Barack Obama or John McCain

[Len Colby]

He is a perfect example of tghe nightmare that is Obama:

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/...as-poverty.html

All that being said I fully expect he will be elected.

Oh yes a horrible politicly motivated loony left bill co-sponsered by several Republicals (Hagel in the Senate, Bachus and others in the House*).

*http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1302

Edited February 19, 2008 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

...it seems that Barak Obama is more to the mainstream than Hilary Clinton.

Can you cite some examples/issues? IMO Hillary's view on any issue is "what stand will best increase my chances of getting nominated then elected?"

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I've got a feeling there are plenty more out there just like my father. Time will tell.

Now we get to the contrast between Youth and Age.

I have four grown kids and they all support Obama. My youngest daughter just turned 21 and is a registered independent.

She was quite miffed when she discovered that the New York Democratic primary is "closed" to anyone except registered Democrats. I expect that many young people found themselves in the same situation, but they WILL vote Obama in November IF he makes it on the ticket.

Before she made up her mind, my daughter only asked me one question: How old was JFK when he was elected President? When I told her that JFK was slightly younger than Obama will be if he is elected this year, that was good enough for her.

Obama looks young and inexperienced to your father's generation, but he sounds old and wise to my daughter's generation.

It may come down to which generation is more enthusiastic about "getting out the vote," and Obama is a skillful politician who knows how to motivate.

[Dawn Meredith]

The one problem with Obama is the experience factor.

I told him I would vote Hillary since I see her and McCain as two sides of the same coin on social issues, and if we are to be taken down their road, lets let the D get the blame.

----------------------------------------

Hey Craig: Do you quote Rush Limbaugh often?

Dawn

[Craig Lamson]

Hey Craig: Do you quote Rush Limbaugh often?

Dawn

No, I don't listen to Rush.

[Craig Lamson]

He is a perfect example of tghe nightmare that is Obama:

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/...as-poverty.html

All that being said I fully expect he will be elected.

Oh yes a horrible politicly motivated loony left bill co-sponsered by several Republicals (Hagel in the Senate, Bachus and others in the House*).

*http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1302

Oh yes it IS horrible policy, regardless of the other looney's brought on board.

BTW the House has 84 co-sponsors of which 5 are R's, the Senate has 9 co-sponsors, 2 are R's. Not quite the bi-partisan support you might want us to believe.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Wisconsin Exit Polls:

Obama Won:

Women (51-49)

All age groups under 65

All education levels

All regions of the state -- urban, suburban and rural

Voters without college degrees (50-48)

Democrats (50-49)

Whites (53-46)

White men (59-38)

Voters who decided in the last week (58-42)

Won or tied voters of all income levels

Tied among white women

Tied among union members

Tied among union households

THAT MAKES IT: NINE STATES IN A ROW!

Edited February 20, 2008 by J. Raymond Carroll

[John Simkin]

According to a report in last week’s Sunday Times, the Republican Party are about to mount a smear campaign against Barack Obama in an attempt to make sure Hilliary Clinton gets the nomination.

Clinton initially started this smear campaign by pointing out the links between Obama and Tony Rezko. However, this strategy had to be abandoned when it was revealed that the same man had also helped fund Bill Clinton’s presidential campaigns.

Led by a man named Grover Norquist, the Republicans plan to argue that Obama is in reality a socialist. Norquist is claiming that Obama has the voting record of a “hard-left socialist”. Newt Gingrich has described Obama as the “most left-wing candidate to run since George McGovern.”

It seems that this is based on the suggestion that Obama may increase taxes on people earning more than $97,000. Lawrence Kudlow, a former adviser to Ronald Reagan, has costed his proposals for extending health insurance, implementing green energy plans, setting up an infrastructure investment bank, as being in the range of $800 billion.

It will be difficult to argue that Obama’s voting record indicates a “hard-left socialist”. It seems that instead the Republicans will concentrate on his relationship with William Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois. It seems that Ayers used to be a member of the Weather Underground, a left-wing terrorist group in the 1970s.

Apparently, Ayers served with Obama on the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group, from 1999 to 2002, and donated $200 towards his Illinois state Senate campaign in 2001.

This kind of link would not be taken seriously in the UK (however, his relationship with Rezko would be seen as a problem). Will his connections to Ayers be a problem in the US?

[Len Colby]

He is a perfect example of tghe nightmare that is Obama:

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/...as-poverty.html

All that being said I fully expect he will be elected.

Oh yes a horrible politicly motivated loony left bill co-sponsered by several Republicals (Hagel in the Senate, Bachus and others in the House*).

*http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1302

Oh yes it IS horrible policy, regardless of the other looney's brought on board.

BTW the House has 84 co-sponsors of which 5 are R's, the Senate has 9 co-sponsors, 2 are R's. Not quite the bi-partisan support you might want us to believe.

I never said it was a bipartisan bill, few bills I imagine other than those on totally inane matters draw sponsors equally from both parties. I indicated one Republican senator cosponsored I was wrong there were two. That some Republicans have signed seems to undermine the thesis presented in your link that the real purpose is to increase Obama’s chances. The only evidence presented that it could or would lead to a UN tax was a forum entry that cites no evidence.

Can you state in your own words my you think it is so bad?

[Craig Lamson]

He is a perfect example of tghe nightmare that is Obama:

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/...as-poverty.html

All that being said I fully expect he will be elected.

Oh yes a horrible politicly motivated loony left bill co-sponsered by several Republicals (Hagel in the Senate, Bachus and others in the House*).

