Aloha Deepak

Obama has to talk money. Everyone understands money. It has to explain the insanity of giving our money to the Federal Reserve a private company which is no different than the Federal Express. It is time for him to get real. Ron Paul had the courage to talk about it. Kennedy was killed in trying. Americans deserve full disclosure. the dinosaurs are falling. love patty

Decades of republican trickle down economic philosophy and deregulation policies has brought us to this. Financial ruin at every level. But CNN reported on what happened inside the meeting at the White House yesterday. Its failure seems to have caused the failure of a workable deal, and this special meeting would not have occured if McCain hadn't demanded it. He took another huge gamble, and lost. After the cameras left, Boehner started ranting about the right wing "plan" (deregulation, capital gains tax cuts, and an insurance plan that Paulson said won't work). Bush was silent, and McCain said nothing. It seems as though Obama was the only one who tried to lead the meeting to some productive conclusion. CNN said that Obama first tried to reason with Boehner, and ask him to detail what his plan was. After he did this, Obama calmly asked Paulson if it would work, and Paulson said that it definately would not work (which was why house republicans didn't ask him about this at the meeting yesterday). Obama continued with his attempts to salvage the mess that McCain created and refused to correct, but was unable. Again we see how much we need Obama and his leadership, and how disastrous McCain would be.

Barney Frank said that Lindsey Graham was saying that part of the plan, which would allocate 20% of profits made by the treasury to a program to help low income home owners keep their homes, is not acceptable. This is despite the fact that Senators Corker and Bennett said it was acceptable in the morning. This goes further to the point that McCain is actively trying to kill this deal. You can't reason with a house full of ideologues any more than you can teach a dog calculus.

It is plainly obvious that McCain was principally responisble for the failure of this bailout deal. And, for everyone here, this is a bailout of main street, not wall street. Without credit, main street cannot function. Plus taxpayers will probably make a profit, or at least lose very little money. Without it, we are possibily looking at Great Depression II, and the sequel is always worse than the original.

The New York Times does mention this incident in an article:

"Instead he (McCain) found himself in the midst of a remarkable partisan showdown, lacking a clear public message for how to bring it to an end.

At the bipartisan White House meeting that Mr. McCain had called for a day earlier, he sat silently for more than 40 minutes, more observer than leader, and then offered only a vague sense of where he stood, said people in the meeting.

...

Still, by nightfall, the day provided the younger and less experienced Mr. Obama an opportunity to, in effect, shift roles with Mr. McCain. For a moment, at least, it was Mr. Obama presenting himself as the old hand at consensus building, and as the real face of bipartisan politics."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26campaign.html

PS. Remember this, what do all great presidents have in common? Think Lincoln or FDR. They all came into office during a time of extreme crisis. Greatness comes, not from maintaining peace and prosperity, but rather from saving the country from an abyss.

So...does Obama="enlightened consciousness"?

I think there are many reasons to question that statement.

Economically speaking, in the free market, yes there are problems.
Many of these problems are inherent in a free market, many other different types of things have been tried, from socialism to communism...these did not work either.

So...does Obama="enlightened consciousness"?

I think there are many reasons to question that kind of idea.

Economically speaking, in the free market, yes there are problems.
Many of these problems are inherent in a free market, many other different types of things have been tried, from socialism to communism...these did not work either.

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

I will agree McCain is "let me sleep" because if the man gets one vote after the way he has been "toying" with our future....then the folks voting for him are more than asleep....they are in a deep coma....pretty much useless to themselves and the rest of this struggling Nation.

As far as Barak Obama being the "wake up call of consciousness on the move"....well, we can ONLY hope.

Afterall, we the majority of voters, for Barak Obama, really, know, very little as to the ability or capabilities of Barak Obama as far as being able to govern and lead a democratic Nation. We know all we need to know about John McCain and McCain only made matters worse for himself as to even being tempted to go for longevity of service when he made a mockery of our election process by his nomination of the very unqualified Palin as his VP Candidate. So, we know enough not to vote for John McCain. That leaves Barak Obama, and there is no doubt that he represents change to some degree, how much we will not know, we do not know.

Truly, with Barak Obama we are taking a chance, that he is, as least, to some extent, what his supporters claim him to be.....a politician who can lead, who can bring change that will benefit the people of our Nation, and who will help raise our consciousness as a Nation instead of smothering it in fear and divisiveness as this Administration has done for eight years and will continue to do if the comatose... go out and
vote in droves....for McSame and Lame.

The tendency to oversell is a very human trait...though....

have a great debate :))) evening.....I don't know....sex in the city movie or the debate....hmmmmmmmm....ruth

Sorry, tried to change "question that statement" to "question that idea".

Deepak, you wrote "Obama's wake-up call requires giving up the comfort of sleep". Oh come on Deepak. I can't help but feel like you are overinflating this man. Or rather, he has already done that himself. And the misguided masses need surrender to his jazzy and oh so worldly take on things. You know, maybe he would be a great president. But I think the way he has been packaged has been responsible for repelling some people away from him.
The Obama campaign has tried to sell him as someone who has "earned" this right to be president. In my view, there is no more annoying form of elitism. Like Hillary didn't "earn" it putting up with Bill all lthose years? Come on. Like McCain hasn't "earned" it doing 5 years as a POW? Obama's campaign I feel is very irritating. Maybe I should try to see through that irritation.

Feingold on Obama:

“He may not be everything to everybody on the bailout, and he may not be a barnstorming speaker on this issue, but he is speaking credibly and seriously and honestly.”

Can't be said about everyone.

(Feingold was the only senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act when first voted on in 2001. He was one of 23 US senators to vote against authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq in 2002.)

Sorry Democratic leaders, but this is a partisan crisis:

'According to one GOP lawmaker, some House Republicans are saying privately that they'd rather "let the markets crash" than sign on to a massive bailout.

"For the sake of the altar of the free market system, do you accept a Great Depression?" the member asked.'

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13946.html

There is one interesting article in the NYT about how Sweden dealt with a very similar crisis in the 1990s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?em

Sweden committed 4% of GDP to a bail-out, compared to 5% of US GDP that is 700 billion dollars. But they forced the banks to write off their losses, got ownership of the banks, and only then doled out the money. Later on they sold the banks at a profit and recouped most, if not all, of the money.

McCain is debating, as you probably already know.

Check out his insane statement justifying the move.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/breaking_mccain_to_attend_deba.php#mor

...along with a deconstruction of that statement.

The totally non-political, bi-partisan campaign press release starts as follows:

"John McCain's decision to suspend his campaign was made in the hopes that politics could be set aside to address our economic crisis."

