized in the name of radicalism. The voices of their victims and families need to be remembered and heard.

[Guest]

CABO...good post. Cannot add much more except to express my total amazement and astonishment that folks on this board excuse people who killed and maimed people and have no regrets whatsoever.

I dont care what else they did with their life....they are and will always be killers. And then add that they have zero remorse for killing and say they would do it again.

Yes, give this person invites to all the White House functions ! Of course bringing this up is racism at its worst, right ? Heck Sen McCain was taken to task on this same board for the way he flew airplanes !!!

People amaze me sometimes. The guy who would be President can hang with anyone he wants, no matter their history.

Heck, even the Clinton's when they went to the White House had it covered up that Hillary, then simply the first lady, had written her thesis on Sal Alinsky because it was so radical and could be embarassing. SEN OBAMA BRAGS ABOUT STUDYING SAL ALINSKY.

[Guest]

I sincerely appreciated your well-researched and obviously heartfelt post regarding William Ayers. While he may be a changed man forty years later, his unrepentant attitude is offensive...unacceptable. I absolutley do not differ with you on that. I might add that Barack Obama has said the same thing about Ayers.

Where we differ is whether Obama's associations with Ayers more than a decade ago should be considered a fatal lack of judgement, a permanent character flaw, a disqualification for the Presidency.

Those questions were factors that I considered in making my voting choice, but not the only factor. All I can conclude is that we disagree on the emphasis that should be placed on the Ayers relationship. And we also may disagree on other factors that might be considered when making a voting choice. I don't think any less of the people who did their research and were thoughtful in their considerations, as you obviously have been.

I will admit that I get irritated when people make their decisions without any analysis or thought--based on false facts, an emotional response or a campaign-provided tagline. Tthe lady in Minnesota who wouldn't vote for Obama because he was an Arab comes to mind. But for people to consider the facts, analyze the record, listen to the campaign promises, and then make their choice is exactly the way a democracy should work. I admire people who do that and hope that, if their decision is different from mine, that we can agree to disagree on a friendly basis.

More importantly, we should all agree to support whichever candidate is elected. In these times in particular, without the broad support of the entire country, the winner will be the loser. If we remain fractionalized and polarized and angry, as a country we'll all be the losers.

[Guest]

Everyone has an opinon. while i dont see how he is a terrorist because he knows Ayers, He dont pal around with him as Palin and camp want you to think. Actually quite opposite. That is what is wrong. Your opinion is yours, but dont push Obama is a Terrorist because McCain and Company said he is. Then get upset when some sees the ball different than you do. heck reading the paper this weekend it seems that McCain has some Skeletons in the closet when it comes to dealing with some questionable characters. But you dont hear people screaming about it, because it is what it is, and could of been a lack of judgment or what ever. Everyone has a skeleton hiding, just a matter of how another person wants to make it look when it comes out. Until the republican party gaines in the polls or wins the election, just about every day they will bring up another dity little secret about "THAT ONE OVER THERE". and yes i am sure if the Demo's were way behind in the polls they would do the same.

[Guest]

heck reading the paper this weekend it seems that McCain has some Skeletons in the closet when it comes to dealing with some questionable characters.
__________________________________________________ ______________________--

Hoping that GMONEY will supply some of the names and links...please ?

Thanks

[Guest]

heck reading the paper this weekend it seems that McCain has some Skeletons in the closet when it comes to dealing with some questionable characters.
__________________________________________________ ______________________--

Hoping that GMONEY will supply some of the names and links...please ?

Thanks

Lets try this one out... The names Anthony Bouscaren Mean anything or maybe Leonore Annenberg. She has something to do with Obama and Ayers. better yet check this site.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27092691

[Guest]

I think the one about the Oregon McCain delegate praising an abortion terrorist who shot a doctor and BOMBED abortion clinics is the best.

John McCain linked to domestic terrorist.

[Guest]

I began this thread kiddingly noting that the McCain campaign was alleging that Barack Obama initiated the investigation of Governor Palin's alleged abuse of office. Of course that was impossible because the non-partisan investigation was empaneled before John McCain was even nominated and when Sarah Palin was but a twinkle in someone's eye. I intended to use this as an example of how the campiagns have gotten to the point that they simply fabricate stuff and put it out, without any research whatsoever. My point was that they're trying desperately to misdirect the electorate's attention away from the real issues so the candidates won't have to discuss them. I was hoping we could resist the agitation of the campaigns and their Madison Avenue advertising advisors and begin to discuss the real issues here.

