[Big Mac]

Okay, Obama supporters, you claim I am disqualified from a substantive debate of Barack Hussein Obama because you think I am a racist, or prejudiced, or anti-Muslim, or whatever. You refuse to debate the points I bring up, even though most of you agree I have brought up valid, substantive points in my previous thread, because you claim I am too biased. Let's do a quick little test to detect the level of bias you guys actually hold, shall we?

Evaluate the following statements without looking to see where they came from, and tell me if you think they came from a biased source. Tell me if you would honestly fault me had I written such things. No cheating by looking up the source, please. Here we go:

"[Obama] has the thinnest résumé of any nominee in living memory."

"Mr Obama was then a lowly state senator, and had also worked as a lawyer and a community organiser. Voters deemed this to be insufficient preparation for Congress. Mr Obama lost by 31 percentage points."

"In 2004 he was elected to the United States Senate. But many Americans hesitate to hire as the country’s leader someone with no executive experience besides running the Harvard Law Review and a series of election campaigns."

"He won that state Senate seat by having all his rivals thrown off the ballot. He cosied up to Chicago’s machine politicians. His pastor for two decades preaches “God damn America”."

"For all Mr Obama’s rhetoric about reaching across the partisan divide, he has never stood up to his party to accomplish anything substantial."

"For all his talk about uniting his country, he has become an unexpectedly divisive figure."

"Mr Obama is more of an enigma. His voting record is one of the most liberal in the Senate, but in his books, he tends to present two sides of each policy argument without reaching many firm conclusions. During the campaign he has tacked to the centre. Even professional observers are now thoroughly unsure what he stands for."

"After a campaign that has already lasted more than two years, it seems impossible to predict who will win."

Now once again, please do not respond if you're going to cheat by looking up the source. Or, if you're going to cheat, try to be honest and admit whether or not you would fault me were I to write exactly the same kinds of statements.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Look at that, all I see is "Mr. Obama" and valid accusations.

Nothing about "B Hussein O" and "will ruin America" or "is a closet Muslim" or "vitriol."

Conclusion: I doubt you wrote any of those.

greg

[Chongo]

No one on the left seems to have a problem with his admitted use of cocaine and other drugs yet went batshit when some unnamed source said Bush was/is a coke head.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

No one on the left seems to have a problem with his admitted use of cocaine and other drugs yet went batshit when some unnamed source said Bush was/is a coke head.

I believe the uproar was because Bush's dealer is now serving a life sentence, no chance of parole, effectively silencing him. I know you right wingers think drug dealers deserve life sentences, but it takes "two to tango", you get my drift? Oh, and Mac, I have NEVER accused you of bringing up a valid or substantive point, ever!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

I believe the uproar was because Bush's dealer is now serving a life sentence, no chance of parole, effectively silencing him. I know you right wingers think drug dealers deserve life sentences, but it takes "two to tango", you get my drift? Oh, and Mac, I have NEVER accused you of bringing up a valid or substantive point, ever!

Then you have no problem replacing one coke head with another?

[stumblinmike]

I believe Obama used cocaine as a twenty something. Bush on the other hand was late 30's, early 40's, possibly longer. We will never know! I think we can dismiss Obama's failing as a youthful indiscretion, Bush is more of an addict. And anyone can do better than Bush has done, agreed?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

I believe Obama used cocaine as a twenty something.

A. Could be later. He claimed to have quit smoking cigarettes too, until someone caught him smoking and took a picture. He's got quite a record of lying about what he does or knows after he's caught. We may never know if he's not currently doing cocaine on a regular basis.

B. Bill Clinton did cocaine while in office as Governor of the state of Arkansas quite regularly (according to a number of sources, one of which was his own brother).

C. It is clear that it's okay for Bill Clinton (as an elected official) and Obama Barrack (at least as a younger man) to do illegal drugs, but not George Bush even though there's really no evidence that he has done it. Your hypocrisy is noted.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A. Could be later. He claimed to have quit smoking cigarettes too, until someone caught him smoking and took a picture. He's got quite a record of lying about what he does or knows after he's caught. We may never know if he's not currently doing cocaine on a regular basis.

