The link below is from the Wall Street Journal...the only reason I am posting this link is is SOUNDS FACTUAL...but asking those who maybe lived in the Chicago area in circa 1996 may be able to validate or not the "facts" in the article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219...n_commentaries

It is not there as a news article and no need to post any parts of it because it is abit inflammatory but wondering if anyone in the Chicago area has any comments !

First, a little context. As noted in the article, it is "opinion" and an excerpt from the author's book, The Case Against Barack Obama. From that alone, we know that the author is not bound by the rules of journalism. We also know that the article will certainly not be a balanced look at the candidate.

That being said, the author appears to have skipped over a few key facts that bear on Obama's conduct during the incident in question. First, Obama was already a State Senator, having been chosen by the former, very popular State Senator who resigned the position in order to run for the U.S. House of Representatives to complete her term in the state senate. The former State Senator thought enough of Obama to tap him to take her place.

Then the unexpected happened. The very popular former State Senator was defeated in her run for the U.S. Congress. In that she was the one who appointed Obama to complete her term when she resigned, she approached him and asked him to withdraw from the election wherein he was seeking election for a second term after his short appointed term. I guess maybe he liked the job and refused. You can decide whether it as an appropriate request by the former State Senator and whether Obama's refusal was a fair and just response. But he did refuse to withdraw.

Once the decision not to withdraw was made, then it became an "all's fair in love and war" political campaign so common in Chicago. Obama used the rules of the Chicago Election Commission--as well as the illegal petitioning by all of the other candidates--to have them disqualified and their names removed from the ballot. Obama went on to win the election uncontested and the rest is history.

The author of this opinion piece suggests that Obama isn't the do-gooder agent-of-change he claims to be. He goes to some length in presenting his interpretation and examples of why that is true. Again, given the side of the spectrum the author is coming from, no one should be surprised.

Is Barack Obama a tough politician and effective campaigner? That seems undeniable. Did the anecdotal criticisms in the last one-third of the article suggest that Obama did anything illegal or immoral? Even the very critical op-ed author didn't suggest that.

So what do we have? Obama is apparently an very tough, effective politician who knows that he can only serve as an agent of change if he wins elected office and deals from a position of strength. It seems to me that's no different from any of the more revered elected leaders that have served the U.S. so well over recent decades. Was John Kennedy similarly tough? Ronald Reagan? How about George W. Bush? Remember, the strategies he used only four years ago to win Florida and the Presidency?

I think all we have in this article is a shrill criticism of a candidate for playing the political game the way it's always been played. Where the author errs, in my opinion, is to take his criticism to the next step, predicting that Obama won't act as he claims he will to achieve political cooperation, a less self-serving attitude by elected officials and change for the better. I don't think his examples support those allegations.

This is what one reviewer said about the book: mmmm... lets see... published by Regnery, one of the leading conservative publishers and book club. written by David Freddoso, columnist for the conservative National Review Online, not to mention working closely with the conservative (and sometime nut case) Robert Novak.... mmmmm this sure seems like a reliable and honest to god informative piece of material here.

I did not post from the article because I considered it a bit of kilter....but while I appreciate it being put into context..thank you.....It appears that it is true !

Here is another one from the Chicago Tribune of today where it appears a writer is being blocked access to public records concerning the relationship between Sen Obama and William Ayers, the left wing radical of the Weatherman

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...55,full.column

I had read something about this story a couple of days ago. I am really tired of the politics of personal destruction. We should study what each candidate brings to the table.

Not if he is a Muslim, doesn't know how many houses he has or wasn't born in the US. That one is the latest.

COLOGAL...in general I totally agree with you. Perhaps I am wrong, but in the case of Sen Obama there are so many questions about his past associates and mentors that I think it must be looked at since so many were radical or marxist leaning.

NO, he is not a Muslim for sure....but with no accomplishments and only words all we have with Sen Obama is....who did he associate with...who trained him !

OMG! Bucco. Don't you ever tire of slamming Senator Obama? Get out, get some fresh air! Trust me, you're never going to change anyone's mind.

Originally Posted by Bucco

Here is another one from the Chicago Tribune of today where it appears a writer is being blocked access to public records concerning the relationship between Sen Obama and William Ayers, the left wing radical of the Weatherman

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...55,full.column

Here you go breaking news Bucco....one less thing to rag on.

http://www.politicalbase.com/news/un...ecords/118822/

Here you go breaking news Bucco....one less thing to rag on.

http://www.politicalbase.com/news/un...ecords/118822/
__________________________________________________ ______________

Good, I am glad.