Really? This is why he held a press conference about it? Because, you know, usually pres conferences are conducted in order to set politics aside.

"In response, Americans saw a familiar spectacle in Washington. At a moment of crisis that threatened the economic security of American families, Washington played the blame game rather than work together to find a solution that would avert a collapse of financial markets without squandering hundreds of billions of taxpayers' money to bailout bankers and brokers who bet their fortunes on unsafe lending practices."

Everyone who wasn't McCain was acting all partisan and not working toward a deal. And yet:

"Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the Administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House. He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans."

If everyone was just bickering and posturing, then how the hell was there progress toward an agreement? Here is some more setting politics aside:

"The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was apparent during the White House meeting yesterday where Barack Obama's priority was political posturing in his opening monologue defending the package as it stands."

Because issuing a press release attacking your opponent isn't political posturing. And then there is this gem:

"John McCain listened to all sides so he could help focus the debate on finding a bipartisan resolution that is in the interest of taxpayers and homeowners. The Democratic interests stood together in opposition to an agreement that would accommodate additional taxpayer protections."

I see. McCain listened to all sides, and came to the bi-partisan conclusion that Democrats are completely wrong. The key to bi-partisanship, after all, is to realize that your opponents are completely wrong. And then he just starts lying:

"The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon."

When did you suspend activities, exactly? Also, I thought you weren't going to debate before there is a deal?

It is hard to imagine a 72-year-old man acting like a five-year-old brat, but that is exactly what is happening. He says that he is setting politics aside, but does so through a series of high profile press events all the while attacking his opponent for not doing so. He says that Obama should come to Washington and work on the deal, and then attacks Obama for saying anything at the meeting. He says he wants bi-partisanship, and then only criticizes one side. He says that no one is working toward a deal, and then claims there has been significant progress toward a deal. He says that he is suspending his campaign, but never does. He says he won't debate until a deal is reached, but then decides to debate without a deal. He claims that Obama was only defending one side, even though videotape and press reports indicate that exactly the opposite happened, as Obama clearly asked Paulson if the House Republican deal would work while McCain said nothing.

This is exactly like a childish, spoiled brat who whines no matter what someone does for him, coupled with a string of lies and obviously nonsensical excuses to justify every possible behavior. McCain is just a lunatic jackass. It is hard to imagine more whining, lying, and nonsense crammed into a single press release. McCain really did need a time out in the campaign, but the sort of timeouts that are given to misbehaving children rather than to sports teams that are losing. I'm glad he is paying a big price for this in the polls.

To be conscious of the following would help too:

Isn’t this rescue plan about the real world vs. the one we can borrow as much as we want, without ever having to pay anything back? The real world vs. the one we can expand our fortunes forever and live happily ever after?

Unfortunately the bad times, for many, are either here or just around the corner. Whether it is better to take a big hit now or have a bailout that lets the bad times trickle down from the top is debatable.

The people at the very bottom always suffer and won’t be much affected either way, but maybe some of those swindlers on top will feel just a little bit how it hurts to be poor.

Some bailout may eventually happen, but it shouldn’t. We are due for new way of doing things. Why not start now?

No bailout and Obama at the helm may give us a new start.

Aloha Irvine

You said "There is one interesting article in the NYT about how Sweden dealt with a very similar crisis in the 1990s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?em

Sweden committed 4% of GDP to a bail-out, compared to 5% of US GDP that is 700 billion dollars. But they forced the banks to write off their losses, got ownership of the banks, and only then doled out the money. Later on they sold the banks at a profit and recouped most, if not all, of the money."

Right on. love patty

Yes, and if they choose to stay asleep the invite something to wake them up.

The impetus for evolution.

Revelations click my name

Prophecy click my name.

Pertinent.

Read the prophecies click my name.

To Ruth's commentary in Posting No. 5:

You question Sarah Palin's inexperience as the yardstick for her qualification for office, but you don't apply the same yardstick to Obama. What leadership experience has he had? He's had no administrative, governing experience. It is even questionable as to his ability to make decisions because of his "present" votes 130+ times while in the Senate.

For Olivia's Posting No.6:

Obama has in no way shown himself capable of leading a country. The ability to use fancy rhetoric and to fling caustic verbal attacks at one's opponent does not qualify anyone for anything. Obama has used the chant "Change" to entice voters but, he hasn't explained what changes and how he might be able to implement any.

I cannot understand how anyone could get the impression that Obama is an idealist or that he is likely to follow any worthwhile principles should he be placed in office.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

The Keating 5 Scandal in 97 Seconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAzDEbVFcg8

With all the stories we are hearing about how honorable a Sen. McCain once was, he started out as an unethical Senator and now he shows himself to be unethical at a key point in his career as he runs for president.

5. Posted by "Betsy" S

"It is even questionable as to his ability to make decisions because of his "present" votes 130+ times while in the Senate."

First of all, to clear up almost all of the controversy, voting “Present” in the Illinois State Senate is, in effect, the same as voting “No” (with some potential signaling subtleties, as I will cover below); it is not an abstention…it is not “skipping” a challenging or heated topic. The number of “Present” votes cast does not change the number of “Yes” votes needed to pass a bill.

Despite that reality, we’ve been hearing accusations – first during the Democratic primaries, then from the GOP (most notably Rudy Giuliani at the GOP convention and Gov. Sarah Palin on the stump) – that Barack Obama’s 129 “Present” votes (out of a total of 4,000 votes) during his years in the IL Senate were some sort of “weaseling” or “avoidance” moves. But that talking-point stops here…

Like at least five other states (in at least one of their chambers), Illinois allows the “Present” vote. But, unlike in the US Congress and the legislatures of most other states, the Illinois Senate requires a ''constitutional majority'' to pass any bill.

The IL Senate has 59 members, so a bill always needs 30 “Yes” votes to pass. This is what makes a ''Present'' vote a “No” (or a “soft ‘No’,” as some think of it). If a bill receives 29 affirmative votes, but the rest of the chamber votes ''Present,'' it does not pass. (This is different than in the US Congress, where bills can pass as long as they get at least one more “Yes” vote than the total of “No” votes cast - no matter how many members vote “Present” or skip the vote.)

Next, the statistics: Yes, Obama voted “Present” 129 times…out of approximately 4,000 votes he cast during his eight-years in the IL Senate. That’s a little over 3% of his total votes there. Using the number of days the IL Senate was in session during those years, that averages out to one “Present” votes about every four days – in a period when they were averaging about eight bill votes per day.