OMG I called it!

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...d/#post3725335

How do you not die a little inside every time you type this stuff?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

OMG I called it!

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...d/#post3725335

How do you not die a little inside every time you type this stuff?

Apparently, irony is lost on you.

I simply posted essentially the same thing stumblinmike did in regards to Bush:

"Bush on the other hand was late 30's, early 40's, possibly longer. We will never know!"

I truly DON'T think that Obama still does coke and don't have a clue if Bush did (and neither does stumblinmike, really). I don't much care what people do with discretion as non-elected officials. I do expect them to set an example though once they get into office. Bill Clinton had some major problems with that. I wouldn't surprise me if someone told me Clinton still did cocaine as President.

[SpaceMonkey]

Oops, I missed stumblinmike's post. My bad.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

"[Obama] has the thinnest résumé of any nominee in living memory."

True.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

"Mr Obama was then a lowly state senator, and had also worked as a lawyer and a community organiser. Voters deemed this to be insufficient preparation for Congress. Mr Obama lost by 31 percentage points."

I've never seen any polling data or reports as to why he lost this election. If you have evidence it was due to lack of experience, I'll have to take your word for it, but I'd like to see some evidence.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

"In 2004 he was elected to the United States Senate. But many Americans hesitate to hire as the country’s leader someone with no executive experience besides running the Harvard Law Review and a series of election campaigns."

Again true. But I think we are looking at the reality that more Americans are just fine with his experience.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

"He won that state Senate seat by having all his rivals thrown off the ballot. He cosied up to Chicago’s machine politicians. His pastor for two decades preaches “God damn America”."

So he successfully showed his primary rivals had used fraudulent signatures on nominating petitions. You have a problem with politicians standing up to corruption? McCain cosied up to the Arizona political establishment to get elected, thanks to his wife's and Keating's money. And in his mad dash to the right, McCain got in bed with some very unpleasant and openly anti-semitic pastors.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

"For all Mr Obama’s rhetoric about reaching across the partisan divide, he has never stood up to his party to accomplish anything substantial."

And McCain voted with the party line 90% of the time. And he's been back-pedaling on the last 10% since he launced his campaign.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

"For all his talk about uniting his country, he has become an unexpectedly divisive figure."

As are all candidates going up against the Republican attack machine. Just like McCain in 2000.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

"Mr Obama is more of an enigma. His voting record is one of the most liberal in the Senate,

A meaningless and completely subjective charge that has been thrown at every Democratic candidate in recent history. Kerry was the most liberal senator 4 years ago. Clinton was the the most liberal president for 8 years and the most liberal governor before that. It's just fear mongering and empty rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

but in his books, he tends to present two sides of each policy argument without reaching many firm conclusions. During the campaign he has tacked to the centre. Even professional observers are now thoroughly unsure what he stands for."

As opposed to McCain who has run head first to the right. And all we know that McCain stands for is the surge, Obama is bad, and he's a Maverick.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

"After a campaign that has already lasted more than two years, it seems impossible to predict who will win."

Seeing how horrid Obama is, you would think McCain would have this sewn up...

[Rumor]

This isn't a test of political bias.

This is a guessing game of which political writers spoke ill of the person they would rather have not seen as their candidate.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Again true. But I think we are looking at the reality that more Americans are just fine with his experience.

This remains to be seen. This should be a landslide election year for any Democrat. It isn't. I believe it is because the Democrat is Obama.

So he successfully showed his primary rivals had used fraudulent signatures on nominating petitions. You have a problem with politicians standing up to corruption? McCain cosied up to the Arizona political establishment to get elected, thanks to his wife's and Keating's money. And in his mad dash to the right, McCain got in bed with some very unpleasant and openly anti-semitic pastors.