My attempt didn't work. We've regressed back to the tit-for-tat accusations, just as the campaigns want us to. GMONEY came up with examples of John McCain's character and judgement faults that seem every bit as damaging as the Ayers-Wright stuff being used against Obama. Don't we recognize that this stuff is all being planted and accelerated by the campaigns, who want to steer their candidates as far away from a discussion of the issues as possible?

Could we agree that enough is enough? The dirt diggers can find equally bad stuff involving both candidates. I submit that none of it should disqualify either candidate.

Issues, folks...issues! Anyone want to discuss them? Start a new thread.

[Guest]

I am either the one totally confused or something.

Simply stated as I can: Sen McCain's campaign is trying to point out the radical element that is in Sen Obama's background. He is not talking about those who endorsed him...he is simply pointing out that HIS IDEALOGY is steeped in radical left wing politics.

Why is this important ? Because Sen McCain has a visible record of well over 25 years of associations, friends, enemies, voting records, appearances...whatever you want. Sen Obama has NONE. There fore, it is important to understand the idealogy that drives Sen Obama since we do not that years and years of visibility.

That is what is being stated.

Now, you folks and others are making it something else. You are bringing up all these names as folks who endorse Sen McCain...well, now if that works....Farrakhan endorses Sen Obama and refers to him as the messiah. The American Communist Party endorses very strongly Sen Obama.

To KAHUANA....I respectfully understand your point about the "tit for tat" thing. However as one who began threads 6 weeks ago on this subject, I respectfully disagree with you. Not JUST Sen Obama's associates, but CERTAINLY ALL OF HIS ASSOCIATES AND TRAINING are issues to be discussed since he HAS NO RECORD OF ANYTHING. If a candidate had the same associations with Ayers as Obama does AND had a visible public record for 20 years, then that association is weighed against the record and thus would probably be less important. That is my point and I am not saying any of this because I am just throwing names around.

Sen Obama is a man we know nothing about except for his political speeches and appearances and we all spend hours on here saying how the speeched and politics mean nothing/./.that it is what they do that counts...well he has done NOTHING BUT RUN FOR OFFICE. I also think a 20 year association with Rev Wright is important. Sen McCain is trying to honor something he said during the primaries about not bringing it up but IT IS RELATIVE.

How you can advise electing a President with no voting record.....nothing to base a decision on except for speeches and ads (which on here I remind you we make fun of for both parties) and want to ignore 20 years attending a church of hate for a certain race...and even calling that Pastor his mentor and advisor....his association with a man who killed and maimed people and has said recently he does not regret and will do it again is simply beyond any logic. You are basing your decisions on nothing but political speeches or simply wanting a change for change sake irregardless of what you get !

[Guest]

Bucco, do you recall a fellow by the name of Ronald Reagan?

Other than being a movie star, a spokesman for GE, and a few years as governor of California, he was unknown at the national level. He too was best known for making a lot of speeches.

Most would say he turned out OK.

[Guest]

I began this thread kiddingly noting that the McCain campaign was alleging that Barack Obama initiated the investigation of Governor Palin's alleged abuse of office. Of course that was impossible because the non-partisan investigation was empaneled before John McCain was even nominated and when Sarah Palin was but a twinkle in someone's eye. I intended to use this as an example of how the campiagns have gotten to the point that they simply fabricate stuff and put it out, without any research whatsoever. My point was that they're trying desperately to misdirect the electorate's attention away from the real issues so the candidates won't have to discuss them. I was hoping we could resist the agitation of the campaigns and their Madison Avenue advertising advisors and begin to discuss the real issues here.

My attempt didn't work. We've regressed back to the tit-for-tat accusations, just as the campaigns want us to. GMONEY came up with examples of John McCain's character and judgement faults that seem every bit as damaging as the Ayers-Wright stuff being used against Obama. Don't we recognize that this stuff is all being planted and accelerated by the campaigns, who want to steer their candidates as far away from a discussion of the issues as possible?

Could we agree that enough is enough? The dirt diggers can find equally bad stuff involving both candidates. I submit that none of it should disqualify either candidate.

Issues, folks...issues! Anyone want to discuss them? Start a new thread.

Dont think they get it. but here is another one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27157703/

I was simply stating the same. Seems everyone is rear ending Obama on the Ayers deal and Muslim deal. I was told to show were i read something on McCain. you show one thing, and they bring something else up. i was simply stating the McCain has a skeleton just like everyone else. Lets agree to disagree. VK your original post was good.
I guess i hit a sore spot linking McCain to anything that is not to their liking.