Also, research has shown – even counting the numbers crunched by oft-unhappy lobbyists AND people engaged in opposition research against Obama – that the number of times he voted “Present” on bills was less than the average number of “Present” votes that other IL Reps and Senators cast (on a proportional basis).

Illinois lawmakers also use the “Present” vote in many varied ways, depending upon their (or their party’s) feeling on a bill, its additional baggage, or its potential impact on a Senator’s constituents.

Voting “Present” can be used to signal objections to a bill, whether it is for questions of potential constitutionally (as Obama indicated regarding some of his votes) or the inclusion of “poison pill’ amendments or even that it has been written poorly, making it difficult (or impossible) to support.

Casting a “Present” vote is also considered a subtle signal at times – perhaps to the other party’s leadership or to the bill’s sponsor. It can often indicate possible future compromise on the issue or disapproval for certain aspects of the bill, meaning that potential changes to a future version may lead to an eventual affirmative vote.

Strategically speaking, lawmakers often do it to signal potential objections to the details of a measure that they support in principle – or to a measure that is passing anyway, by a large majority.

Also, it can be used as a way to “sit out” committing a yes or no on a bill that is already headed for certain victory or defeat, but that the opposition would otherwise seek to highlight in campaigning against a candidate (especially in “swing” districts).

Additionally, a full review of the ’96-’04 legislative records shows that nearly half of Obama’s total “Present” votes came as part of a large group of Democratic Senators in apparent party-wide (or nearly so) battles over budget and spending bills when the Republicans controlled the IL Senate (this group practice curtailed after the Dems re-took control of the chamber in 2003).

So…is a “Present” vote really a “Maybe” or an abstention in the Illinois Senate? Nope.

Is it some sort of an avoidance of making a decision, as the McCain campaign continues to dump out? Not at all – it IS a choice being made, sometimes very strategically, sometimes more subtly.

Voting “Present” in the IL Senate is a nuanced move with potentially multiple meanings – and, of course, GOP repetitive point-talkers know that average voters won’t know that or look it up. But now YOU won’t have to…and now you can also knowingly call “Bullshit!” on anyone who tries to use that as a supposed negative “fact” about Obama and his legislative experience.

"You question Sarah Palin's inexperience as the yardstick for her qualification for office, but you don't apply the same yardstick to Obama. What leadership experience has he had? He's had no administrative, governing experience."

15. Posted by "Betsy" S.

Everyone, know your stuff about Obama to push back such nonsense.

Here's a good summary.
(With supporting links)

http://www.suicide-dream.com/obama.html

Leadership and Experience

Ethics and Government Reform

National Security and Foreign Policy

Bipartisanship and Crossparty Appeal

Economy

First, a quick bullet point summary, then the full piece...

*During the primary, McCain caved on every split with his party to get nominated

*McCain went from voting with Bush for 90% of the last 8 years to 100% this year

*Many of McCain’s top campaign staff ran Bush’s campaign; his ‘town halls’ staged like Bush's
The last time the GOP tried to package someone as a reformer during an election, it was Bush
McCain never split w/Bush on Rumsfeld/Cheney, he said he would have hired them himself

*During the primary, Obama bucked his party, opposing health care mandates, addressing the future Social Security solvency crisis, and advocating teacher merit pay

*Obama is endorsed by a long list of high profile conservatives and elected Republicans

*Not one high profile progressive/elected Democrat endorses McCain (CT Ds booted JL in 06)

*Obama bucked many of his own big donors during the primary to support the writers strike

*Obama worked across the aisle in the Senate with Republicans like Dick Lugar and Tom Coburn
Obama pushed through strict ethics reforms against the will of many in both parties

*Obama has the strongest reform record of any candidate in modern history

*Obama pushed through the strongest ethics reform in his state for decades, The Gift Ban Act
Obama pushed through the strongest ethics reform at the federal level in decades, The Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act, co-sponsoring and authoring numerous other reform bills in the Senate
McCain's single ethics reform accomplishment in 25 years is the McCain-Feingold bill

*McCain says he has never requested an earmark, but he asked for and received a $10 million earmark in 2006 and a $14.3 million earmark in 2003

*Obama pushed through a bipartisan bill making every earmark public knowledge

*Obama will cut taxes for 95% of Americans; his middle class tax cut is 3 - 8 times bigger than McCain’s according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center

*Obama’s budget adds up better than "we’ve seen in a Presidential candidate in a very long time"; his plan will leave 1.2 trillion dollars less debt than McCain’s (non-partisan Tax Policy Center)
McCain had to check with his staff when asked how many houses he owns and what kind of car he drives; he spends $250,000 a year on house servants alone

*US Troops overseas donated 6x more to Obama; our troops prefer his Iraq plan by 30 pts
Obama always urged focus on Al Qaeda in Afg/Pak while McCain/Bush focused on Iraq/Iran

*Obama correctly predicted that invading Iraq would increase terrorism; Obama, alone among all candidates in urging focus on Pakistan last year, was vindicated by the recent turmoil there
The non-partisan Disabled Veterans of America gave McCain a grade of 20% and Obama 80%

*The Obama Presidential campaign is the first in living memory where average Americans own the biggest share: more than 50% of the donations to Obama have been $25 or less, 80% of them have been $100 or less, and 93% of them have been $200 or less

*"You would have to go back a century and a half to name an incoming president with so few debts to repay"

*Obama and the DNC accept no federal lobbyist or PAC donations; McCain and the RNC do

*McCain has 133 lobbyists working for his campaign; his top staff is mostly DC lobbyists
McCain got 10x more Top CEO donations than Obama in return for corporate tax breaks

*McCain's flip in favor of drilling was rewarded immediately with big donations from oil execs

*Obama has 12 yrs experience at the federal and state level (4 yrs US Sen + 8 yrs IL Sen)

*Obama co-sponsored 15 bills that became federal law and co-sponsored 570 bills in the US Sen
Obama sponsored 823 bills and cast over 4000 votes in the IL Sen

*Obama would be the first President with 10+ yrs experience as a Constitutional Law Professor
Obama spent 3 years as the executive in charge of a budget that went from $70K to $400K while serving as a local community organizer in Chicago
Obama had 80 editors under him as President of the Harvard Law Review

*Obama runs a campaign with over 2000 employees, more than the White House staff

*Obama got an International Relations specialty in college, later served 4 yrs on Sen Foreign Rel
Obama's combined time either in public service, studying foreign policy, or directly pertaining to Constitutional Law adds up to twenty-five years, as long as McCain has been in office

*Obama's record of experience is more diverse and in touch with America than McCain’s, as Obama understands how things work at the local, state, and federal level; McCain has zero local or state experience, with all his experience in elected office taking place in Washington DC

Leadership and Experience

1. Unique Strengths

Barack Obama's diverse heritage provides an inherent credibility in the world's two most explosive regions (Africa and the Middle East) that no past leader has been able to offer America; his election would consequently improve our standing and security more on the first day than McCain could in four years, as his "upbringing would serve us well if he were president, both in the understanding he would bring to issues of America's role in the world and in terms of how the world views America". Top academic experts in foreign policy say Obama's informal experience offers more insight than any conventional expertise, and top journalists on the subject of the Middle East call him "the only hope for the US in the Muslim world", as we're otherwise "facing two or three decades of problems in the Mideast, with 1.2 billion Muslims". Conservative Andrew Sullivan puts it best: "If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can." Obama's rise has the Muslim World giving America a second look, and he is already viewed with more confidence in 22 countries than McCain.