You're asking for data and I'm interested in seeing some data on the "Keating money" and his connection to "some very unpleasant and openly anti-semitic pastors".

And McCain voted with the party line 90% of the time. And he's been back-pedaling on the last 10% since he launced his campaign.

This is a BS statistic. In fact, these were up and down votes and it can be shown that Biden and McCain voted down similar lines over 80% of the time.

A meaningless and completely subjective charge that has been thrown at every Democratic candidate in recent history. Kerry was the most liberal senator 4 years ago. Clinton was the the most liberal president for 8 years and the most liberal governor before that. It's just fear mongering and empty rhetoric.

Was Obama a Senator 4 years ago? Are you familiar with Obama's voting record? The fact of the matter is that the public does not appreciate this degree of liberalism. I know the charge is annoying, but it is also damned effective.

As opposed to McCain who has run head first to the right. And all we know that McCain stands for is the surge, Obama is bad, and he's a Maverick.

Another vote in which McCain and Biden saw eye to eye.

Seeing how horrid Obama is, you would think McCain would have this sewn up...

Conversely and more accurately, Obama should have sewn this up. Don't take my word for it. You can consult any knowledgeable political analyst you want. I'll let you decide if this is because Obama is "horrid".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

This isn't a test of political bias.

This is a guessing game of which political writers spoke ill of the person they would rather have not seen as their candidate.

I don't think they were political writers not interested in Obama's candidacy so much as Democratic rivals who've now forgotten they said it. Including his running mate.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think they were political writers not interested in Obama's candidacy so much as Democratic rivals who've now forgotten they said it. Including his running mate.

Primaries are like a prism. There are so many sides, it can sometimes be hard to decipher. Right now, I am only talking about one party.

This happens with liberals and conservatives, they bash the candidate they do not approve of until that candidate wins the primary, then they are on their side.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This remains to be seen. This should be a landslide election year for any Democrat. It isn't. I believe it is because the Democrat is Obama.

Maybe so, but a win is a win.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're asking for data and I'm interested in seeing some data on the "Keating money" and his connection to "some very unpleasant and openly anti-semitic pastors".

It's a well documented fact that Keating was McCain's largest individual contributor and that they shared a close personal and, through his wife's family, professional relationship. As for the pastor problem, a quick Google search will give you the deatils you need.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is a BS statistic. In fact, these were up and down votes and it can be shown that Biden and McCain voted down similar lines over 80% of the time.

Yes it is. But at least it is something that can be objectively measured, unlike "the most liberal voting record in the senate" which is laughable made up nonsense. Show me ANY objective source for this. Any original sources are from partisan sources and are campaign statements dressed up as studies. The only other sources are pointing back to these. It's crap. Pure and simple.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Was Obama a Senator 4 years ago? Are you familiar with Obama's voting record? The fact of the matter is that the public does not appreciate this degree of liberalism. I know the charge is annoying, but it is also damned effective.

Again, we'll see in November if it's effective enough.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Another vote in which McCain and Biden saw eye to eye.

And?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Conversely and more accurately, Obama should have sewn this up. Don't take my word for it. You can consult any knowledgeable political analyst you want. I'll let you decide if this is because Obama is "horrid".

You are right, Obama should have this sewn up. Perhaps the Democrats should have put forward a different candidate, but if the choice was between Clinton and Obama, I think the right person got the nod. I don't think Hillary could have won.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Okay, Obama supporters, you claim I am disqualified from a substantive debate of Barack Hussein Obama because you think I am a racist, or prejudiced, or anti-Muslim, or whatever. You refuse to debate the points I bring up, even though most of you agree I have brought up valid, substantive points in my previous thread, because you claim I am too biased. Let's do a quick little test to detect the level of bias you guys actually hold, shall we?

I'm not an Obama supporter so much as considering voting for him, but I'll take this on.

"[Obama] has the thinnest résumé of any nominee in living memory."

