McCain: Obama 'Absolutely' Qualified to Be President

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said Sunday that the leader for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, would be "absolutely" qualified to be president, should the voters elect him. But, he said, "I believe that my talent and my background and my experience, which has led to my judgment, ... qualifies me more."

In his first Sunday talk show appearance since locking up the GOP nomination last month, McCain criticized Obama and others for making too much of his comment that the United States could remain in Iraq for 100 years, or a period similar to the length of the U.S. presence in Germany and South Korea.

"Senator Obama and anyone who reads that [comment] knows that I didn't think we were in a 100-year war," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

Days after going to Memphis to mark the 40th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination, McCain repeated that he "was wrong" to vote in 1983 against establishing a federal holiday to honor King. He added, as he did Friday, that he thought better of his mistake in time to back such a holiday in his home state of Arizona.

McCain also confirmed that he would meet next week with Secret Service officials next week and expects to have agents protecting him "shortly thereafter." McCain previously had refused such protection.

Appearing after McCain on Fox, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), an Obama supporter, was pressed about his consideration in 2004, when he ran for president, of McCain as a running mate or secretary of defense.

"Let me be very clear about John McCain in 2004," Kerry said. "John McCain in 2004 ... had opposed the Bush tax cuts, ... had indicated at that point in time a very different attitude on any number of subjects, from global climate change to how you treat the powerful in Washington. Nomination John McCain is a different person. He is now supporting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans."

Kerry and Fox host Chris Wallace got into a bit of a spat after Wallace asked Kerry if he believes McCain is a "blatant opportunist," as Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean described him late last month.

Kerry said he would not use those words but added, "John McCain has taken positions in the course of trying to win the Republican nomination - whether it's the reversal and flip-flop on the intolerant, with respect to Jerry Falwell and others, or whether it is the Bush tax cuts' flip-flop, or whether it is this flip-flop now on the issue of Iraq, or whether it is, you know, global climate change, where he has not yet signed on to Joe Lieberman and John Warner's bill. There is a clear indication of a Nomination John McCain versus the Senator John McCain."

Wallace asked, "Do you think John McCain was an opportunist when he refused to take early release from a North Vietnamese prison camp because he was the son of an admiral, because he said he was going to stay there for years, as long as all the other Americans did?"

"Chris, please. I think you almost insult my intelligence and my values and those of every American. Nobody ever would insinuate that John McCain is anything but a hero for his activities in the prison camp," Kerry said.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of McCain's closest supporters on the war, was not warm to the idea of Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus as McCain's running mate.

"I have talked to General Petraeus about a lot of things, but not about politics. The best thing for General Petraeus is to stay exactly where he is," he said on ABC's "This Week."

Pa. Governor: Expect a Close Vote on April 22

Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell (D), a strong supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), downplayed the chance of her scoring an overwhelming victory in his state's Democratic primary on April 22.

"Anytime you're outspent three-to-one, you can't be overconfident," Rendell said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "She has some great advantages. ... I'm saying we will win this state, but we will win it somewhere between five and 10 percentage points."

Rendell's Pennsylvania colleague, Sen. Bob Casey Jr., who recently endorsed Obama, acknowledged on the same show that "it's going to be tough in the primary" for his candidate. But he said Obama's areas of strength in Pennsylvania - in small towns - "will lay a foundation for the fall" general election campaign.

Rendell argued that Clinton's likely victory in Pennsylvania and other big states augurs well for her winning those states in the fall. "She's running way ahead of [Sen. John] McCain" in those states, she said.

Casey retorted, however, that "you cannot predict a general election based on a primary," adding, "I think Senator Obama has the ability to get votes Democrats have not gotten before," including from Republicans and independents.

Dean wants compromise

Democratic Party chairman Dean, who was on ABC and CBS's "Face the Nation," shot down the hopes of both the Clinton and Obama campaigns when it comes to making the votes in Florida and Michigan count.

Barring a reprieve from the DNC, those states' delegates will not be seated at the Democratic convention in Denver because the states held their primaries in violation of the committee's timeline.

"Yes, we want them to be seated in some way. They obviously can't be seated as-is, which is what one campaign is saying. And they're certainly not going to be excluded, which is what the other campaign is saying," Dean said.

He added, without elaboration, "But there is a reasonable, thoughtful way to do this."

Dean said the Florida and Michigan "elections were flawed. There's no question about that, particularly in Michigan, where there was only one candidate on the ballot." But he said, "That wasn't the voters' fault. And the voters ought to have some say."

Dean said it is important for the party to quickly come together after voting is concluded to back a nominee.

"The only thing that can beat us is disunity in the Democratic Party," he said. "The one thing that can make Senator McCain president is if Democrats can't agree, and it's my job to try to keep them together."

By Post Editor |  April 6, 2008; 2:02 PM ET
Previous: Rendell Says Unifying the Country Is Not Enough | Next: U.S. Is Out of the Fight in Half of Iraq, Gates Says

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Funnie how in 2000 Fox trashed McCain and now he is their American hero a-la-carte.

Posted by: FOX News & McCain | April 6, 2008 2:48 PM

experience in public office is overvalued. bush surrounded himself with very experienced hawks with decades in government, and their judgment was awful.

Posted by: e9999999 | April 6, 2008 2:48 PM

I don't think Obama is qualified to be president. He is supposed to be a problem solving super man. I watched him last week let a heckler follow him around for hours and
really get his goat. Anyone who would allow this to happen is no problem solver or show any, I mean any, leadership skills. My goodness, how could this happen? What a bonehead.

Posted by: Chief | April 6, 2008 2:56 PM

Forget it mccain, go home. The planet does not need your way-too-old warmongering a_s in the White House. If the despicably evil "w"/DICKY regime doesn't beat you to it, you will probably have us in Iran on your second day of office. I have no love for either of your possible opponents but with one of them there is the possibility of the troops coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Not another life or $ should be spent for you war nuts. Ken

Posted by: Ken | April 6, 2008 3:00 PM

McCain is a good and honorable man -- an American hero.

He will not be elected President because he has chosen to throw himself on the "live grenade" of the Bush legacy. That terrible legacy - now grown to the explosive size of a 500 lb bomb - will doom Mr. McCain's valient effort to a second place finish.

But, God love him, he is a worthy opponent and together with Barack Obama provides us are fair and distinct choice in November.

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | April 6, 2008 3:01 PM

So, Chief, you discount a candidate solely because of the way he handled somebody bugging him for a photograph? I hope you don't vote in November.

Posted by: Dan from Ohio | April 6, 2008 3:03 PM

Really, Chief, please stay home.

Posted by: Hope2008 | April 6, 2008 3:09 PM

Kerry is right, McCain of today is a far cry from the rational, bipartisan-minded leader of the past. It's sad to see him fall so far and take such horrendous positions. And Chris Wallace is a total joke, I can't believe he had the nerve to ask such an offensive, loaded question on air.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 3:10 PM

Juan McWar is the most qualified to bring the country to financial ruin.

Posted by: Dr Ward Ciac II | April 6, 2008 3:11 PM

McCain is being disingenuous about his "100 years" comment. Polls show the majority of Iraqis are opposed to any U.S. military presence in Iraq. So he's talking about a permanent deployment of U.S. troops in a country where, unlike South Korea or West Germany, most of the population is openly hostile to them. That sounds like a formula for a 100-year insurgency, which means many more American lives will be lost.

Posted by: pjkiger1 | April 6, 2008 3:11 PM

Why would anyone vote for someone who voted for, supported, or thought the Iraq war was a good idea.

Let me make it easier.

How dumb are you?

We already have an ignoramus as President when it comes to understanding the world we live in.

We don't need another.

Posted by: Langx | April 6, 2008 3:11 PM

It's sad when even one's potential opponent (McCain) can acknowledge you're qualified and your primary contender (Clinton) cannot.

As an aside, had no idea that McCain has flip-flopped on so many issues. The MLK one is the saddest. Wonder what on earth his rationale could have been for opposing an MLK national holiday?