2. Foreign Policy Resume

Aside from spending years of his childhood in Indonesia and earning an International Relations Major major in college, Barack Obama has spent four years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; in that time, he has become the most traveled Freshman Senator, he helped negotiate a Nigeria cease fire, he has reduced loose weapons stockpiles in Russia, and he spoke out in Kenya and South Africa against the violence in Darfur. By 2007, it was noted how Obama was "shaping the foreign policy debate", and how he was "putting more substance into his pitch than candidates often do"; since then, everyone from bipartisan watchdog groups to American soldiers have noted that Obama is the candidate of substance and not McCain. Indeed, McCain's foreign policy experience is unimpressive according to his own campaign website bio and wikipedia bio, and he appears outright inept traveling abroad when compared to Obama: "[McCain] looked to Lieberman several times for reassurance on his answers and seemed a little flummoxed... but Obama, who was making only his second visit to Israel, knew precisely what he wanted to say about the most intricate issues confronting and concerning Israel, and expressed himself clearly, even stridently on key subjects."

3. Domestic Resume

Every President must swear to protect and preserve our Constitution, and Obama would be the only Constitutional Law Professor to become President after having instructed in that field for over a decade; this experience will have a positive effect on everything from judicial appointments to protecting liberty to respecting the limits of executive power. Obama went on to serve for eight years in the Illinois Senate, adding state legislative experience to his local grassroots work as a community organizer; he sponsored 823 bills and cast over 4000 votes in the state senate, and as a US Senator, co-sponsored 570 bills, including 15 which became law. It is exceedingly rare in history for a Presidential candidate to understand first-hand how things work at the local, state, AND federal level; Barack Obama has that experience, while John McCain has only served at the federal level. Furthermore, Obama's time either in public service or pertaining directly to Constitutional Law adds up to twenty-five years, the same amount of time John McCain has been in elected office.

4. Executive Leadership

While John McCain's only executive experience is running his campaign, Obama has a more diverse resume that began over twenty years ago; as director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago for three years, the budget Obama oversaw went from $70,000 to $400,000, and as President of the Harvard Law Review, Obama had eighty people working under him. During this year's Democratic primary, Obama had 1280 employees at a cost of 2.61 million dollars a month, which increased to over 2000 employees in the general election, more than the President's White House staff; Obama built his campaign from the ground up to the largest in history, rejecting money from political action committees and federal lobbyists, while McCain nearly ran his campaign into bankruptcy despite taking money from all comers, almost eliminating himself from the Republican primary six months before all his rivals' campaigns could collapse. Obama's leadership in running a tight campaign, described as a well-oiled machine that is devoid of internal struggle, gives us an insight into how he would lead as President; McCain's executive leadership since the primary, meanwhile, has remained dismal: "McCain's aides acknowledge frustration among fellow Republicans for the slow-to-start campaign." His missteps have brought into question his ability to lead, he has made himself appear unpresidential, and his campaign has gone so far in thwarting responsibility as to claim that McCain does not speak for McCain; his campaign website has a supporters page which is still to this day blank, despite the story being publicly mocked months ago. Questions about McCain's leadership go back much further, however, from assaulting a foreign leader in 1987 to pushing an old lady in a wheelchair in 1996 to repeatedly exploding in anger at members of his own party; as a result, even McCain's Naval Academy classmate and fellow POW refuses to vote for him. John McCain ate cake with President Bush while Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, and when floods hit the Midwest earlier this summer, McCain issued a statement while Obama grabbed a shovel to fill sandbags, also organizing campaign supporters online to deploy volunteers and donations for disaster relief; by the time McCain got there for a campaign appearance one week later, he went against the explicit wishes of the Iowa Governor not to distract from relief efforts, while Obama canceled his campaign appearance that week. McCain has barely showed up for work in the Senate this year, missing 63% of the votes in 2008, and he was the sole absence on a Medicare vote for which even Ted Kennedy showed up despite his cancer; furthermore, for someone whose career in office has been an endless string of apologies for offending people, McCain hardly seems a leader with good judgment, but someone who has simply relied on The Legend of John McCain to attack others freely and without reprisal (the most chilling and disheartening irony being that by the very laws put into place by Bush and McCain, McCain's mistreatment in captivity no longer qualifies as torture).

Ethics and Government Reform

1. Overspending and Corruption

Dozens of Republicans have been arrested and indicted in just the last few years for corruption and other crimes, and no less than archconservative Bob Novak points out that earmarks went up 285 percent when Republicans had control of Congress, representing the biggest increase in history. While Barack Obama does not assert that all earmarks should be done away with, he argues that the majority of them are wasteful, and he has worked to curtail them through increased transparency and accountability; Obama spearheaded and passed a bipartisan bill with Senator Tom Coburn that has tracked one trillion dollars of federal spending, making every earmark, grant, loan, and contract public knowledge, as well as the lawmakers who enabled them. John McCain rejects all earmarks universally in his rhetoric and claims to have never requested one, but asked for and received a 10 million dollar earmark in 2006 and a 14.3 million dollar earmark in 2003.

