Solutions vs. Speeches!

MY ECCENTIC "AUNT" GERALDINE COULD HAVE USED THE COMPASSION OF YOUR "UNCLE" JEREMIAH

SPIRITED DONA — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:37:52 EDT

ALL WEEK, I WONDERED, SINCE, GEARALDINE WAS A PARTY MINORITY, ELDER STATESWOMAN, THAT BARACK COULD NOT GRACEFULLY PARDON HER AND SAY YOU PHRASED IT WRONG, SISTER, BUT JOIN ME MY "FELLOW MINORITY HISTORY MAKER". I WAS EXCITED WITH TEARS IN MY EYES, WHEN I VOTED THE FIRST WOMAN VICE PRESIDENT-- LIKE MANY OF YOU, AFRICAN AMERICAN, AS MUCH, AS WHITE, DID WHEN YOU VOTED BARACK! YOU NEVER WANT TO DOWN A MOMENT OF AMERICAN HISTORY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT GERALDINE SAID, BUT, IT SEEMS TO BE THE PASTOR'S PHILOSOPHY, RACE MATTERS, AND NOT IN A GRACIOUS WAY. I HAVE TO FORGIVE HIS "UNCLE", WHEN HE DID NOT "FORGIVE" MY AUNT. I THINK NOT. HILLARY CAMP. BE GRACIOUS OR END UP IN THIS TOWN-- UNGRACIOUSVILLE; A TOWN OF LONELY HELL!

I BELIEVE BARACK DID NOT NOTICE HOW EXTREME THE PASTOR WAS BY HIL FAN

SPIRITED DONA — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:21:59 EDT

BARACK IS ON AC 360, ANDERSON COOPER, THEY WILL RERUN IT AFTER LARRY KING AT 12:00 MIDNIGHT CENTRAL, 1 EASRERN. THE ONLY REASON IS I SAW HIS FACE, HIS EYES, HIS EYEBROWS. I THINK HE GREW NUMB TO THE WORDS AND LOVED THE PERSONALITY.THAT WAS THIS PASTOR. IT IS SAD, THAT BARACK WAS MARRIED BY THIS PASTOR, THE KIDS BAPTISED. WHAT A SACRIFICE FOR THE PRESIDENCY. TO MAKE TO FIND OUT YOUR PASTOR OF YOUR HISTORY IS SERIOUSLY SAYING RACISTS, NON AMERICAN THINGS. I HAVE COMPASION FOR BARACK AND HIS FAMILY HAVING THEIR PASTOR DISAPOINT THEM AND DOWN THEIR ASPIRATIONS... BUT I WILL BE BACK, KICKIN BUTT FOR HILLARY, AND THANKS TO THE REV, AMERICA!COMPASSION NOW. GET REAL COMIN' UP! DISCUSS AMONGST YOURSELVES!

As a true Democrat

MDRogers — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:47:05 EDT

First off, Yes, I am a Hillary Clinton supporter.

BUT...rest assured if she does not get on the ballot, I will have NO problem voting for Barrack Obama.

AND here's why.......The main objective to me, is getting the Republican's out of the White House. Hillary and Barrack's view's are not a major differnce, so all the folks here in the Democratic Party Builder site, should get along with one another, and do what is expected of us all......AND this is VOTE DEMOCRATIC !!

Wishing you ALL a Great Day, and may God Bless our Country

Good Judgement or Racism?

Big Steve777 — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:09:34 EDT

This issue of Rev. Wright & his devisive separtist
reverse racism rhetoric is very troubling!

Obama;Troops In Afghanistan Need Weapons/But Obama Is Absentee Chair Of Afghan. Committee In Senate/ What's Up?

Fyrefoxxe — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:10:51 EST

Obama is telling voters that our U.S. troops in Afghanistan are now forced to arm themselves with stolen Taliban weapons. That's outrageous!
But wait a minute, Sen. Obama is the chairman on the Senate committee on Afghanistan. Yet he has failed to attend even one committee meeting to make one "change!" Why?

Looks like he's just been too busy running for president to have time to waste keeping our troops in Afghanistan alive. The good Senator is clearly more interested in being president in taking care of our troops who are fighting and dying.

What does Sen. Obama do instead?

Sen. Obama smiles for the camera and shouts hollow slogans. Our troops remain forgotten, forced to go out among the Taliban fanatics to scrounge for the weapons. WEAPONS!!!

Is this the sort of "change" we can expect, the "Change we can believe in." Funny, I've been writing posts and letters to our folks in Congress for years on this subject, our troops going without even decent weapons.