Posted by: Karen | April 6, 2008 3:13 PM

Bush was exposed as a liar and a dick. The right supported him wholeheartedly through his worst decisions, and had a change of heart only in response to clear public condemnation of Bush and his policies. Their new attempt to distance themselves rings hollow. It wasn't long ago that the Republicans ran the federal government, every branch, and they were abusively gleeful and foolish. Look at the headlines from, say 2004 or 2005, and ask yourself why anyone should trust anything they have to say now. I always supposed the right, whatever their public pitch, always came down on the side of elitism and greed, couldn't give a damn about the common good. Though it's interesting to see them so hypocritical, so much for the courage of their convictions, or any real display of strength.

Posted by: right spin | April 6, 2008 3:14 PM

What a terrible example "seasoned" politicians are setting for our youth.
Ten steps to shame.
One: There was a general consensus that there are DNC rules to be followed to avoid that states, during primaries, move dates around to position themselves at their whim.
Two: States were warned and two basically flipped the DNC off.
Three: Other states that had their placement tied into their own rules had to then move around their own primaries as a result of Two.
Four: The candidates were asked to sign a pledge. They did.
Five: Sen. Clinton remarks: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"
Six: Sen. Clinton now needs the votes.
Seven: Clinton now reneges on her pledge and starts demanding that the vote count.
Eight: Dean who has unfairly been made the scapegoat, now backs off and wants a compromise/
Nine: All the other states, who would have liked to choose their own dates now realize that following the rules is only for chumps.
Ten: Those watching this fiasco including those new young members of our party watch and learn.
This tragedy of disenfranchising voters was not triggered by Dean and the DNC, it was triggered by the injudicious actions of the leaders of these states, and fueled by the one candidate whose signature on the pledge was not worth the paper it was written in.

Posted by: Elen | April 6, 2008 3:14 PM

Why would anyone vote for someone who voted for, supported, or thought the Iraq war was a good idea.

Let me make it easier.

How dumb are you?


Umm Chief. You want to answer this.
The reason you gave not to vote for Obama is pretty dumb.

Posted by: Dummies shouldn't vote. | April 6, 2008 3:14 PM

There is no doubt that Mccain is the most qualified person to be President. Then Hillary would be second and last Obuma. Mccain is only saying that Obuma is qualified to make the Black people happy. Obuma is not anything more than a Black racist who wants to be the "man". I have no idea how any White could vote for him..ever. Have you ever seen anything that Obuma has touched and not messed up.

Posted by: Jim King, Va | April 6, 2008 3:17 PM

Atten: Mr. Goldfarb. Re: Your column of 4-07--08. I am of the opinion that none of the three remaining candidates is qualified. It would be great if some one like Gov. Ed Rendell of Pa. was a candidate. He is really qualified, by experience, record and qualifications.
Regards: K.B. Smith

Posted by: K.B. Smith | April 6, 2008 3:18 PM

Wonder what on earth his rationale could have been for opposing an MLK national holiday?

Posted by: Karen

Republicans are racist.
Always were always will be.

Nothing has changed.
They just changed there names from the Dixiecrats to Social and Christian conservatives.

It was only 20 years ago they were known as
the party of Racists.

They tried to change there image by accepting Blacks into there ranks.

The ones they accepted would sell a ship of slaves in a second.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 3:18 PM

Hillary thinks Obama is not qualified to be President... McCain thinks Obama is "absolutely" qualified... something is horribly wrong with this picture.

Posted by: Blake | April 6, 2008 3:22 PM

Can anyone say Madame President?????

Posted by: Plain mary | April 6, 2008 3:22 PM

I do not like the policies of John McCain.
But there is a significant difference between him and George W. Bush. John McCain is a true gentleman. He has a lot of class. He says that Barack Obama is definitely qualified to be President. Hillary Clinton says the Barack Obama is not qualified to be president. That is really a shame, for a Democratic opponent to say something like that. John McCain has a lot of class. He refuses to stoop to ugly, negative attacks. And, although I would like to see Barack Obama be President, John McCain would be an improvement over what we have now. There is a feeling in this country that in less than a year we will be free again!

Posted by: Mark in SF | April 6, 2008 3:32 PM

A Comment about Sen Mc Cain

Sen McCain's seems to want voters to think that experience as a prisoner of war somehow makes him qualified or more entitled to be president. While he did his duty with honor, that experience does not equip him for the job. It simply raises serious questions about the effect long term torture has had on him. That war was also a disastrous choice and like minded persons chose to remain there in spite of reality. But when he talks about Viet Nam it is obvious he would have stayed.

His comfort with warring choices also makes me uncomfortable because it demonstrates he is out of touch with the majority of the country he wants to lead. Yes, he would be another war president, with a resume to show for it. Another war president when what the country clamors is for peace and a person that can make the choice for peace.

Posted by: I Irizarry | April 6, 2008 3:35 PM

The sad thing is, these terrible Internet stats aside, McCain is the most experienced and stately;

Obama vs Clinton vs McCain -
The Google Primary:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=76

Posted by: Dave | April 6, 2008 3:37 PM

pjkiger1,

your post makes no sense whatsoever. the whole Democratic strategy to divert attention from their blatant and dishonest distortion of john mccain's words by claiming that their real beef is with Mccain's choice of metaphor does not even pass the laugh test.

obviously, you could just as easily find a distinction b/t germany and korea and, if you wanted, use that as a reason to find fault with ANY attempt to compare the two situations on ANY grounds. it would be axiomatic.

mccain's point was obvious, and the "distinction" that you slickly try to use as a wedge does not change the fact that no american casualties in iraq is no different than no american casualties in korea or germany, which has been the case for 40+ years even though we've had tens of thousands american troops in those countries.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 3:37 PM

Senator McCain is an honorable man. He acknowledges that Obama would make a great President. Obama's Democratic "colleague" Hillary Clinton distorts Obama's and her historical record with her lies. She condemns Obama for his eloquence--"Just words." But Bill Clinton's speeches have earned the Clinton Dynasty over 50 million dollars, many of those millions from fat cat corporations whose lobbyists donate Hillary's campaign megabucks in exchange for her listening to their words. Hillary's books make her more multimillions--just words? Bill is paid even more multimillions for "advice" to companies with shady business practices that the Feds are investigating. The Clintons' ten million for "charity" go to the Clinton Family Foundation, run by Bill, Hill and Chelsea, an obvious tax-dodge that also allows them to use "charity" funds to influence superdelegates. Their tax returns show us a model of one hand greasing the other. Hillary can lie about identifying with blue-collar women, but she pays her housecleaners over $40,000 each year, more than blue-collar women earn a year. The Clintons made 109 million dollars in seven years. And she has the audacity to ask blue-collar women to send their few hard-earned dollars to her campaign. The audacity of being shame-less!

Posted by: shir | April 6, 2008 3:42 PM

Well, I think that this 'election' is also right on the ragged edge of just being an absolute FRAUD. Waffles with a side of double-talk and a dusting of sheer incompetence, anyone? Don't forget the corruption fries in greed sauce! Excellent!

LOL
P.S. Where's the OTHER 5.6 million 'absolutely' qualified Candidates for this Selection? Look, $8.05/hr, I'll even go 35 hours a week, rest will be volunteer hours. You're not going to see another bargain Candidate like me! Vote for Bert! Vote for Bert! Youuuuuu muuuust vooote forrrrr Berrrrrt....youuuu arrrrre geeetting verrrrry sleeeeepy.... (~)z(~)

Bert08

Posted by: Bert | April 6, 2008 3:44 PM

Hey Chief, how would you react if someone were hounding you incessantly to get a photgraph with you to sell on e-Bay if you were somebody important, which you are not? Would you punch him in the mouth? If you did that and were running for president, you would lose the election. Barack Obama told the man he was getting on his last nerve. I thought that he handled it quite well, actually.

Posted by: Mark in SF | April 6, 2008 3:47 PM

McCain should have be charged with collaboration with the enemy.

Posted by: neocon | April 6, 2008 3:47 PM

Fox "News"..not reallyh a news show, but rather an opinion program for ultra-conservative right wing nuts.

It is people who work for Fox..who publish their propaganda results in views and opinions which have not place in today's political scene.