2. Lobbyists and Influence

Obama has a stronger reform record than any Presidential candidate in modern history, having sponsored and passed the strongest ethics reform bill at the state level in decades, The Gift Ban Act, as well as the strongest ethics reform bill at the federal level in decades, The Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act. He has also co-sponsored public finance reform in Presidential and Senate races, he has been a leading advocate for a bill to require Senate candidates to file their disclosures electronically, and he authored the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, as well as a bill to improve voter access to polling places; John McCain's single reform accomplishment after twenty-five years in the Senate is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. Obama, with no federal lobbyist/PAC money and over two million contributors, most of them small donors, is as a result not indebted to lobbyists and special interests; in fact, "you would have to go back a century and a half to name an incoming president with so few debts to repay". McCain's campaign staff full of lobbyists is well documented, with at least 133 lobbyists running his campaign and raising money for him, his campaign manager lobbying from aboard the Straight Talk Express, and another lobbyist advisor connected with a bribery scandal involving access to the Bush administration; McCain's change in position to support oil drilling gained him a huge spike in donations from oil executives, he has received ten times as much money from top CEO's as Obama in return for offering huge corporate tax breaks, and he has spent Congressional money on his wealthy donors, not to mention that his running mate is a fellow phony reformer who is about to be deposed in an ethics probe. Conservative George Will says of McCain: "although his campaign is run by lobbyists; and although his dealings with lobbyists have generated what he, when judging the behavior of others, calls corrupt appearances; and although he has profited from his manipulation of the taxpayer-funding system that is celebrated by reformers...he seems sincerely to consider it theoretically impossible for him to commit the offenses of appearances that he incessantly ascribes to others." McCain gripes that Obama did not accept public financing this year, but Obama only suggested that he might, given that McCain could easily go around those rules with ads from independent 527 groups; sure enough, not only is the McCain campaign relying on 527s as their principal means of attacking Obama, but they have even been caught in illegal message coordination with 527s, whereas Obama got the MoveOn 527 to shut down and changed DNC policy to no longer accept PAC or federal lobbyist money. The fact is that despite McCain's griping, Americans prefer a large base of small donors over the current broken public financing system, and the polls back that up; the Obama Presidential campaign is the first in living memory where average Americans own a majority share, as more than 50% of donations to Obama have been $25 or less, 80% of them have been $100 or less, and 93% of them have been $200 or less. This is by far the closest to true public financing in American history, a progressive milestone, and yet at the same time the conservative notion of voluntary donations only is adhered to; the McCain campaign's mix of affluent donors and taxpayer money, on the other hand, satisfies neither approach.

3. Character and Credibility

Obama believes in authenticity and consistency as a necessary starting point: "I want to be saying the same thing in the primary as I'm saying in the general election as I'm saying in the Oval Office. I don't want to make promises that I cannot keep. I don't want to simplify issues or demagogue issues simply to win short-term favor. We need to be straight with the American people." The evidence shows that Obama has never backed off of any of his core promises, and as conservative David Brooks puts it: "I’ve been poring over press clippings from Obama’s past, looking for inconsistencies and flip-flops. There are virtually none." Obama has been noted for his "straight-ahead style" and "refusing to back-slap or pander", breaking with the old approach to politics: "the most striking thing to me about the Senator's performances was the scrupulous honesty of his answers, his insistence on delivering bad news when necessary"; "that's Obama's approach, and in a country where people increasingly seem to regard politicians as professional liars, no wonder people find it refreshing." In contrast, John McCain, known and respected in 2000 for being a straight shooter, is now "making diametrically opposed policy promises to different audiences at the same time" and "talking out of both sides of his mouth"; his supposedly open town halls are in fact pre-staged events by the local Republican Party with planted questions in the audience, often held at the facilities of corporations that support John McCain. With McCain's National Online Communications Director busted impersonating an undecided voter online, the campaign caught lying about being in a cone of silence at Saddleback, and McCain himself lifting his Cross in the Dirt story from one of his favorite authors, his campaign's willingness to lie in this election has severely damaged his credibility; on top of it all, after claiming for months that Obama was not ready to lead, McCain chose a runningmate with zero foreign policy experience: "It's about honesty. The question should be whether McCain -- and all the other Republicans who have been going on for months about Obama's dangerous lack of foreign policy experience -- ever meant a word of it. And the answer is apparently not."

National Security and Foreign Policy

1. Terrorism

John McCain is a long time neoconservative, a philosophy based on the perceived right to occupy other countries and spread democracy by force: " Neoconservative champions of an 'American Empire'... chafe at the notion that there are, or should be, limits to American power or that the American interest should be defined as anything less than a globe-spanning, benevolent imperium." McCain continues to believe in this foreign policy perspective despite the fact that Osama Bin Laden has commended it for making Al Qaeda's job easier. Bin Laden's goal to frame the battle against terrorism as a holy war between Muslims and Christians has also been aided by John McCain's willingness to define alliances along religious lines, and by his refusal to denounce his campaign spokesperson's blanket statement that Muslims want us all to "kneel or they're going to kill us"; the fact is that America is not fighting a WWIV against terrorism, as terrorism can only ultimately be defeated in the long run by local negotiation and not outside military force. Due to being dominated by a failed neoconservative ideology, "Republicans are facing deep doubts about whether they can be capable stewards of the country’s foreign policy"; in addition to failing to see the clues leading up to 9/11, strengthening terrorists by lumping them all together, and prisons for terrorists often holding the wrong men, our government's torture of captives and mismanagement of justice has resulted in an inability to prosecute the 20th 9/11 hijacker and Bin Laden's right hand man - both of whom went free. GOP donors have been charged with aiding terrorists in Afghanistan, one of McCain's top donor firms has plead guilty to funding a terrorist group in Columbia, and McCain's campaign manager has remarked that a terrorist attack would be a big advantage for their campaign. While John McCain is pushing a schizophrenic foreign policy platform to satisfy the same old neoconservative thinking, Obama would be the first true post Cold War President, giving him the ability to identify and track down terrorist cells unhindered by a dated mindset that only understands warring nation states; Obama correctly predicted in 2002 that the war in Iraq would "strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda", and was the sole Presidential candidate who insisted on talking about terrorism and instability in Pakistan last summer, for which he was mocked at the time, but which now looks quite prescient after the assassination of Prime Minister Bhutto and resignation of President Musharraf.

2. Troops

US troops overseas contributed six times as much to Barack Obama as they did to John McCain; McCain has voted against increasing veterans benefits ten times since 2003, and despite his multimillion dollar fortune, accepts a yearly $58,000 veterans disability check while opposing an Obama supported bill to give all veterans more benefits; John McCain has also said the VA should stop treating routine medical problems, has suggested bringing back the draft, and receives a score of 20 out of 100 from the Disabled Veterans of America, while Obama gets an 80 out of 100. Our troops support Barack Obama's Iraq policy over John McCain's by thirty percentage points, and 70.6% of US military donations last spring went to candidates in favor of withdrawing from Iraq.