Yet Obama has been in a position for 14 MONTHS to do something to "change" this travesty, maybe even save some of our troops lives. That would be a real change we could believe in. But all we got, all the troops got, was slogans.

How can we trust this guy? He has broken his word to the Illinois voters who put him in the Senate, after promising them he would serve his full six years, then, ut oh, being too eager to run for president to keep his word. Kinda a theme forming here.

He has also broken promises regarding funding for his campaign, yet refuses to fully reveal his numbers and sources.

Most importantly, the promise/duty he took on when he chose to become the Chairman of the Afghanistan Committee as well. So, why did he ever take on this chairmanship? Some sort of status thing?

If I'd done this, I'd be too ashamed to show my face, even less go out and face the American people and make more promises. How can we trust this man? He has made too many promises he hasn't kept in too short a carreer.

How can anyone do that, ignore our troops dying on the battle fields, leave them to scrounge for weapons when they are defending us from the Taliban, al Qeada, Bin Laden? Yet he says we should be fighting in Afghanistan! Talk about touble talk.

Now this incredibly ambitous man is trying to use his own failures to further his ambitions, actually complaining about the lack of weapons in Afghanistan.

Does he think folks wouldn't notice this hypocrisy? Has he no conscience at all?

It's no wonder that so many highly placed Flag Officers, many of whom retired, or left the Pentagon after trying to keep our focus on the Taliban and getting al Qeada and Bin Laden. Nearly thirty Flag Officers have thrown their full support behind Hillary Clinton.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27133

IMO, Sen. Obama has lost any "moral authority" he may have seemed to have by being "too busy" to provide our troops in Afghanistan with the weapons they need. Honestly, couldn't he have spared a couple of days for the troops? How ambitious is this guy? It's unnerving. IMO, the only "change" this guy is interested in is his becoming president.

Then what?

Why Are Americans Allowing Media To Steal Our Democracy?

Fyrefoxxe — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:51:51 EST

Hey, Texas! Ohio! All you other expendable states out there who didn't get a vote yet. Aren't you folks the lucky ones?

Just when you thought your input might be of some importance in choosing the next president of The United States Of America, we all get to see that your opinion and votes aren't even needed, or wanted, by the national media. It's all been decided already. In The GOP, McCain will just walk into the nomination, with the media refusing to waste it's 24/7 time even discussing Huckabee or Ron Paul.

The equally lucky Democrats are also getting this kind of "service" from our omnipotent media.

Now, before even the second Super Tuesday voters have had their say, the media has proclaimed that Obama will be the Democrat's nomimee. No need for the silly input of some of our nation's largest states, or of the rest of the states still holding roughly half the voter's delegates without having been given a chance to vote.
What a glorious age we now live in when the voters of America are no longer even needed to make the decisions about who will be running this country, who will be making the decisions that effect so many aspects of our lives.

We, the voters, have become obsolete in today's "Media Democracy." The over-payed, often somewhat demented, glib and more often than not, sadly empty talking heads wil decide, not unlike the Wizard of Oz image, shouting over any who might disagree.

Just like that "wizard" behind the curtain, those godlings of the media are ready and willing to just take right over the entire selection process.

So just sit back, forget everything you ever believed about Democracy in America, and accept the inevitable. And as Frank Zapa warned in "Media Slime," don't run for help, no one will heed you.

Relax and accept it. Think of the bright side. No need to even bother going to the polls now days, take the time, waste that gas, find transportation.

No! Just stay home and watch some "reality" TV or silently listen to more pundits explain why everything went just as they explained it would.

Regardless of who might have been chosen by the near half of the nation that hasn't spoken yet, it's over for all and good, or so we are told.

Even the votes of our biggest states, like Texas and Ohio, are now null and void. Turn on any news show, the pundits will explain it all.

Maybe we should all send emails thanking the media pundits for having taken this troublesome chore upon themselves, saving us mere average Americans the effort of actually having to look at and consider the issues and the candidates for ourselves. We might really screw things up, leave them looking less like the dictators of American will they clamor to be.

In fact, this is such a fantastic idea, I think that maybe we need to just rewrite the whole US Constitution and let the news media just pick all our leaders from now on. We can just save our voting rights for something deemed more suitable for us, like "American Idol."

Maybe they will even allow us to sign a petition or two before taking this awful process of democracy out of our already over-worked hands and off our over-taxed minds, or go shopping and save the nation.