Hoping that someday, somehow, somebody on here will discuss issues and backgrounds instead of National Enquirer things. Getting tired of the "shame, shame, shame" quotes instead of issue discussion.

Is McCains age an issue ?
Are Obama's associates and mentors an issue ?
Tax breaks or Tax increases ?
Do we need a military presence in the middle east ?
Who should be paying for medical care in this country ?
and so on

I dont expect it to happen...looking for another "shame, shame, shame" comment in lieu !

Bucco's issues...

Is McCain's age an issue ?

If Obama's age is being made an issue, certainly McCain being the oldest person ever to run for President is also an issue.

Are Obama's associates and mentors an issue ?

Both candidates have issues from their past. But in both cases, the long distance past. If people want to make an issue of Obama's relationships with a former pastor and someone with socialist leanings, then why isn't McCain's involvement as one of the Keating Five an issue of equal importance? Both men have admitted those relationships and denied their effect on their current beliefs and plans.

Tax breaks or Tax increases ?

The financial experts who have reviewed the fiscal plans of both candidates say that neither will work without modifications. McCain's additional tax decreases would further increase the record deficit created by similar policies during the last eight years. Obama's plans would have a similar although less damaging effect unless he modifies some of his spending plans. Neither plan will work without changes. Seems like a wash on this issue.

Do we need a military presence in the Middle East ?

This question appears to have been answered by everyone except Senator McCain. Everyone except McCain seems to be planning for the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2009. The American public, the Iraqi public and government, Senator Obama, and most of the rest of the world believes it's time for the U.S. to end the occupation and the war in Iraq.

Will we have a presence in the Middle East? Sure. A small contingent in Iraq and probably an increase in the troop levels in Afghanistan. And now, the potential need for deployments in or for Pakistan. All the parties who believe that we should get out of Iraq also believe that Afghanistan/Pakistan is growing as a problem. The larger issue, one that many have opined was the real reason for our invasion of Iraq in the first place, would by itself justify having a military presence in the region--protection of the Saudi oil fields--probably necessary, at least until we become less dependent on oil from the region.

Who should be paying for medical care in this country ?

This may be the most important issue for people who live in The Villages. Local hospitals are struggling to attract sufficient doctors to meet the needs of our rapidly growing population of seniors. At the same time the number of doctors being trained, particularly internists and family medicine specialties, are declining. With the continued decline in payments by both insurance companies and Medicare, fewer young people are opting for medical school. Doctors who come to TV will have to decide to try to make a living dependent on Medicare payments. The trend of doctors willing to do this nationally is declining. There is a distinct trend towards doctors who will no longer accept Medicare patients.

The answer to this question is unclear, but our next President better begin making changes in our healthcare system, which is clearly broken. You all can choose which of the candidates is more committed and capable to bringing legislative change to this problem. Both have plans of a sort. But only one appears to have the political currency to achieve legislative action.
-------------------------------

Just an attempt to respond to Bucco's issues.

VILLAGESKAHUNA....thanks for your reply.....on the way out the door soon so will get back later today, but appreciate a lucid reply !

Originally Posted by Bucco

Here you go breaking news Bucco....one less thing to rag on.

http://www.politicalbase.com/news/un...ecords/118822/
__________________________________________________ ______________

Good, I am glad.

Hoping that someday, somehow, somebody on here will discuss issues and backgrounds instead of National Enquirer things. Getting tired of the "shame, shame, shame" quotes instead of issue discussion.

Is McCains age an issue ?
Are Obama's associates and mentors an issue ?
Tax breaks or Tax increases ?
Do we need a military presence in the middle east ?
Who should be paying for medical care in this country ?
and so on

I dont expect it to happen...looking for another "shame, shame, shame" comment in lieu !