True. But not the thinnest (political) resume of any President. And comparing the Presidents of living memory to those of the past doesn't really seem to do much to encourage the election of 'more experienced' candidates. Admittedly, my living memory only goes back to the tail end of the Reagan administration, and my political memory starts with Bush I (who at the time was a personal hero of mine).

Additionally, though Obama may lack in executive experience, I really don't believe that experience is what best prepares one for the Presidency. The demands of the office are far too broad for anyone to really be adequately prepared for it, so I think the best bet is, rather than looking for 'experience', to look for the qualities that allow someone to work well under pressure, to make touch decisions, and, perhaps most importantly, to surround themselves with smart people whom they are actually willing to take criticism from and learn from, but they also have to be smart and confident enough to sometimes be willing to deviate from the advice they're given.

It's a complex and difficult job, and I would say that the best experience to prepare one for it is probably not political experience. Business experience---leading a company to success---can help, but only certain people will actually take the right lessons away from it (there are plenty of successfull business men out there who I wouldn't want to see in political office, but also plenty whom I would. Military experience is the same: someone whom the military turned into a leader, someone who learned how to inspire people and make tough decisions under pressure but still maintained the humility and humanity to value human life as well could make a good candidate. But again this isn't going to be true of all veterans, and intelligence and confidence tempered with humility are sitll very important qualities.

A lot of this obviously points to McCain as at least a potentially good candidate, and I think he was once. I wanted to vote for McCain in '04. In the past four years, however, I've lost my confidence in him. I've gotten the impression from watching him that he's a beaten and broken man. For me, his turning point was the torture bill. He was strongly anti torture, and understandably so. But his own party (implicitly) called him a coward, an America hater, and even a terrorist for his 'weak' stance on torture, and in the end he voted with the Bush administration on it. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I really do think that he's one of the good ones, but that's only going to take me so far. The best I can say about him is that he was ruined by his own party for sticking to his principles.

Obama, I think, displays the intelligence that I would demand of anyone who would try and claim to 'lead' me (something that I don't think the President does or should do anyway). I'll readily admit that he's younger that McCain (really the only thing that has to do with his lack of experience), but I don't think that disqualifies him. I don't agree with much of his policy ideas, and yet I find thta his expression of those ideas shows a depth of thought and an intellectual curiosity that most politicians lack. I get the impression that he actually thinks about these things and reasons his way to his positions rather than just blindly following some ideology. Not only does he display intelligence, but I think he's shown himself to be very adaptable, and I don't mean that as a criticism. It's a good thing to be able and willing to change one's mind. Especially for a high level politician, it's essentially to be able to alter your strategy and change your priorities based on an ever shifting situation. I think that Obama has demonstrated that he can do this.

It's also probably worth mentioning that my exposure to Obama is a little different than most. My wife is from Illinois and voted for Obama for Illinois state senate, US senate, and will now be voting for him for president. She's also not a blind Democrat or Liberal often voting Republican or at least not Democrat (and was, in fact, a huge Ron Paul supporter). The fact that I've been unable to talk her out of voting for Obama goes a long way towards convincing me that he's worth voting for. I think the biggest fear for both of us in regards to Obama is that he'll turn out to be another Deval Patrick who was elected to governor of Massachusetts on basically the same platform that Obama is running (in fact they know each other quite well), but has turned out to be nothing but a dissapointment (though at least not actively bad). But for myself, I never much liked Patrick from the beginning and was never able to get behind him at all (voted for Mihos). Obama has always struck me as much different and much more substantive, even if he is running a similar campaign.

"Mr Obama was then a lowly state senator, and had also worked as a lawyer and a community organiser. Voters deemed this to be insufficient preparation for Congress. Mr Obama lost by 31 percentage points."

Many politicians have lost elections for a particular office before, later, gaining it. I don't really see that as mattering much here. Perhaps he is too inexperienced to be President, but whether or not he was too inexperienced for Congress 8 (or was it 6?) years ago, has no bearing on that.