[Guest]

Bucco, do you recall a fellow by the name of Ronald Reagan?

Other than being a movie star, a spokesman for GE, and a few years as governor of California, he was unknown at the national level. He too was best known for making a lot of speeches.

Most would say he turned out OK.

You talking about the guy who was Governor of California and turned it around ?

[Guest]

I was simply stating the same. Seems everyone is rear ending Obama on the Ayers deal and Muslim deal. I was told to show were i read something on McCain. you show one thing, and they bring something else up. i was simply stating the McCain has a skeleton just like everyone else. Lets agree to disagree. VK your original post was good.
I guess i hit a sore spot linking McCain to anything that is not to their liking.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

Let me explain one more time...you will not "hit a sore spot" with me on Sen McCain in anyway..I AM NOT A MCCAIN SUPPORTER.

I, have however, read both..yeah he already wrote two...AUTObio's of Sen Obama (by the way they differ in lots of cases..he improved in the second one)...also read extensively about his background and relationships.

From that and watching his campaign since the primaries began, there is no reason to change my fear of this man's idealogies. That is all I am saying. Sen McCain, warts and all, is an open book....Sen Obama is NOT IN ANYWAY. They already have changed a few of his websites to CHANGE his relationship with ACORN for example.

You can bash Sen McCain 24/7 but it is ALL PUBLIC knowledge.

I want change also, but not radical...ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW. This Sen Obama may be a great man....he surely feels he is, and ALL of the radical groups in the country do also.
I hope he is, honestly....I just have done a lot of homework on him, and while I am not happy with the last 8 years, I fear the next 4 !!! All doors to criticize Sen Obama are closed with a sign saying...."that is racist" or "that is hate mongering". Sen Clinton found that in the primary and we see the same thing in the general election. That should give you a clue !

No, I defend Sen McCain only in the context of how bizarre it is to criticize a man whose life is an open book and not be able to on a man this country knows very little about.

[Guest]

You talking about the guy who was Governor of California and turned it around ?



Kahuna I am sorry...I made a flip quick reply to you on this one. I just, and this is obviously just me, get so annoyed with some of these comparisons. Ronald Regan had a life that was anything but shrouded and shadowy...it was open for many many years. I just KNOW FOR A FACT, that we do not know all we should know about our Sen Obama. He may turn out great but just ask about his TWENTY YEARS LONG relationship with Rev Wright, and you are a racist..TWENTY YEARS..not a meeting TWENTY YEARS. Ask about Ayers, who by the way to me is the least worrisome associate, and you are a hate mongerer. Ask about studying Sal Alinsky and you are told that gee...Sen Clinton wrote her thesis on him...but you dont hear that the White House when President Clinton was elected had that paper buried and not accessible to the public (wonder why).

We are asked to ignore all of this about a man who is in his mid 40's....he is not 70 and lived through a lot...he is in his mid 40's and has all this BUT we are asked to forget it...why...well, the 20 years dont count because he took a day WHILE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT to disown Rev Wright...the Ayers doesnt count because gee whiz this killer and maimer has done good things, and thus the erstwhile PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES can embrace him as a friend...his time as a communtiy organizer utilizing the Alinsky scheme (which he used also during his campaign) doesnt count for whatever reason you can think of. His campaign's appeal to black to vote for him BECAUSE of his skin color is ok and not racist in anyway because they should be proud of him BECAUSE OF HIS COLOR.....we should ignore Jessie Jackson's son saying in public and advising Sen Obama that he is acting "too white"......we should ignore whatever and how tenuous a relationship he had or has with ACORN because he said there is none.....And on that subject we should ignore the FRAUD being done in his name by ACORN because we just flat dont care.

Sorry Kahuana...I respect your opinion but you cannot make me trust this man. He is doing everything to get elected...he changed his mind on campaign financing and Sen McCain kept his word and is getting crushed on tv because of it...he is changing his views to become more electable
(see offfshore driliing for one). He comes to us at the right time....8 years of frustration...it is the time for change and here he is.

I do not believe in change SIMPLY for change sake !

[Guest]

This will be my last post on this whole who said and did, and changed their mind subject,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27157703/

watch till the end, i guess he forgot he voted for the deal he is complaining about.
i must also add, that i am not decided on either one to vote for, but you have to look at both of them, and oh yess McCain has changed his mind as much as " THAT ONE OVER THERE"
Neither one will have the solution to the Economy, no one does. It is a hit and miss deal.. But someone has to try...