3. Iraq

Despite the recent bombshell that the White House forged a document to sell the war in Iraq, and the former top US commander in Iraq's admission that the war was really just about oil, McCain continues to believe the Iraq war was and is the right thing to do, having no problem with us staying for "a hundred" or "ten thousand years"; this is despite reports of our government using assassins, chemical weapons, and distributing religious coins to spread Christianity, validating anti-American terrorist propaganda. John McCain said just one month after 9/11 that invading Iraq was a priority over catching Bin Laden, and his supposed maverick split with the Bush administration on Rumsfeld is a fiction, as he would have chosen Rumsfeld and Cheney himself; McCain also claims to have been more restrained than Bush in not saying things like Mission Accomplished, but the facts show he was for Mission Accomplished before he was against it. McCain has recently confused Iraq with Afganistan, Sunnis with Shiites, and has contradicted himself repeatedly in the course of the same interview on the issue of timetables, at one point calling Obama's withdrawal plan a "pretty good timetable"; with Iraq Prime Minister Maliki saying that a timetable is a sign of victory and not defeat, that Obama's sixteen month plan is the right time frame, and that the surge is NOT the reason for the turnaround in Iraq, McCain has lost the national security advantage to Obama.

4. Iran

The theocratic government of Iran, happy with neoconservatives for strengthening Iran's regional influence by deposing the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, endorsed George Bush in the 2004 election. Obama's position of talking to our adversaries instead of the neoconservative "ignore or invade" approach is preferred by 67% of the American public, and even the Bush Administration ended up giving in and talking to Iran in recent months for the first time. A small group of neocons, the same people who pushed for invading Iraq, go as far as to regularly compare the Iranian President to Hitler in their effort to whip up a frenzy that will result in invading Iran: "They are wrong and recent history tells us they are dangerous." McCain has joked about bombing Iran with laughter and song.

5. Israel-Palestine

John McCain supported talks with Hamas and had a fundraiser on one of his finance committees who was an agent of Hezbollah. Obama's strong support for Israel's security is coupled with an equal respect for the plight of the Palestinian people, as evidenced by statements that suggest he would be the most evenhanded President regarding the conflict that we have ever had; Obama is the first candidate ever to, in the course of addressing Jewish groups, "suggest that there is any onus on the Jewish state when it comes to making peace with its neighbors". With policies of neoconservative overreach having damaged Israel's security as much as America's, such evenhandedness would be a welcome change for both sides of the conflict.

Bipartisanship and Cross Party Appeal

1. Bucking The Party Establishment

Unlike John McCain, who eventually ditched every single policy position where he had broken with his own party in order to win the Republican nomination, Barack Obama went through the entire Democratic primary insisting on positions that infuriated progressives and challenged Democratic orthodoxy, such as opposing universal health care mandates, addressing the future Social Security crisis, and advocating merit pay for teachers; he even went against many of his own major donors to support the writers' strike. The idea that Obama "moved to the middle" after winning the nomination requires ignoring all those instances, and does not hold up on closer examination, as Obama has always been consistent in his rejection of doctrinal filters. As even one Republican consultant put it during the Democratic primary, Obama is "not trying to cobble together the old Democratic coalition of interest groups"; while McCain has a record of bipartisan work with the Gang of 14 in the Senate, Obama has also worked across the aisle with Republicans such as Dick Lugar and Tom Coburn, his anti-earmark bill with the latter being met by strong resistance from many Democrats, and his ethics reform bills receiving a similar response from members of his party. Although Obama is progressive on many issues, "in his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative. There are moments when he sounds almost Burkean"; in an analysis of foreign policy positions, "Obama seems to be the cool conservative and McCain the exuberant idealist", and according to conservative David Brooks, Obama has "a worldview that precedes policy positions" and "a conservative temperament". Some Republicans open to Obama "see his primary advantage in prosecuting the war on Islamist terrorism... prepared to set their own ideological preferences to one side in favor of what Obama offers America in a critical moment in our dealings with the rest of the world"; for others, Obama's efforts to keep the Harvard Law Review balanced as its President, accomplished by respecting the views of its conservative minority, reveals how he will govern. It has also been argued that Obama's approach, involving the emphasis on strong families and personal responsibility in speeches delivered to inner city audiences, is actually a new path altogether which surpasses "either the liberal or conservative prescriptions".

2. No Maverick

With a record of voting with George W. Bush 90% of the time and rising, John McCain's views are costing him among moderate to liberal Republican voters; McCain's allegedly moderate record on energy and the environment is a fiction, and his position against a woman's right to choose is far outside the mainstream. While McCain's phony reformer image has long been propped up, it has fallen apart under a desire to be President in the worst way, and a staff of Bush advisers who have McCain so far out of the decision making process that there is actually someone on his campaign to make sure McCain sticks to the McCain campaign's message.

3. Liberty

With self-identified libertarians, voters who strongly support individual freedom and non-interventionalism, the neoconservative takeover of the Republican Party has soured them on the GOP, as the Democratic Party looks like more and more of a natural ally; Obama leads by fifteen points among libertarians, and some conservatives speculate that Obama is a libertarian paternalist.

4. Endorsements

Obama's crossover appeal to conservatives goes way beyond libertarian voters, however, as he has been endorsed by such unlikely figures as Contract With America co-writer Larry Hunter, conservative blogger Dorothy King, Bush biographer Steven Mansfield, Bush pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell, former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former neoconservative Francis Fukuyama, National Review senior editor Jeffrey Hart, and Reagan Assistant Attorney General Doug Kmiec; other lifelong Republicans to endorse Obama include Susan Eisenhower, former GOP Congressman Jim Leach, Republican mayor Jim Whitaker, GOP Congressional Nominee Joel Haugen, Reagan policy advisor Bruce Bartlett, Republican mayor Lou Thieblemont, and Reagan Assistant Secretary of the Army Delbert Spurlock, along with countless individual Americans who are for the first time voting Democratic this year. When it comes to Obama, Republican women "don't see him as a partisan", and "are expressing concerns about John McCain", while even conservatives who haven't endorsed Obama have remarked that many of his policies, such as his education plan, are better than McCain's; in contrast, not one policy position of John McCain's has been described as superior to Obama's by a single moderate or progressive journalist, nor is there a single high-profile progressive or elected Democrat who has endorsed of McCain (Joe Lieberman doesn't count, having changed his registration from Democrat two years ago after losing his primary).

Economy

1. Overview

Bush and the GOP's effect on the economy has resulted in the worst severe poverty since 1975, with the number of severely poor Americans growing by 26 percent between 2000 and 2005, and the worst job creation since the Great Depression; this has left America with the worst child poverty, education, and life expectancy of all civilized countries, and resulted in 38% of Americans struggling to pay for food. In addition to the world's largest bond fund manager declaring that tax cuts for the rich and deregulation have been a failure, the evidence shows that Democratic Presidents are better for the economy, and that since 1900, Democratic Presidents have been better for growth, employment, the stock market, and reducing the deficit.