"In 2004 he was elected to the United States Senate. But many Americans hesitate to hire as the country’s leader someone with no executive experience besides running the Harvard Law Review and a series of election campaigns."

Yes, many Americans do. But many Americans don't. The true test of this will be the election.

"He won that state Senate seat by having all his rivals thrown off the ballot. He cosied up to Chicago’s machine politicians. His pastor for two decades preaches “God damn America”."

I'd have to look into it more closely before taking any firm position on it, but I'd say that there's nothing, in essence, wrong with having your opponents thrown off the ballot. If they got there legitimately, and you resorted to dirty tricks to do it, then yes it's a problem. But my understanding (and it's been a while since I've heard much about this) is that it was legitimate in this case.

As for cosying up to Chicago's 'machine politicians', I doubt it's possible to get much of anything done in Illinois without doing so. However I think his record as a state senator shows that he wasn't controlled by Chicago, and he still managed to accomplish things that display his own individuality and sense of values.

I wish we would get over the obsession with politicians religiosity. But as far as Obama's pastor, it is actually possible to criticise America and even say things like 'God damn America' without actually hating America. I criticise America all the time, I think we, as a nation, have done some horrible things and I'm not going to stop at calling us out on it. And I consider this to be an expression of patriotism. But regardless of that, what evidence is there that Obama actually believes any of the things that 'his pastor' said? It is a political necessity that he point to a church he attend and a pastor who he listens to. Most of the time, this political necessity ends up with the politicians later renouncing thta same church and pastor for reasons such as this. I say let's elect an atheist and be done with this crap once and for all.

"For all Mr Obama’s rhetoric about reaching across the partisan divide, he has never stood up to his party to accomplish anything substantial."

First of all, 'reaching across the partisan divide' doesn't necessarily entail going against your party. In fact more often than not iit's going to involve finding points of agreement between politicians of both parties. Has Obama worked with Republicans on anything? Yes. Therefore he's reached across the partisan divide.

"For all his talk about uniting his country, he has become an unexpectedly divisive figure."

Not really. This is a campaign season. Of course the Republican party and the conservative pundits are going to react strongly against the Democratic candidate. This is going to be true even if they actually think he's the best thing since sliced bread. And pay attention to what people actually say, rather than just who they're siding with. Most of the criticism of Obama (not all, by any means, but most) is completely without substance. The people who attack him, even the supposedly professional journalists who do, still can't get over the 'oh my God his name is similar to some people we don't like!'. This argument is, on the face of it, completely moronic and intended solely to rile up unfounded (and dare I say racist?) negative sentament towards Obama for no reason other than the fact that he has a different background than most of us. This is absolutely no different than hating, mocking, and refusing to vote for a politician because their name is Shlomo Goldfarb, and I, for one, find it disgusting.

"Mr Obama is more of an enigma. His voting record is one of the most liberal in the Senate, but in his books, he tends to present two sides of each policy argument without reaching many firm conclusions. During the campaign he has tacked to the centre. Even professional observers are now thoroughly unsure what he stands for."

I'm not entirely sure what the criticism here is. First off, I find statistics such as 'most conservative/liberal voting record in the senate' to be ridiculous. Secondly, the fact that he's able to see and present two sides of each policy is a good thing. This is one of the reasons I like him. He doesn't just vote for or against something simply because of ideology. He thinks about it, considers it from both sides, and makes a reasoned decision. The only reason that people might find this confusing is that it's extremely rare to see a politician display that sort of integrity. We know exactly where he stands: he stands on the side of intelligent, rational debate and reasoned policy. Amazingly, that position tends to no be in alignment with the extremes of either party.

"After a campaign that has already lasted more than two years, it seems impossible to predict who will win."

Good. That will keep both candidates working, and the country paying attention. Though honestly I've thought from the beginning that it was pretty clear Obama had an advantage. McCain has been playing catch-up the entire campaign, and though he may have had a few big spots in the polls, overall I just don't think he's done nearly as well as he, or the media, have said.