Here's to the new boss . . . .
Not quite same as the old boss. Us, the consumer units.

Farewell Democracy, welcome Pundit Idiocracy.

ENOUGH Re; "Unstable Woman" Stereotype Used Against Sen. Clinton, By "Unbiased Media"

Fyrefoxxe — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:20:24 EST

Once again, rank sexism is A-OK in this campaign, but don't even whisper that you don't like Obama, or you're sure to be called a racist. Isn't it great how this campaign is about the important national issues, as opposed to stupid stereotypes?

This stereotype, BTW, hurts African American women as well as other women. In fact, it hurts black women even more than white women, because they have the double whammy of sexism and racism to battle. They need to step up and denounce this whole media hype. As should Sen. Obama, if he is indeed for true change.

By the way, are the males who dominate the media claiming that Sen. Obama, John McCain, or any other male candidate, hasn't shown the entire range of emotions during this long campaign?

Clearly. Instead of following the issues, they sit back, wide eyed, and ask, "Why, oh why, was Sen. Clinton so angry with Sen. Obama?" Why, when just a day or so after she had shook his hand at the debate and stated that she was honored to be there with hom. Like a classy candidate might?

Could it possibly be that Hillary is angry about the lie riddled Ohio mailings, that little smear campaign that took place immediately after the debates were over? The lie filled mailing Obama's camp sent out right after all the making nice by smiling, kindly Sen. Obama at the last debate. Which no doubt further proves his stabililty.

Is it the position of the media that a male candidate wouldn't be angry and come back fighting for his issues and the truth re; same if he was attacked in this manner?

Remember how he even helped her with her chair. This "gentleman," who has nothing to offer voters than a chant of "change" without substance, and smear campaigns.

If he were really interested in change, he would be decrying this sort of sexist, "Unstable woman" slop instead of sitting back silently reaping the rewards of his two-faced persona.

Hey, does being two faced make him a "multiple personality?" Or are males immune from such charges? Ya think?

How about Obama's snarling attacks during the early debates, follwed by his "I'm almost a saint" stump speeches afterward?

Hardly "stable" IMO. Is he a nice guy or a tough debater? Or is it possible that males can be both? But women can't?

Or his pouting and turning his back on Clinton when she went and shook Ted Kennedy's hand the day after Ted threw his support behind Obama? Does pouting suggest a "stable" personality in males?

Then he was all but in her arms and grinning from ear to ear at the debate following that pouting episode. No "instability" or "mood swings" there.

Of course not, everyone knows that only women are emotionally unstable, especially if they actually stop being "good girls" and taking endless abuse and dirty political attacks from all directions, and fight back. How dare she get angry!

This silence in the face of such blantant sexism while shanting "change, change, change" fits right in with the Obama I have come to know in my hours of investigation on the internet.

Just as many people have questioned if Hillary is the "right" woman to be our first female president, we have the right to ask if Sen. Obama is the right first African-American president. Or could he hurt the cause of African Americns in politics once his full record is disclosed.

For example, did you know that, regarding even national government, Obama only has three years experience in the US Senate. Why?

Because, although he promised the people who elected him to be Sen. of Illinois that he would serve his full six year term as Sen. of that state, and not rush off to run for president, he broke his word to the people who elected him and did exactly that.

Another show of Sen. Obama's "stability?"

Hardly. Some might even call that being untruthful. Breaking one's word. But Sen. Obama is above reproach, or you're a racist.

What a crock this entire biased campaign coverage is.

IF getting angry when attacked by political opponents is proof that a candidate is unstable, then Sen. Obama should be nominated for some sort of "Ultra-Unstable Candidate" award. I have never before seen a candidate get away with so much by pulling the "indignanat, hurt feelings" routine.

Obama shows alarming instability, IMO, by running for president of the United States, the most powerful position on the planet, with three years of experience in national politics, no experience at all in international politics, and who is a man who obviously feels no need to keep his word to those who elect him once he takes office.

I feel confident this proves Sen. Obama's "instability." Yes, very confidence inspiring stuff that.

But let's get real here, again, Sen. Obama is above reproach. Or he might get upset.

Like he did when asked about his drug history. Gee, would anyone dare say that Obama becoming angry when questioned about his coacaine habit, that might mean he had "mood swings" or "mutlipule personalities?
No, he's a guy!

Why is Sen. Obama the only presidential candidate in American history who is given this sort of pass when it comes to something as important as cocaine, possibly the most addictive drug going?