Frankly, I hate to watch Fox news when on the AFN TV because of the extreme bias views, opinions and commentary..In fact, one night a couple of the soldiers threw their biscuts at the TV in disgust...

Posted by: RH-Horn of Africa | April 6, 2008 3:51 PM

Anyone who thinks Obama is a 'black racist' should read the Audacity of Hope objectively. Get truly informed before you make such poor and inaccurate statements (This is also for you Ms Coulter)

Posted by: FHL | April 6, 2008 3:52 PM

Fox; Mr. McCain, please tell us your qualifications.

McCain; For what?

Fox; You're running aren't you?

McCain; Oh my goodness no. I haven't run since I was young. My knees can't take it.

Fox; No, aren't you running for president?

McCain; I don't think so. I better ask Cindy. Cindy? Am I running for president?

Cindy; Yes dear, I believe you are.

McCain; Well, I'm glad we got that straightened out. I guess I am.

Fox; Splendid. Now why do you say you are most qualified?

McCain; Qualified for what?

Fox; To run for president.

McCain; I am?

Cindy; Dear, tell the nice man from Fox that you are more experienced.

McCain; Experienced doing what?

Cindy; It doesn't matter dear, just tell him.

McCain; I'm more experienced.

Fox; Why are you more experienced?

McCain; Cinnnnnnndy.. he's doing it again. Tell him to stop.

Posted by: presGWBfanclub | April 6, 2008 3:53 PM

McCain has 2 hurdles to jump over in the form of Federal law suits concerning his claim to eligibility Vs Constitution which have not been tested in court.

1. The Panama Canal was never a Territory of the United States; it was leased.

2. McCain was not born there.

3. 7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States"

(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth. (emphasis added)

4. John McCain is a Naturalized Citizen and Only Natural Born Can be president.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 4:02 PM

McCain lest qualified for President:

-Failed to escape as POW to return to the fight.

-Long time member of Senate, but still voted for war in Iraq, without obtaining confirmation of WMD.

-Has no plan for Iraq other than to stay for 100 years as standups for Iraqi's.

-To old.

Posted by: Maddogg | April 6, 2008 4:03 PM

I was attached to VA 174 Wild Razors, while John McCain was it's commanding officer at Cecil Field. John McCain is a man of integrity and honor; However, I do not want him to be our next President and will not vote for him. Even more strongly, I do not want Hilary or Obama to be the next President or elected to any government offices for that matter. It's a given that John McCain would follow the Bush/neocon agenda right down the line which would continue the disaster of the last eight years, and that is just not acceptable....things would get much worse, if that's at all possible. Hilary and Obama are both career politicians and with what has come to light recently about them both, they would be worse.......we are all caught between a rock and a hard place.....We need other choices......with respect to John McCain, he is past it and like Bush doesn't have a clue, the reality is, it's no longer business as usual, for our republic or for any of us. Citizen, things are coming undone and fast.

Posted by: Robert | April 6, 2008 4:04 PM

So, Chief, you discount a candidate solely because of the way he handled somebody bugging him for a photograph? I hope you don't vote in November.

Posted by: Dan from Ohio | April 6, 2008 3:03 PM
===========================================
So Dan, you and Hope2008 would summarily disenfranchise someone who disagrees with your personal criteria for choosing which person to support for political office. Just like that, "don't bother us with details, just get lost." Chief could have a point, you know. Sometimes how a person treats those of "lesser" importance says a lot about his character. You know, like telling someone to get lost when they don't see things the way you do. Or "GDing White USKKK America" because they don't see every detail the way you do. If there is any severe flaw in this country, it is precisely the attitude of "my way or the highway," "for me or against me," everything is a war between "good and evil," "black and white," "us and them." You tell em, Chief. And if they don't like it, move to Florida and vote twice in November!

Posted by: Mary May King | April 6, 2008 4:10 PM

1. I hope he at least knows that qualified is not synonymous with "optimal".
That being said, anyone over 35 and a citizen of the US is "qualified". What's gonna make people vote for you?
Certainly not the fact that your policies suck. You're old as hell, and don't know a thing about the economy or the war you intend on perpetuating. Throw in with that, the insult to the intelligence of black people, by promoting a black woman on your ticket simply and solely to break up firm determination on a single candidate.

This guy needs to take his head out of his behind.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 4:10 PM

Fox; Ms Clinton, please tell us why you are most qualified.

Hillary; Why that's easy. Because I am a war hero.

Fox; You were in the war?

Hillary; What rock have *you* been hiding under. I'm a WAR HERO. Want me to spell that for you?

Fox; Okay, describe your heroics.

Hillary; That's easy. First of all, I was awarded the Medal of Honor during World War 2, after I single handedly shot down 5 German dive bombers from a bunker in Normandy.

Fox; B-b-but.. Normandy happened 3 years *BEFORE* you were even *BORN*.

Hillary; I can't explain it either. All I know is the facts speak for themselves. And then during the Civil War I was a high ranking Captain and led a battalion ...

Fox; Excuse me. But what *facts" are we citing here? And the Civil War.. That was during the 1800s... Your *father* wasn't even born!

Hillary; Are you calling me a liar? Are you challenging my credibility here because I am a WOMAN?

Fox; No, no..

Hillary; Are you trying to oppress me? ARE YOU TRYING TO STIFLE WOMENS VOTING RIGHTS?!? ARE YOU TRYING TO DRAG US BACK TO THE DAYS OF BEING BAREFOOT AND PREGNANT?!?!?!

Fox; You've got this all wrong...

Hillary; ALL RIGHT BUSTER! YOU WANT WAR, YOU GOT WAR! MY HUSBAND HAPPENS TO KNOW A LOT OF POWERFUL PEOPLE IN HIGH PLACES.. AND FOR YOU TO CALL ME LYING CHEATING WOMAN WHO SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO VOTE IS.. IS.. IS.... SHAME ON YOU!!!!!

Chelsea; Is the interview over with Mommy?

Hillary; I should say so!!! I have NEVER been so insulted... LET'S BLOW THIS JOINT!

Posted by: presGWBfanclub | April 6, 2008 4:13 PM

McCain for Pres? You mean more war, more destruction of the Constitution, More pilfering of the US treasury by deregulation, war profiteers and corporate Privatization, more poverty, more homelessness, more total Bush-like BS? Nooooooo thanks.

McCain is just another PNAC knucklehead who if achieving the Whitehouse will stick a fork in the USA, roll us over and declare us "Done."


Posted by: Ed | April 6, 2008 4:13 PM

Intriguing assertion by anonymous of Senator McCain's eligibility:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

Posted by: P Diddy | April 6, 2008 4:13 PM

Posted by: Elen | April 6, 2008 3:14 PM

Elen, you have left me with nothing to write...so well spoken and exactly how I feel and I couldn't have written it better if I tried.

Posted by: Dee | April 6, 2008 4:16 PM

i'll be voting for bob barr if he runs.

Posted by: gary | April 6, 2008 4:16 PM

As a European who has lived in America under the Bush fiasco I am looking forward to America getting a chance to have a competent head of state. Either McCain or Obama would offer America a chance for an intelligent leader willing to discuss it's relationship with the outside world. Unfortunately if Hillary gets in it would make things worse since she is an ego-maniacal compulsive liar. McCain wouldn't be as popular as Obama in the world but at least he's not Hillary.

Posted by: Martin | April 6, 2008 4:19 PM

I have to wonder what McCain's subliminal message stating that Obama is absoltely qualified for Presidential material ....Everyone including JM knows Obama has only words and very little of substance to remotely qualify him for the White House or the 3 am call...It takes lots more than a pretty face, great suits and font and color of his ads that he has paid mega bucks for to delude you people that are blindly following his every scripted word....Vote for HC to restore our economic woes and bring our Precious Soldiers HOME!!!!. DO NOT BE DECEIVED..

Posted by: KCM | April 6, 2008 4:23 PM

Neither McCain or Obama should be running for President - neither is qualified. Not to worry, neither will win. GO HILLARY!