[Chongo]

From CNN on O' Bama's first Il Senate run

In his first race for office, seeking a state Senate seat on Chicago's gritty South Side in 1996, Obama effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition.

As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.
The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.

"That was Chicago politics," said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. "Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice."

Alice Palmer anointed O' Bama as her successor to her senate seat as she was running for Mel Reynolds vacated seat in Congress. She claims O' Bama promised her he would bow out if she failed to win the Dem nomination, she did not.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

She claims O' Bama promised her he would bow out if she failed to win the Dem nomination, she did not.

Do you have a link for this? That's not in the story.

In fact, I recall the Tribune article (which served as the basis for this article) saying the opposite.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Then you have no problem replacing one coke head with another?

Why would I have a problem with that?

Just to be clear, I take no issue with people doing drugs, I take issue with hypocrisy.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Do you have a link for this? That's not in the story.

In fact, I recall the Tribune article (which served as the basis for this article) saying the opposite.

I stand corrected. Palmer promised not to run. O' Bama did get her thrown off the ballot, along with the rest of the candidates running in the (D) primary

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Maybe so, but a win is a win.

"Win" is subjective.

It's a well documented fact that Keating was McCain's largest individual contributor and that they shared a close personal and, through his wife's family, professional relationship. As for the pastor problem, a quick Google search will give you the deatils you need.

From the first link;
- By March 1987, Riegle was telling Gray that "Some senators out west are very concerned about the way the bank board is regulating Lincoln Savings," adding somewhat ominously, "I think you need to meet with the senators. You'll be getting a call."[10] Keating and DeConcini were asking McCain to travel to San Francisco to meet with regulators regarding Lincoln Savings; McCain refused.[11][7] DeConcini told Keating that McCain was nervous about interfering.[7] Keating called McCain a "wimp" behind his back, and on March 24, Keating and McCain had a heated, contentious meeting.

- Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.

- After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings, with Cranston receiving a formal reprimand. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".

- McCain has also mentioned that it was the biggest mistake of his life to meet with regulators on behalf of Keating. They parted ways pretty swiftly IMO.

Now... has Obama admitted that accepting $33,000 from Palestinians is a big mistake?
WSJ

Googling is fun. Here are the results for 'Obama, questionable contributions';
Google Results

Do hundreds of thousands of dollars in questionable contributions matter to you or don't they? It would seem they do, but maybe only if the person in question has an (R) after their name?

Yes it is. But at least it is something that can be objectively measured, unlike "the most liberal voting record in the senate" which is laughable made up nonsense. Show me ANY objective source for this. Any original sources are from partisan sources and are campaign statements dressed up as studies. The only other sources are pointing back to these. It's crap. Pure and simple.

CNN on Obama's liberal voting record as ranked by each sides' metric;
CNN

Again, we'll see in November if it's effective enough.

True that.

You are right, Obama should have this sewn up. Perhaps the Democrats should have put forward a different candidate, but if the choice was between Clinton and Obama, I think the right person got the nod. I don't think Hillary could have won.

As you mentioned, we'll see.

*edited to include; forgot the pastor thing. I'll take a look and respond later. Okay, I'm taking a look. Where's the story?

Mother Jones; McCain accepted the endorsement of...??? Seriously? This is your big story? Was McCain in attendance at this reverend's church for 20 years? Did this pastor marry he and his wife Cindy? Did he baptize McCain's children into the church? Was he that "crazy uncle" everyone has? C'mon. That's feeble. I've got a story for you;

- Ahmed Yousef, a top political adviser for terrorist group Hamas, said in an interview on WABC radio in New York that the group supports Obama. “We like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Obama claimed their support was legitimate.
- Oh so many more numerous endorsements (since that is the litmus for shadyness by your logic) so little time. Using your tact of supplying google searches;
Obama, questionable endorsements