Not to mention a drug known to cause extreme mood swings. Yet it's the woman candidate whose "stability" that is being questioned. I know cocaine addicts, and they always relapse at some point, usually when they are under extreme pressure. The job of president of the US is extremely stressful. A history of cocaine abuse is a very legitamite concern for voters.

But no way are we allowed to question the very "Stable" Sen. Obama about his cocaine use. He gets angry. Even whines that it's dirty politics.

I don't think Rove and the GOP will tend to agree, but by then, Obama may just be locked in as our nominee, and take the entire party, and nation, down with him.

Again, enough of this BS.
What sort of double standard is this? The male can be a self professed drug abuser, and cry dirty politics when the issue is raised. Then when the woman is in fact smeared by the same male candidate, and she dares to get angry, and she is the "unstable" one?

How many women out there haven't been called "unstable" when they get angry, no matter how justly? Or how about that "Is it that time of the month?" remark we hear everytime we don't play the nice girls and suffer every unkind or demeaning insult in "feminine" silence? How angry does that make you? How angry does it make men when the women they love are treated in this demeaning manner?

Who would have thought that we would still have to be dealing with this dispicable level of open sexism in the media in 2008? How truly, pathetically desperate is this sort of attack on a woman candidate? Shame on the media. Shame on Sen. Obama for allowing it to go on without condemning it.

Hillary Clinton's Life Threatened By Terrorists Due To False Media Reports, Will They Retract?

Fyrefoxxe — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:03:27 EST

Terrorist Are Now Making Death Threats Against Hillary Clinton, Based On False Claims She Was Responsible For Obama Turban Photo.

QUOTE;
Al Hesbah is one of al Qaeda’s main cyber mouthpieces. It has been cited numerous times by name in official communiqués issued by bin Laden’s terror network, been featured in propaganda films produced on behalf of mujahideen organizations, including al Qaeda.
Its message boards offer key insights into the mindset of al Qaeda supporters and its collective knowledge base. So those who follow al Qaeda took notice this week when members of the mujahideen took notice of the image of Barack Obama dressed as a Somali elder on the Drudge Report. Evan Kohlmann of Global Terror Alert, and an NBC News terrorism analyst, was among those who watched as the Al Hesbah message board lit up. Al Qaeda sympathizers cited the image as evidence that American political leaders, particularly Hillary Clinton, want to portray Islam as a political negative.

Robert Windrem, NBC, 2-28-2008

Enough. It's one thing for the news media to be so openly biased in favor of Sen. Obama. BTW, This bias has been shown to be not just a complaint from Sen. Clinton's supporters.

Dan Abrams, on his show on MSNBC, did a study that showed that the media made a far higher percentage of negative comments about Sen. Clinton than about Sen. Obama.

Here is clear evidence that the news media has been biased against Sen. Clinton, and yet the rest of the media has ignored it. They only seem interested in covering their backsides, and allow dangerous, false impressions to continue without comment.

That Abrams show was clear enough regarding the bias of coverage of this race, but in showing this level of irresposnsibilty, by leaping on the false accusation that Sen. Clinton's campaign was responsible for the distribution of the recent photo of Obama wearing a turban, the media has now put her very life in danger.

How can Sen. Clinton stand a chance of winning this campaign in the face of this sort of sloppy, biased coverage? Coverage that carelessly puts her very life in danger, then refuses to take responsiblie action for their mistakes.

The not so sophisticated, to put it mildly, terrorists from al Queda and other terrorist groups have been calling for Sen. Clinton's death due to this stupid media blunder. What sort of people remain silent in the face of these death threats to Sen. Clinton, when they helped bring them on.

The recent murder of Benizar Bhutto, who was assassinated on 12-27-07 in Pakistan by terrorists, shows that these lunatics have no qualms about killing a woman. Now Sen. Clinton's life has also been placed in great danger. For what? A high rating for these news shows?

Doesn't the news media have some responsiblity to report the truth here? Don't they have the responsibilty to make it clear that they were inaccurate in their overly eager leap to declare Sen. Clinton responsible for the photo that has incited terrorist to call for Sen. Clinton's death?

They certainly seem ready and able to assign, wrongly, respnsiblity to others.

It seems only fair that the media take responsibilty for their mistakes. Shouldn't every news program who reported that Sen. Clinton was responsible for this photo make a very public retraction? Perhaps even make some apologies?

Fair is fair and right is right, regardless of whether or not the media likes Sen. Clinton, they owe her accurate coverage. They owe her a profound apology as well, IMO.