Posted by: Jaye | April 6, 2008 4:25 PM

I don't particularly like McCain, he's arrogant, too liberal on many issues, and doesn't harken to the advice of seasoned leadership or the will of the people. I'd have prefered Fred Thompson, but the liberal press did him in.

What are the alternatives? A racist Muslim or a dunce Meglomaniac? Given the options, I'll have to go with McCain.

Posted by: Capn Dave | April 6, 2008 4:26 PM

Hey! Senator McCain: Even with the surge, the iraquis are attacking us in the Green Zone! It looks that we are not bringing resolution to the iraqui problems. We are just meddling in their intercinine battles! We went thre for the wrong reasons (WMD and links to Alqaida) and we are staying there for the wrong reasons (to look for an excuse to attack Iran). Just today we had more attacks against the Green Zone. It is very clear that they do not want us there! Why should we be spending a trillion dollar there, when we have a recession brewing in the US? Please say that if you are elected, you too will get our troops out of the ill advise war started by Bush.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 4:27 PM

look who is stooping to new lows to try and find ways to keep mccain from being president. because he was born in panama? give me a break.

and texas was not properly annexed so george bush didnt win the 2000 and 2004 elections.

the thing is, democrats are subtly using xenophobia to get their in power.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 4:30 PM

presGWBfanclub: I enjoyed the FOX-Hillary interview post. Very funny!

Posted by: Huma Huma | April 6, 2008 4:33 PM

McCain is only saying Obama is "qualified" because he wants a chance to beat his ass in the general election by running the racist pastor videos over and over. Obama is unelectable and running against him is McCain's best shot to win. GO HILLARY!

Posted by: elle | April 6, 2008 4:34 PM

MADDDOG, are u serious? u said:

"McCain lest qualified for President:

-Failed to escape as POW to return to the fight."


obama and hilliary havent even been to war, no wonder they want to pull troops out. they dont know the first thing about being commander in chief.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 4:34 PM

I guess you can say that Obama was talking to FOOLS, including "BILLARY" Clinton!

http://OsiSpeaks.com

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | April 6, 2008 4:34 PM

OBAMA: DIRTY POLITICIAN FROM THE START: Chicago Sun-Times--A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: Obama, who runs on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless, first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it. Alice Palmer, friend and mentor to Obama, served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor. But when Palmer lost the congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat. Obama not only refused to step aside for the woman who was his friend and had recommended him for the seat, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw. Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. "He wondered if we should knock everybody off the ballot. How would that look?" said Ronald Davis, the paid Obama campaign consultant whom Obama referred to as his "guru of petitions." Davis filed objections to all four of Obama's Democratic rivals at the candidate's behest. All other candidates were disposed of by Obama's challenges. He then went on to win the election.

http://tinyurl.com/2zwwte

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 4:35 PM

Jaye: Unless Hillary is running for Pres of the PTA, she won't be winning anything.
She is yesterday's news.

Posted by: Ha Ha | April 6, 2008 4:36 PM

I got to admit, I respect McCain for not blasting Obama as unqualified as other politicians might have done (or did in the case of Hillary Clinton). If this is any indication of the campaign for the national election, the two will spar on issues, not strawmen or wedge politics. It's refreshing to see that. I hope it continues.

I'm an Obama supporter but I respect honest adversaries in any campaign, and McCain just moved up a notch in my book.

Posted by: aBigSAM | April 6, 2008 4:39 PM

OBAMA LIES IN PENNSYLVANIA AD
From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
GREENBURG, Pa. -- The Clinton campaign today accused the Obama campaign of "false advertising," claiming that a recent ad Obama released in Pennsylvania was disngenous because Obama has been the recipient of more than $200,000 from the oil and gas industry.
In the ad, Obama says, "I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more."
Obama has taken $213,884 from the oil and gas industry as of Feb. 29th, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Sen. Hillary Clinton has taken $306,813 in that same period.
Two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per a list released on his campaign Web site.
Robert Cavnar, listed as a bundler who has raised between $50,000 to $100,000 for the campaign, is the chairman and CEO of Mission Resources Corp., a Houston-based firm. George Kaiser, also listed in the same $50,000 to $100,000 category, is the CEO of Tulsa-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Company.
"It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said. "Senator Obama says he doesn't take campaign contributions from oil companies but the reality is that Exxon, Shell, and others are among his donors."

http://tinyurl.com/2on6dr

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 4:39 PM

Funny, McCain says Obama is qualified, yet McCain is not, both legally (http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/panmanchurian-candidate-mccain.html) and morally (http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/04/black-mesa-genocide-and-john-mccain.html)

I wish this warmongering fool would quit already!

Posted by: Tannim | April 6, 2008 4:41 PM

For all of the people who do not think Mr.McCain is qualified, "We" believe that he is. However, he can not undo the mess that he went along with. "We" believe Mr.McCain is in a dam if he do, dam if he don't situation. Thats too bad because he would have made a decent president. If you do not believe "Us" just look at the republicans that opposes him>

Posted by: We The People | April 6, 2008 4:41 PM

Somebody please explain how Obama is "absolutely qualified to be president". Get real . . . the guy is an empty suit spewing empty rhetoric. McCain is either too kind or a very poor judge of people.

Posted by: rplat | April 6, 2008 4:42 PM

Monday, March 31, 2008
POLITICO BUSTS BARACK OBAMA IN MORE LIES

Political opinion

The other day we wrote a piece covering some of Barack Obama's bigger lies during his campaign and his political life, which included, his lies about his association with Tony Rezko, then his lies about how much money he received from Rezko, then his admitting to the fact that he received more than he originally said.

Then we went to his NAFTA lies, and his lies about what he heard from his Pastor, Jeremiah Wright and when he heard it, as we showed his statement saying he never heard those controversial "God Damn America" remarks as well as the racial remarks and anti-American remarks and just four days later, made a speech where he admitted he had her controversial remarks.

He lies, then he lies to spin his way out of his previous lies and then when he can lie no more he tells part of the truth and ignores his previous lies.

This has become a very bad habit which he has been shown publicly to have....a habit of a pathological liar.

Now The Politico has just busted more Obama lies, wide open.

During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion -- positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he has projected during his presidential campaign.

The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group's detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.

Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama's answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he "never saw or approved" the questionnaire.

They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who "unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position."

But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama -- the day after sitting for the interview -- filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama's own handwritten notes added to one answer.

The two questionnaires, provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama's presidential campaign, were later supplied directly by the group, Independent Voters of Illinois -- Independent Precinct Organization. Obama and his then-campaign manager, who Obama's campaign asserts filled out the questionnaires, were familiar with the group, its members and its positions, since both were active in it before Obama's 1996 state Senate run.

Through an aide, Obama, who won the group's endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn't prove he completed, approved -- or even read -- the latter questionnaire.

The Politico piece is three pages long, but it is worth the read.

The longer Barack Obama is in the political spotlight, the better because the media has started to do some actual research and every time they do, they show his lies, his past lies, or his present lies which generally lead to his future lies to try to spin out of the wind for his original lies.

The old expression about tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceived is quite appropriate here because Barack Obama is caught in the web of his own lies and he doesn't seem to be able to break free of one before the next set of them are brought to the publics attention.

I love this comment from Hot Air's, Ed Morrisey:

This makes no sense at all. If Obama's handwriting is on the survey, then he filled it out. If the answers didn't reflect his views, why didn't he change them when he "jotted some notes" on it? If the answers were wrong, Obama would have "jotted some notes" to that effect, rather than allow such mistakes to get transmitted to IVI. And the "eleven years in public office" defense might make sense if Obama hadn't spent much of that time voting "present" instead of taking actual stands.