[Chongo]

O' Bama has already cut the legs off the The "Keating Three" argument by having John Glenn campaigning for him. Glenn introduced O' Bama at an Ohio rally yesterday (10/06/08)

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I stand corrected. Palmer promised not to run. O' Bama did get her thrown off the ballot, along with the rest of the candidates running in the (D) primary

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Lots of stuff saying McCain did nothing wrong in the whole Keating mess

Nothing you posted refuted the facts that:
1. Keating was one of the largest individual contributors to McCain's campaigns
2. Keating and McCain had a very close personal relationship, taking numerous vacations together at Keating's expense.
3. McCain's wife and father in law were involved in business dealings with Keating, investing 100s of 1000s of $ in one of his projects.
4. McCain attempted to exert influence on a regulatory body to back off Keating
5. They backed off- Keating's Lincoln Savings and Loan went bust and cost the taxpayers millions.

The investigating panel found McCain did not violate the rules of the senate or break any laws. I think most people realise that regardless of the legality, it reeked of a failure of ethics and judgement.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

CNN on Obama's liberal voting record as ranked by each sides' metric;
CNN

My challenge to you was to:

Originally Posted by Paco500

Show me ANY objective source for this. Any original sources are from partisan sources and are campaign statements dressed up as studies. The only other sources are pointing back to these. It's crap. Pure and simple.

The CNN article refers back to the "study" by the National Journal Magazine- not on objective source by any reasoned person's thinking. The other studies cited by CNN say that while liberal (duh), he's not the "most liberal."

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Stuff about religious nut jobs "associated" with Obama

McCain's problem here is that he actively sought the endorsement of people like John Hagee. John Hagee who calls the Catholic Church "The Whore of Babylon". Who preaches that the Anti-Christ will be a Jew, and that Hitler was an "Agent of God." This all was on the record before McCain made the decision to cosy up to him. Do I believe McCain agrees with him? No. What I believe that it is yet more evidence that McCain is very cynical garden variety politician who will abandon ethics to win. Unfortunately he has such amazingly bad judgement it ends up constantly blowing up in his face. Not the kind of traits to be valued in a President.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Oh so many more numerous endorsements (since that is the litmus for shadyness by your logic) so little time.

I don't give a flip who endorses either candidate for the most part- doesn't mean much one way or another. My issue is the above. McCain spoke about against people like Hagee in 2000. He ran to his arms this time around. I respected him for his stance in 2000. I've now come to the conclusion that it was just as cynical and meaningless as his new found religion is.

[Chongo]

bears repeating
O' Bama has already cut the legs off the The "Keating Three" argument by having John Glenn campaigning for him. Glenn introduced O' Bama at an Ohio rally yesterday (10/06/08)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Nothing you posted refuted the facts that:
1. Keating was one of the largest individual contributors to McCain's campaigns
2. Keating and McCain had a very close personal relationship, taking numerous vacations together at Keating's expense.
3. McCain's wife and father in law were involved in business dealings with Keating, investing 100s of 1000s of $ in one of his projects.
4. McCain attempted to exert influence on a regulatory body to back off Keating
5. They backed off- Keating's Lincoln Savings and Loan went bust and cost the taxpayers millions.

As has been mentioned, there was another person implicated and rebuked in the exact same manner; Glenn. Glenn introduced Obama in Ohio yesterday. Is this an endorsement? I find the act of profiting on the back of investors and taxpayers reprehensible. Dollar for dollar, Obama has been exponentially more corrupted by money in his short time in public service than McCain in 26 years. We can start with contributions to Obama through Mac and Mae. You might know that in an election year, people have choices. Often times they base their decision on "the lesser of evils" or for "checks and balances". This isn't a contest for who is more corrupt because IMO that's patently apparent. The contest is who has the best vision for the country (in each voter's respective views) and who offers the best platform to address our current challenges.