It also would be nice if they could make an effort to cover this entire campaign more fairly, at the very least. Let's see if the news media can be responsible and unbiased, for a change. Let's see if these people are big enough to admit when they make a mistake.
Also, since Sen. Obama has run his entire campaign on the slogan of "change" in how politics are conducted in this country, wouldn't speaking out against this sort of unfair media bias and dangerous inaccuracies, and actually helping his opponent possibly stave off a terrorist attack, which may take out more than just Sen. Clinton, be the right thing for him to do to? Show us real change?

Somehow, I wouldn't count on that happening.

You can look up Dan Abrams transcripts for his program re; anti-Clinton bias in campaign coverage on 2-27-'08 at the MCNBC site. Kudos to Dan Abrams for being fair. He's pretty much all alone in that, which shows courage and integrity.

Pragmatic Realism vs. Idealism!

Big Steve777 — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:06:37 EST

The Ivy League Law School one attends, as well as their personal wealth & standing in the community is equal among
these elitist. Yale, Harvard it's all the same! Millions or tens of millions again dosen't matter for gov. service...
They both have outstanding pedigrees, but waht separates
them....

More On The Old Double Standard Towards Women, Hard At Work In This Campaign

Fyrefoxxe — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:34:16 EST

Double Standard For Women In Politics Continued.
Re; the Ohio mailings smear campaign, after all the making nice by Sen. Obama at the last debate. Remember how he even helped her with her chair. Now it seems this was only so her back would be more exposed to his political attacks. This gentleman, who has nothing to offer voters than a chant of "change" without substance and smear campaigns.

This fits right in with the Obama I have come to know in my hours of investigation on the internet.
Just as many people have questioned if Hillary is the "right" woman to be our first female president, we have the right to
ask if Sen. Obama is the right first African-American president. Or could he hurt the cause of African Americns in politics once his full record is disclosed.

For example, did you know that, regarding even national government, Obama only has three years experience in the US Senate. Why?

Because, although he promised the people who elected him to be Sen. of Illinois that he would serve his full six year term as Sen. of that state, and not rush off to run for president, he broke his word to the people who elected him and did exactly that.

Some might call that being untruthful. Breaking one's word. Why is Sen. Obama above reproach for something that would wreck any other candidate.

So, we now have a candidate running for president of the United States, the most powerful position on the planet, with all of three years of experience in national politics, no experience in international politics, and who is a man who obviously feels no need whatsoever to keep his word to those who elect him once he takes office. Not a real promising record, IMO.

Not someone who has earned voter's trust.
But let's get real here, again, Sen. Obama is above reproach. Or he might get upset. Like he did when asked about his drug history.

Why is Sen. Obama the only presidential candidate in American history who is given this sort of pass when it comes to something as important as cocaine, possibly the most addictive drug going? I know cocaine addicts, and they always relapse at some point, usually when they are under extreme pressure. The job of president of the US is extremely stressful. But we aren't allowed to question Sen. Obama about even this. He gets angry and says that is dirty politics. I don't think Rove and the GOP will tend to agree, but by then, Obama may just be locked in as our nominee, and take the entire party, and nation, down with him.

What sort of double standard is this? The male can be a self professed drug abuser, and cry dirty politics when the issue is raised. Then when the woman is in fact smeared by the same male candidate, and she dares to get angry, and she is the "unstable" one?

And the Progressive Democrats cheer this sort of thing on? Why?

It's just plain too awful to even consider that Progressives are intentionally allowing the unfair bashing of a woman candidate, the first woman candidate for president who made it past even one primary in the history of American politics.

That Progressives just don't care about injustice toward women anymore. It's "out of style?" "Unimportant?"

It's too painful to believe that the young women who have slipped so easily into the education oppurtunities, and the jobs the women of my generation fought for decades to open up to them, have completely forgotten our struggles, and taken us and their gains for granted. You got yours, to blazes with us? Can that be true?

Then people wonder why older women who support Hillary are angry when we see these same old stereotypes being used again to keep a woman from reaching the ultimate goal? Is it really so hard to understand? And if not Sen. Clinton, just who do the folks bashing Hillary think will be able to make the same sort of challenge to the powers that be anytime in the foreseeable future?
I sure can't think of many, though the GOP has offered up Condi Rice?

People, please, open your eyes and see the bias and terrible double standard Sen. Clinton faces in this election, before it's too late. Ignore the "Liberal Media." Ignore the smoke and mirrors, and take a long, hard look at the issues, and the candidates true stands on them, including who has in fact supported what, and for how long.