Once again, we have more evidence that Obama represents nothing more than the political winds. He has zero credibility, zero experience, and a penchant for telling people what they want to hear rather than any truth about what he actually believes. Either he lied to IVI or he's lying now. In either case, it's hardly the New Politics Obama has promised.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 4:42 PM

To all those Obama supporters who say that the superdelegates should not overturn the will of the people, then why to they exist? Why did they set up a system by the end of which no clear winner could emerge? Well the truth is that they set up the superdelegates to be a saftey vlave agaist the radical left who control the grass roots in the Democratic party! This was the same thing the founding fathers did when they established the congress,the house was to be the peoples party and the senate was to represent the elite and infulential, and well educated. The house would be popularly elected and the Senate would be electe by the state legislatures which were controlled by the elite! They gave the Senate power to comfrim treaties and presidential appointments! It was not until 1913 that the Senate was elected by the people! This was done to be a check on the passions of the masses and make sure they maintained real control! So the Democrats in an effort to ensure there would be no more McGovern's or Mondale's set up the superdelegates to put a check on the liberal left wing of the party through the use of superdelegates in order to insure that they would not select a nominee that was seen as not being able to win! It had nothing to do with who had the most delegates, if that were the case then they could have made a simple rule change and said that what ever canidate had a plurality of the delegates was the winner! The problem is that they never thought they would have to acutally pick a winner and now they do so I say that Hillary sould stay all the way through the convention and make those old codgers vote and take the responsibility if we lose!

Take a good look at what I have discovered on Obama:

http://www.obamaunveiled.com


Still supporting Obama?

Posted by: Mitch | April 6, 2008 4:42 PM

Yeah! The presumptive "puppet" to the
Rothschild Banks of London & Berlin!
Notice where he ended his world tour
the other week!

Posted by: josephjsalas | April 6, 2008 4:43 PM

I cant believe that JM said that Oboma is qualified to be President.

This is EXACTLY why McCain isn't connecting his conservative base. He's giving in to Oboma who is the biggest Liberal ever to walk the face of the earth.

McCain, you should look to shore up your own base before helping the Liberals win.

Posted by: Howard | April 6, 2008 4:43 PM

rplat: McCain had to say that; it's part of the game. If he would have told the truth (i.e. that Obama is an inexperienced, deceptive fraud), he'd get the mandatory race card thrown at him. If Obama is the nominee, then during the general election, the 527's and others will go after all of Obama's shortcomings, and McCain will be able to stay above the fray.

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 4:45 PM

I love the way Obama supporters discount the importance of experience.

Here's their logic:

If one president who, despite his lack of experience, got elected on the basis of his likeability and charm; promise to clean up Washington; pledge to be a uniter, not a divider; and on the assurance that he could change the world on the basis of his personality; and who then surrounded himself with experienced advisors, spent eight years in a bubble, and failed miserably on all counts as president, it follows that:

The new guy "who, despite his lack of experience, gets elected on the basis of his likeability and charm; promise to clean up Washington; pledge to be a uniter, not a divider; and the assurance that he'll change the world on the basis of his personality, and who due to his lack of experience, surrounds himself with experienced advisors," he will be a huge success.

That's the logic of the Obama people who are trying to close the deal with their argument that a hiring decision for the most important job in the nation should not be made on the basis of experience.

Posted by: ichief | April 6, 2008 4:45 PM

Just when I think "meh" about McCain again, he goes and proves me wrong. Today he said that Obama is "absolutely qualified" to be president. I know it might seem like a calculated attempt to be nice, but being nice is a risky calculation and the better way would have been for him to attack. Instead, he chose to be honest and good. He even pledged to make the general election a "respectful" one. And he does these things completely on his own. Around 20% of Obama supporters say they'll vote McCain if Hill gets the nomination, and right now, I'm definitely part of that 20%. I mean, what a contrast- Hill said she and McCain were ready to be commander-in-chief, but not Obama: she dismissed her own party just to attack Obama. She hasn't had a single noble moment, not a single one at all. All she does is lie, from her story about running from sniper fire to her story about Chelsea jogging by the towers on 9/11 to her story about a preganant woman turned away from a hospital, she completelky makes things up. And when given the opportunity to be honoroble, she has "as far as I know" moments. Meanwhile, McCain's moments of nobility and honor keep adding up. He said, moreover, that his "100 years" comment was a figure of speech, and I think it was. Go Obama! But if we can't have Obama, please God, no Kyle-Lieberman-loving, don't-bother-to-read-the-NIE, pledged-delegetes-aren't-really-pledged Hill Clinton.

Posted by: Sally | April 6, 2008 4:45 PM

We are fortunate that we have three good people all of whom are qualified to be president. Therefore it is most important to look at the policies proposed by these three candidates. I personally believe that of the three Hillary Clinton has proposed the fairest and most workable policies to lead our nation.

Second we have to realize that President Bush did not put us into the present horrible situation by himself. I don't believe he is smart enough to do that. He had the active support and assistance of the Rupublican representatives in congress. John McCain was one of those republicans and actively supported this presidents policies.

During the next election we need to re-populate congress with representatives more in line with historical American values. I believe this must be democrats.

Posted by: CLW | April 6, 2008 4:45 PM

Dear America

Please vote for Obama.

Regards

The rest of the objective world.

Posted by: Emmjay | April 6, 2008 4:46 PM

stop the nonesense

Posted by: martha | April 6, 2008 4:47 PM

**************************
KERRY: You're right on the money! With your permission, I am going to repeat your words:

Obama is a communist, extreme left wing liberal.

Obama is a racist and hates America.
Obama is an egomaniac who thinks he is doing a great favor to America simply by running for President.

Obama's loyalty is to Africa not America which is mean accoriding to Ms.Obama.

Obama is as corrupt as every other politician, and was hand in hand with shady characters in Chicago politics.

Obama lies through his teeth when he says he is a different kinda politician. More like he is a different kinda liar, a slick snake oil salesman.

================================
SAY NO TO OBAMA.
ANYONE ELSE BUT NOT OBAMA'08
================================

A Vote for Obama is a vote for the lunetic racist Rev. Wright!

http://www.obamaunveiled.com

Wow!

Posted by: Steve | April 6, 2008 4:47 PM


Fox; Today we have Bill and Hillary Clinton, former president and first lady of the United States with us. How are you two doing?

Bill; I am fine. Absolutely fine. I'm very good. Thank you. Thank you.

Hillary; I'm very pleased to be here.

Fox; I'm glad to hear that. Let's get down to business. First of all, why are you running for president?

Bill; I'm running because I think this country needs a change....

Hillary; I think he means, *ME*, why am *I* running...

Bill; Oh, silly me.. hee hee hee. Go ahead dear, answer him.

Hillary; I would if you would *let* me.

Bill; My my. A little testy this morning?

Hillary; I am running because this country needs a change..

Bill; That's what I just said.

Hillary; But he wants *ME* to say it.

Bill; Why? We all know who's going to actually be running the country...

Hillary; And what's *that* supposed to mean?

Bill; Hee hee hee. You don't actually think the people want *you*, do you?

Hillary: WHAT? You think they want *YOU*???

Bill; Well, more than you.. that's for sure.

Fox; Now now.. let's have a civil discussion here. Okay, about the economy....

Hillary; The first thing *I* will do is outlaw *boneheads* from the white house!

Bill; Oh yea? The first thing *I'll* do is outlaw old hags that can't differentiate fantasy from reality.

Hillary; YOU SON OF A...

Bill; Watch out Hillary! A sniper!

Hillary; There *was* a sniper! He was shooting at me!

Bill; We all saw the video. You are making this up. There was no sniper. Where was he hiding? In that little 9 year old poem reading girls hat?

Hillary; He was in the woods! He was shooting at us! We had to run for cover!

Bill; You should have just told the little leprechans dancing in the mountains to distract him with a pot of gold..

Hillary; Oh yea? Well, if I....

[PFFFFFTTTTTTT!!! The screen goes blank.. before cutting to

Fox; I'm sorry, but we are having technical difficulties with our interview, and hope to have the situation remedied by sometime after the election. Thank you. This is Bret Hume.. Brent Hume.. pssst! what is my name again? Oh yea. Thanks. This is Brit Hume reporting. Have a good day.

Posted by: presGWBfanclub | April 6, 2008 4:48 PM

Bush was, and Obama is, short on experience. If McCain took the stance that Obama was not qualified, he'd have had trouble maintaining that Bush was qualified when he took office.

Posted by: PoconoPam | April 6, 2008 4:48 PM

**************************
KERRY: You're right on the money! With your permission, I am going to repeat your words:

Obama is a communist, extreme left wing liberal.