2. Taxes

Obama's tax plan will cut middle class taxes three to eight times as much as McCain's plan according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, and will cut taxes for 95% of Americans; despite their other criticisms, the conservative Wall Street Journal admits "For Obama, Taxes Are About Fairness", and even the ultraconservative Weekly Standard notes that "McCain's charge that Obama is planning a massive tax increase doesn't apply", adding that, "every day that passes makes one thing clearer and clearer: Barack Obama knows precisely what he wants to do to the U.S. economy, and John McCain is intent on proving his self-confessed lack of knowledge with a charming set of homilies." Indeed, McCain has been inconsistent on tax cuts; he embraces thirty cent gas tax relief gimmicks and claims to want a level playing field, but he has no problem with the fact that Republican policies impose a hidden deficit tax of more than $1 per gallon of gas, or the fact that 2/3 of US corporations paid no annual taxes from 1998-2005.

3. Solvency

Obama explains how to pay for his programs better than any Presidential candidate in recent history: "his agenda actually does come pretty close to adding up. It's really not normal for a candidate's budget numbers to be even in the near ballpark of making sense... when was the last time we had a presidential candidate who came [so] close? Hell, I think McCain's plan, if you put a number to it, would fail to add up by about ten times that amount. Obama's is the most restrained, least pandering budget plan we've seen in a presidential campaign for a very long time." John McCain said that he does not understand the issue of economics as well as he should, and his economic plan is a mess of contradictions that has several serious problems, including a substantial increase to the national debt: "according to the Tax Policy Center, over the course of a decade Obama's plan would result in a national debt over one trillion dollars smaller than you would get under McCain's plan." While Obama's plan has received endorsements from Nobel Prize economists and the SEC chairs under Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, the McCain campaign had to trick 300 economists into signing a short statement later attached to an economic plan they never read.

4. Out of Touch

Unlike Barack Obama - who was born to an eighteen year old single mom, who took a $13,000 a year community service job, and who was only able to pay off his student loans in the last couple of years - John McCain has had access to tens of millions of dollars for the last three decades and has never had to stress about paying a bill in that time. McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns, doesn't know what kind of car he drives, and spends $250,000 a year on house servants; when asked about what income level represents the line between middle class and rich, McCain said five million dollars a year. His chief economic adviser says we have become a nation of whiners and that the recession is all in our minds, his chief adviser on health care said that anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance, and McCain himself called Social Security a disgrace.

Hi Betsy,

In response to your post, Obama THINKS that he is an idealist. That is my impression of his impression of himself. Right now, I do not plan on voting for Obama. He does not impress me the way he impresses most intentbloggers. I also do not feel he has the experience to lead, but I also have many other reservations about him.
Olivia

I think Obama, ethically, is very muddled and confused. That is one huge concern of mine, but I have stopped harping about it as there seems to be no point in the climate here at intentblog which is hugely pro-Obama despite the intelligence of the posters and some of the bloggers including Deepak.

If one disagrees with Obama's stand on abortion issue, then that's fine. If you have a problem with his "ethics" on the same, you should also 'know' that you have a problem with almost all the democratic presidential candidates too. His stand on abortion issue and other women's issues are the democratic platform and shared by over 90% of the leaders in the democratic party, and also by many republican leaders including the VP prospects Tom Ridge (Gov. of Pennsylvania) and also McCain's first choice for VP Joe Lieberman, an independent. And, too, you have a problem with about 70% of the American people who don't want Roe vs. Wade to be overturned. Don't mix social and personal ethics with political reality. Here's the thing, Republican party only use cultural issues like abortion for votes, they do nothing, or rather 'can't do' anything politically, even in terms of influencing the Supreme Court. As per the other political ethics, McCain and Palin have big issues with Keating 5 and Troopergate respectively. As Freyja noted above "Ethics and Government Reform", Obama championed the biggest Ethics Reform bill since Watergate in the US Senate.

"His stand on abortion issue and other women's issues are the democratic platform and shared by over 90% of the leaders in the democratic party, and also by many republican leaders including the VP prospects Tom Ridge (Gov. of Pennsylvania) and also McCain's first choice for VP Joe Lieberman, an independent." #21

And also shared by most Republican women leaders who are far more qualified and capable than Sarah Palin, but don't share the same wingnut beliefs to placate and fire up their hard core fundie base.

Why does it matter that John McCain doesn't know what the hell he's talking about? In the debate, he said Pakistan was a "failed state" when Musharaff took over. He was wrong. Musharaff took over in a vile coup like any banana republic thug... and he couldn't have done it without complicity on the part of American incompetence (I'll spare you the details, as Democrats don't historically come off any better in re: Pakistan than Republicans do... but the chief part is, McCain just proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he is, bluntly, an idiot).

Musharaff was supported over and over by Bush/McCain. Never mind that his ascendancy was decried at the time as extremely dangerous, even potentially deadly worldwide.

The Military Coup in Pakistan
Gaurav Kampani, CNS Research Associate, October 1999.
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/gaurav.htm

He was the second coming of Muhammed Zia ul-Haq.

If you don't know who that was, don't worry. John McCain is evidently in the same boat as you. If you've got the time that McCain doesn't, and want a good primer on Pakistani extremism, you could, oh, I don't know, study the history of military suppression of democracy in the country.

"Pakistan's Drift Into Extremism: Allah, The Army, And America's War On Terror by Hassan Abbas"

On John McCain's supposed area of expertise, he essentially said "Poland is not under Soviet influence." Seriously. If you don't know what that references, then google "Gerald Ford" "Poland" "Debate".

Now.... why does it matter?

It matters because the fundamental difference between "strategy" and "tactics", which McCain flubbed just as badly, is that "tactics" requires knowledge of terrain, knowledge of particular weapons, knowledge of weather conditions on the ground.

"Strategy" requires knowing your objective... and WHO THE FREAKING ENEMY IS!!!!!!! McCain may think that the politically ineffective Sharif's coalition party was a "failed state" but it was, in fact, a DEMOCRACY that should have been supported through a difficult time, not turned out to dry, leaving a power vacuum for the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11893663

al-Qaeda is in over 60 countries now, but their leadership is in one region -- the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and John McCain doesn't get it. The reason why they are in that particular place? Because that particular place is peppered with islamic fundamentalists who have been recruited from the poorest neighborhoods in the world and who have learned first hand from the abject poverty into which they were born that the West, and particularly the Americans, don't give a flying flip whether they live or die. Why would we expect these people to feel anything but contempt for us?