Example, Obama stated he supported NAFTA in 2000. Hillary stated that NAFTA was broken and needed to be fixed, also in the year 2000. Just one aspect of the distortions being used to bash Sen. Clinton in this campaign. There are many more.

Don't vote based on emotion, vote based on the facts alone. You could take a look at my post about the Ohio Smear mailings posted 2-25-08 to begin with. I spent a lot of time researching this post. You can just scan the listed, numbered passages and get a lot of info.

This election is just far too important to be decided on any basis but facts. The facts are in Hillary's favor. Sen. Obama is not a man of his word, has not been one since he was first elected to the US Senate. Does anyone believe he will suddenly change, even if it is his slogan?

Sen. Clinton has been the most stable and consistant candidate in this race. Don't allow the media to distort facts to fill their "empty air" problems. And remember who it is that owns these big news media programs, and that history shows the power they have to distort the issues.

Lastly, don't forget that women have had to battle the oppression of the double standard in regards to every aspect of their behavior throughout history. Let's make history by ignoring these ridiculous double standards. It's time. It's past time.

Obama Is Weak On Integrity Issues & Turban Photo Came From Right Wing Drudge Report, Not Supporter of Sen. Clinton

Fyrefoxxe — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:46:05 EST

Re; the "Drudge Report" photo of Obama dressed in a Muslim garb. People are quick to blame Sen. Clinton for this photo appearing in the media, but this is an old photo. If Hillary did this, why did she wait until now when she could have used this photo weeks ago to slow her primary losses, and why did it appear on the Drudge Report? Not exactly a bastion of Progressive thought.

Just as the McCain "sex scandal" was "knee-jerk" blamed on "Evil Liberals," yet brought around right wing support and McCain's best funding campiagn in this race, this photo is quickly being blamed on Sen. Clinton.
This works out so very well for Sen. McCain, while hurting both Democrats.

Before blaming Sen. Clinton, it might be a good idea to consider that Sen. Obama has been getting a lot of support from independents, moderates and even Republicans.

McCain, and his new best buddy, Rove, want those votes, and know that these are the voters who are most likely to reject Obama if they suspect that he is a "closet Muslim," since many are more conservative.

The GOP spin machine knows that many Obama supporters will respond by getting angry with Hillary, without taking the time to consider who else might have done this and why. Even though it appeared on the right wing "Drudge Report." The right thrives on emotional responses. Depends on them.

More important though, is the growing integrity issue regarding Obama.

Sen. Obama has stated that he converted to Christianity at twenty-one. That leaves a lot of years unaccounted for. That is why a photo like the one showing Obama sporting a turban is so damaging to him. The time has come for Sen. Obama to give more than vaugue answers on this question, and others.

That's because, as people are taking a closer look at Obama, many other questions regarding his integrity have arisen.

Integrity Issues;

1. Obama began his campaign by breaking a his word to the people of Illinois, who had elected him to be Senator.

When asked, he promised that he would serve out the entire six years of his Senate term, and not leave early to run for president.
Then he did exactly what he had promised Illinois voters he wouldn't do. He failed to keep his promise to the people who first put him into office in Illinois. This does not show great integrity.

2. Independents have joined in questioning Obama's integrity after Obama sent the two "Harry and Louise" ads to Ohio voters. Here is one quote.

"When I say that Obama is demagoguing universal health care, this sort of campaign literature is what I'm talking about. For contrast -- or more accurately, to see how little contrast there really is --"

Ezra Klein
The American Prospect, February 1, 2008

http://blog.prospect.org/mt-tb.cgi/67396

Also . .

“Sorry, but this is just destructive â€" like the Obama plan, the Clinton plan offers subsidies to lower-income families. And BO himself has conceded that he might have to penalize people who don’t buy insurance until they need care. So this is just poisoning the well for health care reform. The politics of hope, indeed…I know that Obama supporters want to hear no evil, but this is really, really bad.”

Paul Krugman, New York Times, 2/1/08

3. Obama has been proven to have made false claims about Hillary's support for NAFTA.
Sen. Obama sent out mailers claiming Sen. Clinton said NAFTA was a "boon to the economy." The University of Pennsylvania's FactCheck.org has stated . . .

"We do judge that the Obama campaign is wrong to quote Clinton as using words she never uttered, and it has produced little evidence that she ever had strong praise of any sort for NAFTA's economic benefits."

Words she never uttered. This does not demonstrate integrity.