Obama is a racist and hates America.
Obama is an egomaniac who thinks he is doing a great favor to America simply by running for President.

Obama's loyalty is to Africa not America which is mean accoriding to Ms.Obama.

Obama is as corrupt as every other politician, and was hand in hand with shady characters in Chicago politics.

Obama lies through his teeth when he says he is a different kinda politician. More like he is a different kinda liar, a slick snake oil salesman.

================================
SAY NO TO OBAMA.
ANYONE ELSE BUT NOT OBAMA'08
================================

A Vote for Obama is a vote for the lunetic racist Rev. Wright!

http://votersusa.blogspot.com

Wow!

Posted by: pete | April 6, 2008 4:48 PM

It makes me sick to here McCain talk about the sanctity of marriage. He cheated on his first wife. He then divorced her and was married within a month to his much younger, very wealthy second wife. How's that for family values? His second wife's fortune comes from the sale of alcoholic beverages. How very wholesome. Don't forget McCain was one of the Keating Five. What a bunch of stinking hypocrites!!!!

Posted by: Newfie | April 6, 2008 4:50 PM

And I enjoyed the McCain interview post. But I shouldn´t. Nobody should: It may in fact be telling the truth.

Posted by: Helle | April 6, 2008 4:52 PM

McCain should stop with the compliments to Obama if McCain wants to win in November.

Democrats are going to vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee so he would be wise to just find a good running mate and wait.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | April 6, 2008 4:52 PM

McCain is as dumb as a rock. Fimished at the bottom of his class at Annapolis. Probably would not have graduated had his father not been an Admiral. The only difference is that Bush is a stupid, dishonest liar, while McCain is just plain stupid.

Posted by: Pogo II | April 6, 2008 4:53 PM

**************************
KERRY: You're right on the money! With your permission, I am going to repeat your words:

Obama is a communist, extreme left wing liberal.

Obama is a racist and hates America.
Obama is an egomaniac who thinks he is doing a great favor to America simply by running for President.

Obama's loyalty is to Africa not America which is mean accoriding to Ms.Obama.

Obama is as corrupt as every other politician, and was hand in hand with shady characters in Chicago politics.

Obama lies through his teeth when he says he is a different kinda politician. More like he is a different kinda liar, a slick snake oil salesman.

================================
SAY NO TO OBAMA.
ANYONE ELSE BUT NOT OBAMA'08
================================

A Vote for Obama is a vote for the lunetic racist Rev. Wright!

http://votersusa.blogspot.com

Wow!

Posted by: pete | April 6, 2008 4:53 PM

McSame thinks Obama is qualified.

Hillary thinks he isn't.

Hillary is a bigger Repuke than McSame is.

And McSame is 4 more years of Chimpy.

Hillary can go to Hell.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 6, 2008 4:54 PM

presGWBfanclub: Your post is exactly what I'd expect from either a George Bush supporter, or your brothers and sisters in illogical thinking -- Obama supporters.

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 4:55 PM

Funny how reich wingnuts think it is okay for WHITE preachers like Falwell and Robertson to say America deserved to get hit by 9-11 and Katrina. And they DID say that.

But when a BLACK preacher criticizes America in the same way, it is evil.

Redneck Repukes and their racist double standard.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 6, 2008 4:57 PM

To the person who recommended we read "The Audacity of Hope," may I respectfully suggest that you ALSO read Obama's FIRST book before chastising those of us who do not support his candidacy. This man has lied repeatedly throughout his campaign. Do the other politicians lie as well? Yes, sorry to say, they do. The difference is that Obama projected himself to the public as the candidate who did NOT engage in deceit. He promised "change" when nothing will change at all. Ever hear of Rezko? See the article by Stephen Spruiell on National Review online if you want an update. It just astonishes me that this is not making front page news. With regard to Obama's claim that he does not take money from lobbyists, see the article by Lin Farley, "Follow the Money," on SavagePolitics.com. This last article, by the way, is footnoted with primary source materials. If you want to make an informed decision as a voter, forget reading the self-aggrandizing books by the respective candidates and go to the primary source materials.

A recent poll indicated that 71% of Americans believe this country is finally "ready" for a Black president. I'm one of those 71%. I am also one of the 28% of Clinton supporters who will vote Republican before helping Obama get a job he hasn't done a damned thing to earn. Getting a single piece of legislation passed while senator is not exactly what I'd call "impressive."

Posted by: Denise | April 6, 2008 4:59 PM

We have two qualified candidates for President, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, fit to be commander in chief on day one. Sen. Obama if nominated by the Democratic party will almost certainly lose to Sen. McCain in November. Why would Democratic super-delegates take that course in Denver, if Hillary proves between now and then she can win in the remaining primary states. We know so little about Sen. Obama, more now than when he won early primary and caucus states, so they should count for less. Only Hillary and Sen. McCain understand we have enemies in the world out to destroy us. If the phone rings at 3 AM, in the White House, I want Hillary to be the one ready to answer the phone and deal with a crisis. Sen. Obama has not even thought about this possibility, except to express an interest in sitting down with our avowed adversaries. That is not sufficient in these troubled times.

Posted by: William Sparks (Will) | April 6, 2008 5:00 PM


Elen, your post was right on the mark!


Posted by: Elen | April 6, 2008 03:14 PM

"What a terrible example "seasoned" politicians are setting for our youth.
Ten steps to shame.
One: There was a general consensus that there are DNC rules to be followed to avoid that states, during primaries, move dates around to position themselves at their whim.
Two: States were warned and two basically flipped the DNC off.
Three: Other states that had their placement tied into their own rules had to then move around their own primaries as a result of Two.
Four: The candidates were asked to sign a pledge. They did.
Five: Sen. Clinton remarks: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"
Six: Sen. Clinton now needs the votes.
Seven: Clinton now reneges on her pledge and starts demanding that the vote count.
Eight: Dean who has unfairly been made the scapegoat, now backs off and wants a compromise/
Nine: All the other states, who would have liked to choose their own dates now realize that following the rules is only for chumps.
Ten: Those watching this fiasco including those new young members of our party watch and learn.
This tragedy of disenfranchising voters was not triggered by Dean and the DNC, it was triggered by the injudicious actions of the leaders of these states, and fueled by the one candidate whose signature on the pledge was not worth the paper it was written in."

Posted by: Not_THAT_Woman | April 6, 2008 5:00 PM

Denise: Your post is right on. I went to see Hillary the other night in Los Angeles (wonderful event, by the way), and everyone I talked to at the event was expressing the same thing; if Obama is the nominee, they will not be voting for him.

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 5:03 PM

I'm an independent and planned on voting for Obama or Hillary - which ever one was nominated. However, their mudslinging b.s. has gone on waaaay too long. I'm sick of it.

Now comes John McCain, being respectful and generous toward his opponents. He's done this already when he terminated campaign staffers who stepped over a line of clean politicking which he seems to be adhering to.

I think he's looking better and better all the time. If for a moment he seems like he's willing to rethink the tax cuts then by all means, he's got my vote.

Posted by: attrition | April 6, 2008 5:03 PM

Senator Clinton is easily the most qualified of the three by eloquence, intellect, experience, and composure.

Posted by: John | April 6, 2008 5:05 PM

So, Chief, you discount a candidate solely because of the way he handled somebody bugging him for a photograph? I hope you don't vote in November.
Posted by: Dan from Ohio
_____________________________________________

The way he handled that heckler doesn't bother you? This is supposed to be Superbama? Any school teacher or bus driver would have taken care of a problem like this in about 15 seconds. Nobody would be rude or ugly.
This has to do with judgment. It should trouble you greatly. I wonder how he would handle a da ngerous situation. I still say it was pitifully handled. All he had to do is whisper into a secret service man's ear.
Zip, it's over. I don't discount a candidate solely on one incident. His handling of the Wright incident is just one of many judgment and problem solving problems he exhibits. He is a much worse liar than Hillary too.

Posted by: Chief | April 6, 2008 5:06 PM

McSame is constantly stating errors of fact about Iraq. And his misstatements are always in support of Chimpy policies in Iraq. McSame is more of the same.