*http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1302

Oh yes it IS horrible policy, regardless of the other looney's brought on board.

BTW the House has 84 co-sponsors of which 5 are R's, the Senate has 9 co-sponsors, 2 are R's. Not quite the bi-partisan support you might want us to believe.

I never said it was a bipartisan bill, few bills I imagine other than those on totally inane matters draw sponsors equally from both parties. I indicated one Republican senator cosponsored I was wrong there were two. That some Republicans have signed seems to undermine the thesis presented in your link that the real purpose is to increase Obama’s chances. The only evidence presented that it could or would lead to a UN tax was a forum entry that cites no evidence.

Can you state in your own words my you think it is so bad?

Nice attempt at spin Len but it won't play. The co-signing of the bill by R's don't "undermine" anything. It indicates they SUPPORT the bill.

Obama has done nothing of merit while in the US Senate. He suddenly writes this bill, at a time when he needs to show leadership and experience....interesting timing to say the least.

Why is is bad? Linkage to the most corrupt body in politics..the UN for one. Losing control over where and to whom our moneys goes, and on what terms it must be used. 800 BILLION dollars...

Enough said.

[Mark Stapleton]

Why is is bad? Linkage to the most corrupt body in politics..the UN for one. Losing control over where and to whom our moneys goes, and on what terms it must be used. 800 BILLION dollars...

Enough said.

I don't know about that, Craig. You might think the UN is corrupt but how about the US Congress?

As for the $800 billion, I don't know if I would endorse the costings of Lawrence Kudlow, especially if he is a former Reagan advisor. A second opinion might be in order. In any case, the money could be well spent. Extending health insurance, green energy plans, and an infrastructure bank sound like great ideas to me. The US needs to reduce oil consumption rapidly, and a co-ordinated strategy is required.

If you are an opponent of profligate spending, then look at US military defence spending for fiscal year 2008:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...ding/index.html

$623 billion for just one year--more than the rest of the world's military spending combined.

All this and not an enemy aircraft in sight.

[John Simkin]

Why is is bad? Linkage to the most corrupt body in politics..the UN for one. Losing control over where and to whom our moneys goes, and on what terms it must be used. 800 BILLION dollars...

Enough said.

I don't know about that, Craig. You might think the UN is corrupt but how about the US Congress?

As for the $800 billion, I don't know if I would endorse the costings of Lawrence Kudlow, especially if he is a former Reagan advisor. A second opinion might be in order. In any case, the money could be well spent. Extending health insurance, green energy plans, and an infrastructure bank sound like great ideas to me. The US needs to reduce oil consumption rapidly, and a co-ordinated strategy is required.

If you are an opponent of profligate spending, then look at US military defence spending for fiscal year 2008:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...ding/index.html

$623 billion for just one year--more than the rest of the world's military spending combined.

All this and not an enemy aircraft in sight.

I am with Mark on this one. The UN is one of the more honest organizations in the world. Unfortunately, the big five with their right to veto democratic decisions is the main problem with the organization.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I am with Mark on this one. The UN is one of the more honest organizations in the world. Unfortunately, the big five with their right to veto democratic decisions is the main problem with the organization.

THis brings us back to one of the major consequences of the JFK assassination. Kennedy angered right-wingers with his support for the UN. After the assassination, Johnson drastically downgraded the UN and subsequent presidents have ignored it. Up to now, the U.S. has refused to sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[Craig Lamson]

Why is is bad? Linkage to the most corrupt body in politics..the UN for one. Losing control over where and to whom our moneys goes, and on what terms it must be used. 800 BILLION dollars...

Enough said.

I don't know about that, Craig. You might think the UN is corrupt but how about the US Congress?

As for the $800 billion, I don't know if I would endorse the costings of Lawrence Kudlow, especially if he is a former Reagan advisor. A second opinion might be in order. In any case, the money could be well spent. Extending health insurance, green energy plans, and an infrastructure bank sound like great ideas to me. The US needs to reduce oil consumption rapidly, and a co-ordinated strategy is required.

If you are an opponent of profligate spending, then look at US military defence spending for fiscal year 2008:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...ding/index.html

$623 billion for just one year--more than the rest of the world's military spending combined.

All this and not an enemy aircraft in sight.

I am with Mark on this one. The UN is one of the more honest organizations in the world. Unfortunately, the big five with their right to veto democratic decisions is the main problem with the organization.

Oh Please! If you actually believe that your opinion is now next to worthless.

[Craig Lamson]

Why is is bad? Linkage to the most corrupt body in politics..the UN for one. Losing control over where and to whom our moneys goes, and on what terms it must be used. 800 BILLION dollars...

Enough said.

I don't know about that, Craig. You might think the UN is corrupt but how about the US Congress?

As for the $800 billion, I don't know if I would endorse the costings of Lawrence Kudlow, especially if he is a former Reagan advisor. A second opinion might be in order. In any case, the money could be well spent. Extending health insurance, green energy plans, and an infrastructure bank sound like great ideas to me. The US needs to reduce oil consumption rapidly, and a co-ordinated strategy is required.

If you are an opponent of profligate spending, then look at US military defence spending for fiscal year 2008:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...ding/index.html

$623 billion for just one year--more than the rest of the world's military spending combined.

All this and not an enemy aircraft in sight.

Mark, that 800 billion just the cost of the UN give-a-way over a period of years. As for the US Congress...of course they are corrupt, but nowhere near the UN. Wait untill you see the true cost of his social programs in addition.

Defense spending is about the only true reason for the Federal Government. Most everything else is fluff better left to the States.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Craig Lamson