The investigating panel found McCain did not violate the rules of the senate or break any laws. I think most people realise that regardless of the legality, it reeked of a failure of ethics and judgement.

Unfortunately there's plenty of that to go around. I'm not sure you can run for public office in this capacity without it.

My challenge to you was to:

First of all; the challenge was initially presented to you. You addressed BigMac's litany of indictments against Obama with; "but McCain..."

The CNN article refers back to the "study" by the National Journal Magazine- not on objective source by any reasoned person's thinking. The other studies cited by CNN say that while liberal (duh), he's not the "most liberal."

What do you know of the National Journal Magazine? The Americans for Democratic Action referred to Obama as "one of the most liberal Senators". Sorry, I was close. If this doesn't suffice for you, you've kept your criteria just vague enough that nothing can.

McCain's problem here is that he actively sought the endorsement of people like John Hagee. John Hagee who calls the Catholic Church "The Whore of Babylon". Who preaches that the Anti-Christ will be a Jew, and that Hitler was an "Agent of God." This all was on the record before McCain made the decision to cosy up to him. Do I believe McCain agrees with him? No. What I believe that it is yet more evidence that McCain is very cynical garden variety politician who will abandon ethics to win. Unfortunately he has such amazingly bad judgement it ends up constantly blowing up in his face. Not the kind of traits to be valued in a President.
I don't give a flip who endorses either candidate for the most part- doesn't mean much one way or another. My issue is the above. McCain spoke about against people like Hagee in 2000. He ran to his arms this time around. I respected him for his stance in 2000. I've now come to the conclusion that it was just as cynical and meaningless as his new found religion is.

How much you wanna bet this doesn't come up in the debate tonight. Wanna know why? I think you know.

By the way, you get a D- in the political bias test.

[King Bob On The Cob]

My letter to Mr. Obama, names have been changed. Still no response other than signing me up for the spam list that is the Democratic Presidential Campaign.

John Smith
Apt #203
1090 Chicken Ln
Champaign IL 61820

[email protected]

September 2, 2008
Dear Barack Obama,
I am a student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and I am an unaffiliated voter who will be voting in Madison County, IL. I am torn on whether I can vote for you, as someone who you represented in the US Congress. I am the child of reservist Commander John D. Smith of the United States Navy, who works for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency for his civilian job. My family feels ignored as your constituents and I wish to write you to perhaps gain some understanding and perhaps sway my vote.
My mother is a thrice recurrent cancer patient, and each time my mother had cancer, my father has been in service for this great country and was forced to leave active duty to come back and care for her. On his last return to the United States, there was a paperwork error and my mother lost the life insurance policy that is supposed to guarantee that my two sisters and I can continue our education. My father tried to get the error corrected, but was told that it would require a support from a member of Congress. We sent out first class letters begging for help to our three members of congress. Representative J. Shimkus responded that he did not have the power to help us, and after a few letters of correspondence, Senator Dick Durbin, agreed to help us and took care of it. The only person we did not hear back from was Senator Obama, and we feel shunned and hurt, especially hearing Barack Obama proclaim about how he will help the veterans, while allowing a veteran’s family in his own backyard to feel like we cannot count on him to represent us.
Why should we vote for Obama?
Sincerely yours,


John Smith

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

My letter to Mr. Obama, names have been changed. Still no response other than signing me up for the spam list that is the Democratic Presidential Campaign.

If the situation in the letter is true, I would be contacting the media, not the Obama campaign. Write every newspaper, TV station and Radio Station in Illinois (and thrown in the battleground states for good measure). If this makes the news, I can guarantee you'll get the support you need from him VERY quickly.

I've needed congressional help on two issues in my life (neither as dramatic or important as yours) and they were shockingly responsive. Once from a Democratic Congressman and once from a Republican Senator. The congressman got things moving faster, but I think that is down to having a much smaller constituency to deal with. I was impressed by them both. Neither of them were running for President at them time, but you could use this to your advantage.

Hope it works out for you.