He says Sadr asked for the ceasefire but that is incorrect. Maliki asked for the ceasefire after his offensive failed. Iran brokered the ceasefire. Sadr ended up winning that round.

And McSame also said Iraq troops are holding their own, but we know that at least 1000 Iraqi troops either surrendered at the first opportunity or refused to fight in Basra altogether.

And this is on top of McSame's notorious slip up where he accused Sunny Al Quaeda of being supported by Shiite Iran, when they hate each other. Loserman corrected McSame right there on the air.

McSame is either lying or he is clueless. Either way, he is NOT qualified to be President.

McSame is also clueless on the economy. He would be dangerously incompetent in the White House.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 6, 2008 5:09 PM

Obama has the Audacity to Hope that we are all stupid enough to forget that he lied about NAFTA, that he lies about his "continual" opposition to the Iraq war, that he plays the race card whenever things get too hot (for which he was busted by Tim Russert in one of the debates), that he is uncomfortably close to the indicted slumlord Rezko, that he has been going to a church for 20 years whose racist and anti-American pastor he calls his "mentor and spiritual advisor," that he has been exposing his innocent children to this hate speech for most of their lives, that he will throw his own grandmother under the bus to further his goals, and that he is now trying his best to disenfranchise millions of voters in Michigan and Florida to further his political ambitions. Yes, he has the Audacity to Hope . . .

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 5:11 PM

In Oregon, Clinton Makes False Claim About Her Iraq Record Vs. Obama's
April 06, 2008 9:49 AM

In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.

But Clinton's claim was false.

Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, "when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."

It's an odd way to measure opposition to the war -- comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama's opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton's vote for it.)

But even if one were to employ this "Start Counting in January 2005" measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.

******

For this latest amazing story on Clinton's alternative universe -- see:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/in-oregon-clint.html

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | April 6, 2008 5:13 PM

Dear America,

We want to be your friend not your enemy. We only mean to kill most of you but we will allow some of you to live as long as you pledge to Islam and place your right hand over the Koran.

Please vote for Obama or Clinton.

Best Regards and hope all is well,

Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

Posted by: AMERICAN TRUTH | April 6, 2008 5:13 PM

The question is not if Pasotr Wright's words "DAM Americkkka" are wrong because some other pastors have said bad words from their pul-pit. It's when a man running for president goes to that church and hears for 20 years the racist speeches coming from pastor Wright's mouth, does it affect his point of view regarding the USA. Think--Why did Michelle Obama say? "For the time in my adult life I'm proud of my country." Put some of the pieces together and you will see that the Obama camp is spinning a web that we all will regret if this man becomes president. There are many examples that I can point to that has led me to the conclusion that Obama is a dangerous person. However, as I say sometimes, " A man convinced against his will, is still of the opinion still." Therefore, I'm my opinion and some of you are of your opinion still. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS, I'LL NOT BE SAYING--oh sheee I made a mistake when I voted for obama.

Posted by: Susej | April 6, 2008 5:13 PM

Funny how reich wingnuts think it is okay for WHITE preachers like Falwell and Robertson to say America deserved to get hit by 9-11 and Katrina. And they DID say that.

But when a BLACK preacher criticizes America in the same way, it is evil.

Redneck Repukes and their racist double standard.

Posted by: Tom3
____________________________________________

They were just as evil as Wright. I've always lumped Falwell, Robertson, Jackson, and Sharpton in the same loony bag for years.

Posted by: Chief | April 6, 2008 5:16 PM

Gandalfthegrey: That story has already been debunked. Here is an excerpt from a speech Hillary made from the floor of the Senate on October 10, 2002:
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 5:17 PM

COPY, PASTE, COPY, PASTE....

Posted by: Susej | April 6, 2008 5:18 PM

Susej: Good point about Wright. But, it's even worse than most Americans know.
THE RACIST THEOLOGY OF OBAMA''S CHURCH:
The theology which Wright has been teaching Obama and others at his church is called "black liberation theology," which is based upon the premise of the white oppressor against the black oppressed. This is why Wright refers to Jesus as black, and his killers as white. This is the only way the story of Jesus fits within his theology. Wright cites James Cone, another proponent of black liberation theology, as his theological inspiration. Here are a couple of James Cone''s quotes: 1. To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people. 2. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. 3. All white men are responsible for white oppression. 4. Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man the devil. 5. Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 5:19 PM

Fred, You are so right on about BLACK THEOLOGY. It is some scary stuff. I've been reading about Obama and his connection with his church along with the other tugs he hangs out with. Oh my, what a deceitful web he weaves.

Posted by: s | April 6, 2008 5:23 PM

I just can't imagine the incident with the heckler is small potatoes with some of you folks. I've never seen such a mishandled incident, by a supposedly presidential candidate, with such poor judgment in my life.

I also think he should drop out of the race because of his mishandling of the Wright mess. Can you imagine a guy going to run for president who doesn't foresee a problem with this guy. My only conclusion is Obama's arrogance. My goodness, he isn't just running for dog catcher, you know.

Posted by: Chief | April 6, 2008 5:23 PM

it's 3:00am in the white house, the phone rings.

ring! ring! ring!

ring! ring! ring!

mccain; hello?

caller; hello?

mccain; hello?

caller; hello?

mccain; who is this?

caller; orange.

mccain; orange who?

caller; orange you glad i'm not a banana?

mccain; what?

*click*

it's now 3:02am in the white house, the phone rings.

ring! ring! ring!

ring! ring! ring!

mccain; hello?

caller; hello?

mccain; hello?

caller; hello?

mccain; who is this?

caller; orange.

mccain; orange who?

caller; aren't you glad i'm not a banana?

mccain; what?

*click*

cindy; who is it dear?

mccain; a mister orange.

cindy; a mister orange?

mccain; yes. he said, "orange you glad i'm not a banana"

cindy; i think that's a joke, dear.

mccain; i don't understand.

cindy; don't worry about it. go back to sleep.

it's 3:05am in the white house, the phone rings.

ring! ring! ring!

ring! ring! ring!

mccain; hello?

caller; hello?

mccain; hello?

caller; hello?

mccain; who is this?

caller; orange.

mccain; orange who?

caller; orange you glad i'm not a banana?

mccain; what?

*click*

cindy; who was it dear?

mccain; mister orange called again.

cindy; john, he's a crank caller. it's a joke. don't answer it again.

mccain; but maybe mister orange is in trouble. he might need help.

it's 3:08am in the white house, the phone rings.

ring! ring! ring!

ring! ring! ring!

mccain; hello?

caller; hello?

mccain; hello?

caller; hello?

mccain; who is this?

caller; orange.

mccain; orange who?

caller; orange you glad i'm not a banana?

mccain; what?

*click*

cindy; dear. please come to bed.

mccain; i can't. mister orange might call again. i could be on to something here. mister orange could be a russian agent. he might be trying to defect to the united states with a nuclear submarine. i must stay on this! i am the president! i will not let my people down!

cindy; oh dear.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 5:24 PM

John McSame should learn from a wise man, King Solomon:


[Proverbs 27]

Posted by: WORLD GUARDIAN | April 6, 2008 5:28 PM

What happened to being able to give your opinion about a candidate without denigrating, rude, and repulsive remarks? The political situation in this country is unlikely to change regardless of which of these candidates get elected. As long as we have a system where our government is bought and paid for by special interest groups and are consists of people who have no long term goals for this country, things will not change. The scarier thing for me is that people with half the IQ of the candidates feel so comfortable calling them stupid.

Posted by: so sad | April 6, 2008 5:28 PM

s: Yes, Obama's so-called religion is racist to the core. Yes, Obama gives lofty speeches about hope and unity. And, Obama can read a teleprompter better than anyone since Ronald Reagan, but his 20 year close relationship with his racist and anti-American "mentor and spiritual adviser," speaks volumes about his character and judgment. Would you attend a racist church for 20 years and consider its racist minister your "mentor and spiritual adviser?" I know I wouldn't. If I stepped into a church, the first time the pastor made a derogatory statement about "black people" I would be out of there, never to return. But then again, I'm not a racist.