Here is what Hillary actually said in 2000.

What happened to NAFTA I think was we inherited an agreement that we didn’t get everything we should have got out of it in my opinion. I think the NAFTA agreement was flawed. The problem is we have to go back and figure out how we are going to fix that.
Hillary Clinton 3/26/00

And, it would seem that Sen. Obama has forgotten that, also in 2000, he said that he thought the US had "benefitted enormously" from exports under NAFTA, and the US should pursue trade agreements like NAFTA, which Obama, said support "a system of free trade in this nation that allows us to move our products overseas."

Yet Sen. Obama claims that he has been consistant in his opposition to NAFTA. Where's the integrity?

4. Back to the nation's number one concern. Health care for all. Sen. Obama has stated that we do not have sufficient subsidies to make health care available to everyone. Here's a quote from the Wall Street Journal that disputes Sen. Obama's claim.

"That view may not be true. Ken Thorpe, a health-policy expert at Emory University who has advised all three major Democrats, said he ran cost estimates for the Clinton plan at the Clinton campaign's request, and found there should be enough money to make insurance affordable for all."

Wall Street Journal, 12/5/07

Also, according to the Wall Street Journal, Sen. Clinton's plan in fact has more subsides than Sen. Obama's plan does.

"Outside experts note that the Clinton and Obama plans propose spending about the same amount of money, while Mr. Obama uses some of his to pay for the reinsurance plan -- an initiative that could cost tens of billions of dollars. That should help lower premiums across the board, but it means there would be less available for direct subsidies."
Wall Street Journal, 12/5/07

These are just a few of the integrity issues the Obama campaign will be having to explain to voters.

Facts and figures may not be as exciting as emotional speeches, but they will matter far more in the long haul. I hope that people will take the time to consider that this is just the tip of the ice berg for Sen. Obama, who remains relatively unknown to most American voters, and this is a very troublesome weakness. Especially when paired with contradictions in policy like the ones mentioned above.

This election is just far too important to be decided on the basis of emotional reponse to a great speaker. The right, led by Rove, will not hesitate to hit Sen. Obama with every inconsistancy to muddy the water, just as they did in the last election, which somehow ended up being about Viet Nam, a war that ended decades ago.

We the American people have every right to demand that all candidates, including Sen. Obama, give straight and consistant answers to all of our questions before they asks for our vote. We have to be certain that they can stand up to the GOP.

Sen. Clinton has been repeatedly tried by fire, and shown repeatedly that she can stand up to the GOP and all it's dirty tactics. She is by far the stronger, more experienced, more straight forward candidate.

It's time we step back and take a very close look at all the issues, and at who has shown true backbone over the years, and most importantly, at which candidate will be most able to defeat the GOP in November. IMO, that candidate is Senator Hillary Clinton.

Nader can only hurt democrats

Moose — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:22:33 EST

Earlier today, Ralph Nader again tossed in his name for the 2008 Presidential race.

It is very clear that he has a slim chance to even get 3% of the popular vote, but how many votes will he take from the democratic party come November?

In 2000, the states of New Mexico and New Hampshire both went to Gov. Bush by a very slim margain.
Naders votes would have been enough for Vice-President Gore to get at least one of those states and thus get the necessary electoral votes to take the White House.

Personally, I don't know why Nader continues to run for President. He has failed how many times, but insists that anybody but Bush should be President.

If this is true, he should do Democrats a favor, and not run for President.
My thought is that some kids not at all interested in politics that just turn 18 all tell each other, "yeah lets vote for NADER!" and their votes are wasted.

After hearing the news of Naders bid, only the RNC and the GOPee must be happy to hear that he will take votes away from their rivals.

I hope that you spread the message around and say that whoever votes for Nader, is indirectly voting for McCain and this is not what America wants = a Bush 3rd Term.

Who Is Behind McCain "Story?" Karl Rove, Rounding Up The Right The Right

Fyrefoxxe — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:04:22 EST

I have yet to hear one talking head in the media even begin to suspect that the master of political manipulations, the omnipresent "man behind the GOP curtain," Karl Rove, might have had something to do with this whole ludicrous McCain affair debacle.
A story fed to the NY Times, by a "former" McCain staffer, that was so weak it imploded the same day it hit the media.
But why do I think Rove did it? It's classic Rove tactics, that's why.

Have folks forgetten just how slippery this guy, Rove, is. Remember the "forged documents," that seemed to prove that Bush had tried to cover up ugly things about his stint in the National Guard?