Ok I will bite:

Is McCains age an issue ? Yes and also his record of voting against women's issues
Are Obama's associates and mentors an issue ?I assume you mean Ayers who Obama met as a college professor. That was 40 years ago and Ayers isn't on the ticket or a part of the campaign. So I am not sure
Tax breaks or Tax increases ?The middle class needs a break but take a look a McCains definition of rich. 5 million give me a break.
Do we need a military presence in the middle east ?Not when my nephews are in the military, one has been wounded and been in Iraq 4 times. But the bigger issue is the drain on our economy...can we keep this up? NO I remember being told the oil revenues would pay for the war but the last time I checked I was still paying for it. We are in a huge debt and they have a huge surplus.
Who should be paying for medical care in this country This one is tougher..the HMO were supposed to bring costs down by all they have done is make profits bigger. Why should a CEO of an Health Insurance company make 20 million a year? The system is broken...flat out. I have healthcare until I retire if I don't get layed off which is a quarter exercise at my company.

Just my thoughts

Bucco's issues...

Actually not MY issues. I was simply frustrated by the posts on here that simply are aimed at personal slams, elitist comments or the woooo hoooo "s and threw out a few issues to actually discuss.
__________________________________________________ _______
Is McCains age an issue ?

Yeah, I think it is with enough voters that it is an issue. I think Sen McCain's one term pledge somewhat mutes the point but it will be an issue for some. Of course, with the selection of Sen Biden, only 7 years junior, the jokes about the white hair old man will subside a bit

______________________________________________
Are Obama's associates and mentors an issue

This is the most difficult item for me at this point in time. A man of Sen Obama's age has a litany of associations and mentors that are very questionable to me. He trained under a group of neighborhood groups who used the tactics of Saul Alinsky, the author of "Rules for Radicals" a known extreme left wing figure....he has associated with to some degree a number of folks like William Ayers (not sure of his connection here except they served together on an small board for a bit so they know each other) Ayers of course is of Weather man fame and another radical extreme on the left. His association and money transactions with Reznick. And despite the media shutdown on it, I still have a problem with a man attending a church for 20 years, saying the pastor was his mentor and then saying he did not know about the pastors deep black side. And there are others that may or may not surface as the campaign goes on.
Point is,for me anyway, is that at his age of 47 this is a lot of associations to simply throw out the window. These are folks that by his own admission trained him...all of those mentioned are of the marxist radical left wing ilk and that scares me.

__________________________________________________ _______________________-
Tax breaks or Tax increases ?

This is a tough one. I like to allow our free enterprise system work and do not want government interference. I do not support the so called "windfall taxes"...to me they are simply a lot of political hocus pocus to get votes and in the long run will undermine future development. However, I like Sen Obama's structure on SOME of his income tax changes he proposes. This issue is probably the lynchpin of the difference in the two parties. One wants a lot of govenment interference and the other wants very limited !
__________________________________________________ _____________________
Do we need a military presence in the middle east ?

In my opinion, YES. I felt that one of the huge reasons to invade Iraq was this premise. We have never had any military presence in that area yet always are trying to bring peace to the mideast. I think in the long run, a military presence is in the best interests of this country. I also feel that not matter who wins this election, we will have that presence.
Does that mean I support the war ? Sortof...I whole heartedly supported the invasion, and agree with what I think Sen Biden said or felt.....good thing to invade but be careful about the ramifications and be prepared. There is where we screwed up....invasion good....oh lord did we screw up everything after that.
__________________________________________________ _____________-
Who should be paying for medical care in this country

I dont have the audacity to even suggest I have an answer on this. I do know...I want no part of any thing that even resembles socialized medicine. I just hope whomever is elected can find someway to either control costs or something to prevent the government from paying for folks health insurance. I guess you can see when it comes to economic issues, and this is one, I am purely conservative,

In any case, looking to read now others opinions....good way to learn I think !

Tax breaks or Tax increases ?

This is a tough one. I like to allow our free enterprise system work and do not want government interference. I do not support the so called "windfall taxes"...to me they are simply a lot of political hocus pocus to get votes and in the long run will undermine future development. However, I like Sen Obama's structure on SOME of his income tax changes he proposes. This issue is probably the lynchpin of the difference in the two parties. One wants a lot of government interference and the other wants very limited !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we have to look at a couple of things here....Yes I would agree 1 party proparts to want limited government interferace...but really that is a false claim. All you have to do is to look at what happened with Bear Sterns. It was the Fed that put that package together. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are in real trouble they are privately owned companies however when they fail and they will the Government will bail them out. My point is the Republicans want no government interference in their business dealing UNTIL they get into trouble and then they go running to the government to bail them out. Of course we are the ones that end up paying. On the other hand while all those people were out there losing their houses the Republicans voted against trying to help them. I think the quote is "Government of the people, by the people and for the people." NOT Government of business, by business and for business.