[Guest]

I can't buy into the description of Barack Obama's past as "shrouded and shadowy". For crying out loud, the man had a prestigious academic career, he bypassed the opportunity to make a huge salary to organize minorities so they could have a better life, he was elected as a State Senator, then a U.S. Senator, survived a bitter primary campiagn and is now running for President.

A whole lot of people have tried to find bad stuff about Barack Obama for a long, long time. Now we should conclude that because he went to a large church near his home on Chicago's south side pastored by a guy who in recent months has developed into a radical racial activist, we should disqualify Obama from consideration as President? There is no evidence of Wright's radical teachings to his members before the crazy speech he made less than a year ago. No one has proven that Obama ever endorsed Reverend Wright's teachings. In fact, he has denounced his recent speech and has left Wright's church. And as you know, the "association" with William Ayers was tenuous at best.

I won't argue about it any more. You've chosen McCaain and I'll vote for Obama. I admire a smart, personable family man who has demonstrated an ability to enthuse and lead people in a very positive way, both here and around the world. That's just what we need as the President of the country. What we don't need is a man who has apparently lost his strong character and has stated he will embrace the failed fiscal policies of his predecessor, will continue a hawk-like foreign policy, and only attempts to incite his followers with backward-looking and negative personal attacks on his opponent instead of discussing the issues facing the country and his plans to address them. No, the fact that Obama went to a church that it turns out was lead by a racial activist isn't enough for me to disqualify the man.

I agree that we disagree. There's little point in continuing the dialog.

[Guest]

I can't buy into the description of Barack Obama's past as "shrouded and shadowy". For crying out loud, the man had a prestigious academic career, he bypassed the opportunity to make a huge salary to organize minorities so they could have a better life, he was elected as a State Senator, then a U.S. Senator, survived a bitter primary campiagn and is now running for President.

A whole lot of people have tried to find bad stuff about Barack Obama for a long, long time. Now we should conclude that because he went to a large church near his home on Chicago's south side pastored by a guy who in recent months has developed into a radical racial activist, we should disqualify Obama from consideration as President? There is no evidence of Wright's radical teacj=hings to his members before the crazy speech he made less than a year ago. No one has proven that Obama ever endorsed Reverend Wright's teachings. In fact, he has denounced his recent speech and has left Wright's church. And as you know, the "association" with William Ayers was tenuous at best.

I won't argue about it any more. You've chosen McCaain and I'll vote for Obama. I admire a smart, personable family man who has demonstrated an ability to enthuse and lead people in a very positive way, both here and around the world. That's just what we need as the President of the country. What we don't need is a man who has apparently lost his strong character and has stated he will embrace the failed fiscal policies of his predecessor, will continue a hawk-like foreign policy, and only attempts to incite his followers with backward-looking and negative personal attacks on his opponent instead of discussing the issues facing the country and his plans to address them. No, the fact that Obama went to a church that it turns out was lead by a racial activist isn't enough for me to disqualify the man.

I agree that we disagree. There's little point in continuing the dialog.


I will respect your opinion and only am posting because I want to make it clear. I worked for the Democratic party for a few years up north, and have been politically active for many years and have NEVER been negative on any candidate...disagree yes..negative no....Until this election.

I also, because of a few posts and pm's want to say again that RACE has nothing to do with my opinion...not one single thing.

I sincerely from the bottom of my heart hope I am wrong in this regard./..I cannot tell you how much !

I am not normally a negative person I suppose is the message :)

[Guest]

I will respect your opinion and only am posting because I want to make it clear. I worked for the Democratic party for a few years up north, and have been politically active for many years and have NEVER been negative on any candidate...disagree yes..negative no....Until this election.

I also, because of a few posts and pm's want to say again that RACE has nothing to do with my opinion...not one single thing.

I sincerely from the bottom of my heart hope I am wrong in this regard./..I cannot tell you how much !

I am not normally a negative person I suppose is the message :)

i can live with that response. i am still undecided who to vote for, although i will say i am leaning heavily with Obama and Biden.. i am a Regist. Republican and do not like him selecting Palin, i thought in my mind wrong choice it was done since Obama didnt select Clinton. If he had taken Romney he might have my vote. But espcially after hearing Palin's camp make him out to be hanging with a terrorist every day deal, they most diffinently lost my vote. That was wrong, and gos show how desprate they are. Again my opionion only. Now there are alot more reasons why i will vote that way, but not the place to let it out. Thanks