The way to root them out? Deny them recruits. How? Democratize Pakistan. How? By opposing brutal dictators. NOT PROPPING THEM UP!!!

Of course, it's too abstract for most folk to understand, but the real cause of 9-11 and our current fiasco in Afghanistan is... RONALD REAGAN. This country's support of the Mujaheddin -- without concomitant support for Democracy in Pakistan -- basically gave them weapons but did not give them any reason to love America.

For John McCain to miss this point? It means he don't know Jack. I would love to know how to spin this gaffe, but I fear that it's just too esoteric for folks to understand.

Oh, well.

Freyja:

Home run! I copied 17 and 18 top my hard drive for future reference.

Preity:

Nice post showing how propaganda and lying are used to cover up policy which is based in greed and power-seeking at the expense of the American people.

America has a sorry history of preaching about democracy while propping up brutal regimes that cater to the oil industry and corporate third-world exploiters.

The Islamic world doesn't hate us and they don't hate democracy at all. They love democracy.

What they hate is being promised support for democracy, but then being back-stabbed and left to die by the American Military-Industrial-Political Complex when the real time comes to support democracy movements.

Massive destabilization campaigns in Africa, Latin America, and the Near East can be covered over with propaganda to fool some Americans some of the time, but the people on the receiving end of the destabilization are not fooled - they are being shot down by weapons and bullets provided by the likes of General Electric, Westinghouse, Raytheon, and other big corporate political powerhouses and they damn well know it.

To these mega corporations in the weapons-contracting business the sound of machine guns is not rat-a-tat-a-tat, it's "ka-ching!"

And that is what we need to change about America.

Wake up indeed.

Isn't the almighty dollar reflective of the majority of people's value system? It seems to me that more and more of the collective population is waking up and making new choices as to how they want their $$ circulated. It seems to me that new tone of value and voice of action is getting louder and louder...one day it will be loud enough to turn the tide and create a shift. Is that day now upon us? Or do we need more time to evolve from within?

Money is energy. We are the ones that drive it and create systems with it. It's time for new leaders who can envision the whole and who can add the backbone of action creating balance. Goodbye ego-centeredness. Hello soul centeredness. How many are drawn to new leadership? How many will take a stand?

We can talk about our political leaders as if they are separate from ourselves. Or we can infuse the candidate of our choice with our support in prayerful thought, positive word and deliberate action. This is our campaign. This is our time to turn the tide. Let's unify and ride this wave together.

Trish~~

Thanks, Yogi, for the thumbs up on #17 and #18.
Great stuff as usual, Freyja.

Dear Olivia,

In regard to your Postings Nos. 19 and 20:

I am in total agreement with you. Obama is not prepared to handle the pressures and heavy responsibilities of the Presidency. He has been introduced as a candidate "from out of the blue", without having proved himself in any way to be worthy of confidence.

I believe that his campaign is being funded by very influential individuals who are working behind the scenes with their own agendas which are totally un-American. Whether Obama is fully aware of their plans is another question. However, he is being backed financially by some heavy power brokers.

I believe that McCain is a patriot and that he will not "sell out" the American people in favor of career interests or desires to please any faction that is anti-American. McCain has proven his loyalty to his country. He is well seasoned in the workings of the bureaucracy. I believe that he has integrity and that he will do his very best to protect this country from its enemies. I believe that his wife, Cindy, is a kind person because of her dedication to charity work.

I believe that McCain knows the meaning of loyalty to a worthy cause and that he will not bow to pressure from unsavory influences. I believe that McCain is a seasoned warrior who will defend and protect this nation. I also feel that he has the energy and ability to handle the responsibilities of the highest office in the land. He has survived tremendous hardships already. Also, his Mother is in her 90's and is still going strong. McCain has good genes.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

Betsy,

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you wrote. Also, and again, I don't speak often of this on intentblog as it goes against the grain, but Obama's ideas about sitting down with Iran and South Korea, etc. I believe are ethially wrong (Irvine if you are reading here is an example of Obama's ethics that I disagree with). I agree totally with everything McCain said in his speech regarding that particular matter. I really find Obama's take on meeting with those leaders to reflect an extreme shortsightedness. As McCain said, it is very naive and also it really shows he doesn't understand the reality of evil (again, another word not accepted here on intentblog). Anyway, just my take on things. Although I will say that both did quite well in the debate having such tough issues thrown at them. Anyway, there is my "tolerant" statement.

Sorry, "South Korea" should say "North Korea"--I am tired.

Well, Deepak, this time I believe that you are quite mistaken about who is waking us up here.

If we are being awakened to the fact that a young man who has only just been elected to the Senate can suddenly commandeer the entire democratic party to nominate him to office simply because "it is time" for a black candidate to win, then you may be right about that, as the Democrats have acquiesced to that idea. It sounds like a lot of manipulating and mind twisting to me, but I do see that when Barack Obama uses Abraham Lincoln as an example of a man from Illinois who served as short a time before beocming the elected president that it is possible for him to wake some sleeping electorate to his side.

But John McCain is not keeping us in a coma or a deep sleep. All he has done is serve his state by giving them what they wanted, and finally convinced his party to nominate him after losing to George Bush in previous contests. John McCain has proved that he has become a known commodity, a likeable personality, and a potentially viable leader of the nation if elected.

I believe that the debates will expose to the public which of the two candidates is the better choice for Americans. Each seems to revel in the limelight so whether Obama wakes us up to some strange change that he wants, which is basically just that he become elected to the office for his own purposes, not necessarily those that are of the real average joe's purposes, but of his for his own purpose of pushing his race forward, then he will wake us up to the fact that his age and race were an asset and not a liability, and if John McCain keeps us dormant in our sleeping then perhaps it is because we do not want change, but that we want more of the same old stuff which we get every single election...just a lot of poltiics and more of the same. Let sleeping babies sleep peacefully as we rock away in our cradles.

Dear Olivia,

In response to your Posting No.29:

I agree with you about the questionability of meeting with any avowed terrorist leaders. It only gives them credibility as possibly agreeable personages. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has been laughing at us for allowing him an audience in this country. He has vowed to destroy Israel.

When did our country desert Israel? We have supported Israel for many years and now we welcome the arch enemy of Israel with open arms.

There is no way to find a middle road with someone like Ahmadinejad who is dedicated to the destruction of anyone who stands in the way of his agendas.

I thought it was unconscionable for Larry King to welcome Ahmadinejad to his show. He spoke with him as though he were the celebrity of the week about inconsequential matters.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.