The forged documents that ended the long, distinguished carrer of Dan Rather. The forged documents which were in fact forged-forged documents, given to Rather by none other than the Rove machine. Rather ran with the story and fell right into Rove's trap. Bush came out looking like the victim, abused by the "Liberal Media."

Well, everything old is new again folks.

Yeah, I can already hear the cries of conspiracy theorist. But in my opinion, anyone who doesn't believe that conspiracies happen in the world of politics is naive, to put it nicely.

I am convinced that Rove is at his games again now. I'll state my case.

McCain invites Rove onboard his campaign.
Obama's "above reproach" status ends suddenly, due to somewhat( in politics anyway )old remarks by his wife regarding her not having proud of her country until this campaign. Why is this suddenly a big issue?

Then we got the ( again, old ) photo of Obama and other candidates, with only Obama failing to have placed his hand over his heart. Where was this photo til now? Again, classic Rove stuff.

Rove had nothing to lose by bashing on Obama, something that almost no one has had the guts to do during this entire campaign. Most Obama Democrats would blame Clinton, so it would likely hurt her, and Obama would suffer too. Score for the GOP.

Then, just as the Obama slams were getting legs, we are suddenly given the full "OOOH AHHHH!" sort of political scandal. The kind that is certain to get everyone's attention.

Obama is hurt just enough to put some doubts in more conservative/independent voters that might swing toward McCain. I promise, this sort of manipulation is just the beginning of what we Democrats have to look forward to for the rest of this campaign.

The real mad method of Rove was to gain right wing sympathy for McCain and to rile up the rightous rage of the right against those lousey Democrats for having put this ludicrous smear against poor old John McCain. Abused by the "Evil Liberal Media!!!" Again!

This story was so weak it was a joke before the end of the day, except to the right wingers, who have suddenly remembered that they actually don't hate John McCain as much as they have been screaming they do for the last couple of months.
Now they may not even vote for Hillary! LOL. As if.

When detectives want to solve a crime, they usually just follow who would most benefit from the crime, which this stupid McCain "affair" was, on too many levels to list.

It's clear to me that the only ones who benefited from this crime were,

1. McCain. Poor, poor John, who now has the far right howling about this ghastly mistreatment, and, oh yeah, now supporting his campiagn, just a small aside there.
and . . .

2. To a much smaller degree, Obama, who though he was slightly damamged, was quickly "saved," so far, by the far bigger "Attack of the Evil Liberals" McCain story.
Now, ask youself why he is attacking Obama before the nomination is a done deal? If they want to run aginst Obama, shouldn't they be attacking Hillary?

No, they only want to seem to want to take down Obama now, and hope they can lay the blame at Hillary's feet.

So, the "un-patriotic" thing is forgotten for the moment, but left hanging there for future use, if needed.

And believe me, Rove will definately make use of these "unpatriotic Obama" items. This is only our first glimpse of what Obama will have to face if the Democrats make him our nominee.

I make no bones about the fact that I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton, and this whole media smear attack thing is a perfect example of one of the reasons why.

I have seen Hillary stand against the smear campaigns of Rove for almost two decades now. She is more than tough enough.

Remember. She has been investigated for every possible wrong-doing the right wingers could conjure up in their warped minds. And she has proven, again and again, that she can take whatever the Rove/GOP smear machines can dish out. She has more than enough experience with these people.

Obama is running too soon. He has good intentions, but I am sincerely afraid he will be taken down by the Rove folks and take the party, and the nation, down with him. These people have no scruples when it comes to winning a campaign. None. We don't need an inexperienced candidate, not in an election this important, but one that already promises to be so ruthless.

Obama didn't even finish his first National Senate term. I really have doubts that someone who can only boast three years experience in the hardball political world of national politics will be able to deal with a slithering snake like Rove.

So, I've made my case, bash away if you like, I've been around far too long to much care about personal attacks.

Or, you could consider the possiblilty that I am onto something here, even if you do disagree with me as to who our nominee should be.

Consider that, in just two days, the entire political world is all worked up, confused, howling to high heaven, and McCain is the one who is coming out the biggest winner in this, although he seemed to be the "victim." Geez, even Rush has fallen in love with McCain. Rove's finger prints are all over this one, and it's working.

Nuff said. On with the show.

gender-bias

Big Steve777 — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:53:18 EST

Men aren't voting for the most qualified, most experienced
canidate & they probally won't, but what has happened to you ladies out their? I thought that you surely would have
a little more sense than us.....