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 5:29 PM

John McSame should learn from old King Solomon:
Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth. Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips. [Proverbs 27].

Posted by: WORLD GUARDIAN | April 6, 2008 5:30 PM

Mr. McCain was a strong man to own up to a mistake that took him 40 years to admit. The only thing that I'm concerned with is that I pray that Mr. McCain is not so honest during the election that he gets side-swapped by Obama and his camp of tugs. I do not believe that Obama will run a honest campaign since he hasn't even personally condemned the 'WARMONGER" remarks. He will lay low and hope that the media doesn't make a big deal about it. He only speaks up against something when the media gets all over it. Of course, don't count CNN news to do anything since they are in love with Obama.

Posted by: Susej | April 6, 2008 5:31 PM

Hon. Senator McCain is mis taking Democrats as Fighting, No Way. Hon. Sen. McCain should be spending this Time rounding Up V.P. Candidate.

although I Jumped on: itsjerrytime as Write in V.P. here: http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/TOM_AND_JERRY.html?200831
With TWO Positive Posts at itsjerrytime, of course, I'm still uncommitted, Dos Big Nationals' Wowie.

I Feel Somehow Person of Great Credibility, Colin Powell, or Like Suited Persons may be more qualified?PARTICULARLY AS COLIN IS OUT OF WORK,....?too.
Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.


Posted by: thomasxstewart | April 6, 2008 5:32 PM

Now we're looking for a qualified President when that wasn't needed in 2000 or 2004 election. McCain has many years while doing nothing and has proven himself a true racist. He now can't remember who the people are in Iraq or even what he had for breakfast. Obama just got in the Senate and is using Dr. King speeches to get over. He's selling snake oil and Americans are buying the lies. Obama got Iowa votes by saying he would bring our troops home now, Hillary said all would return in 60 days. Now snake oil Obama says 10 years we'll be in Iraq. As John Kerry is the acting President he's giving the White House policy, let's hope he informs Obama. Obama knows nothing about Foreign Policy only what he learned as a child being educated in Indonesia. More lies come out of his mouth even the one about his Father and JFK. To hear Obama talk he could have been President in 2000 and just let John Kerry run the White House because that's what's going on now. But America doesn't want a Woman as a Leader even if she has more experience and better qualified then both McCain and Obama. Hillary took the two terms as Senator to be on every committee and learn and work with all the Law Makers of both Parties. Obama asked for Hillary help in running for the Senator. Kerry, Kennedy, Leahy, Richards and Pelosi didn't give Obama the time of day. Now Obama has shown his true character by attacking the only Senator that helped him. Mrs. Obama thinks just having a skin color gives her husband you vote. Oprah has moved so far away from being Black she just doesn't know anymore.

We have a chance to elect a President that will repair the damage done by Bush/Cheney. The Democratic Senior Law Makers are looking out for themselves not the American people. Hillary has taken the time to get the experience to be Commander-in-Chief. Obama just wants the title and let John Kerry do the job. McCain might not make it to Jan. 20th and will never release his medical records that will show he's got one foot on a banana pile and the other in the grave. Now Connie Rice is looking to be VP on her sorry record. Connie didn't think the memo of Bin Laden going to attack the US by air, met much because he didn't say when and what time. She has destroyed duties of Secretary of State. She is a joke to all the World Leaders. But she will become Black again for black votes. Like Mrs. Obama said Black people should blindly vote for her husband just because he's black and they did. Blacks forgot all about the 8 years President Clinton made their lives equal to the American dream. McCain doesn't even know Black people in American he just found out when he decided to run for President.

Posted by: Jackie | April 6, 2008 5:34 PM

Ha ha ha! I loved that Chris Wallace question about McCain being opportunistic in Vietnam. Kerry was a sight - he didn't know what the heck hit him! KA-BOOM! Man! I CANNOT wait for McCain to begin debating Obama. I want to see that spanking!

Posted by: UM | April 6, 2008 5:35 PM

I believe that while John McCain shares many traits so common among politicians (seeks the spotlight, "knows better" than everyone else), of the three still left standing for the job of president, he is the least offensive to me. McCain didn't stoop to the ethanol crowd during the Iowa primary, he is not on the earmark bandwagon like so many others, and he does cross the political aisle to work with Democrats more often than either Hillary or Obama has. As far as McCain's Iraq war stance, he voted for it (as did 77 out of 100 senators, and 296 out of 432 congresspeople), but was critical early on and consistent throughout the campaign of how the war was being prosecuted. Regardless of what the three candidates are saying, there is no way that any of them will start pulling our troops out of Iraq immediately.

Posted by: Eyes Open | April 6, 2008 5:36 PM

FOR LACK OF SPACE, JUST A FEW OF OBAMA'S LIES: 1. his continual reference to his "Christian" faith, which is actually "black liberation theology"; 2. his lies and omissions about his connection to his racist and anti-American "mentor and spiritual adviser"; 3. his lie that the Kennedy family provided the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father; 4. his current false ad in Pennsylvania in which he lies about taking contributions from the oil companies; 5. his alleged continual opposition to the Iraq war; 6. his denial regarding playing the race card (for which he was busted by Tim Russert); 7. his denial that any meeting took place between his chief economic adviser and the Canadian official about NAFTA; 8. his changing testimony about his relationship with and monetary support from Rezko; 9. his lie about a pharmaceutical lobbyist's involvement in his campaign; 10. his statement that his parents met at the Selma march (when he was actually born 4 year before that); 11. his claim in his book that he received his racial awakening at age nine reading a Life/Ebony Magazine story about a black man who was scarred trying to dye his skin white, when both Life and Ebony say there was no such article. AND JUST A FEW OF OBAMA'S FLIP-FLOPS: 1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support. 2. Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter. 3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change." 4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation." 5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 5:36 PM

Over the last 8 years, we have watched highly experienced idiots in the Repukeliscum Party destroy this country. McCain is an OK guy, but he is a Repukeliscum. America cannot afford the Repukeliscum Party any longer.

If you vote for McCain, he has promised that we will be in Iraq for 100 years.

Posted by: POed Lib | April 6, 2008 5:36 PM

Chris Wallace is the biggest and shrillest hack on the airwaves. He is an incompetent, able only to parrot Repukeliscum talking points without even thinking. He was sitting there today, asking John Kerry what Howard Dean meant. That is S*T*U*P*I*D. John Kerry looks nothing like Howard Dean.

Soon Democrats will entirely boycott Fox. It's nothing by nazi propaganda.

Posted by: POed Lib | April 6, 2008 5:40 PM

Cone > Wright > Obama? Fred, here, has found Senator Obama guilty by association of someone elses association.

Everyone in the country is only a few degrees of separation away from everyone else. Are we all to be judged by our associations and our associates' associates? That's crazy. Obama -- like each of us -- is fairly judged by his own statements and actions alone. That's it. Strained arguments to the contrary reveal more about the conspiracy theorist than the subject of their fantasies.

Posted by: Saltwater | April 6, 2008 5:41 PM

John McCain is perfectly qualified to be Commander in Chief -- in an alternate universe where:

- Iran is training Al Qaida and sending them back to Iraq

- Al Qaida exists in such great numbers in Iraq that they would "take over the country" if we left (no serious analyst thinks this possible)

- It was a good idea to invade Iraq in the first place

- Finishing 894th out of 899 in your class at Annapolis makes you a foreign policy genius.

Now granted, a good portion of the Bush faithful still live in this alternative universe, where Saddam attacked us on 9/11. But most of the country has opted instead for reality. Therefore, John McCain is probably not qualified to serve as C-in-C.

Posted by: Mark | April 6, 2008 5:43 PM

Atleast Republican nominee think obama is qualified. but its pathetic that fellow democrate Hillary does not think he is qualified.. what a surprise!!!

Posted by: Independent | April 6, 2008 5:44 PM

Oh Yeh, Kerry is Obama's right hand boy. Kerry and Biden are making sure The GLOBAL POVERTY ACT gets pushed through Congress. Just think Obama can have his name on the bill and cause $845 BILLION dollars to be sent to the U.N to spend on global funding. Kiss your wallet GOOD-BYE!!! Also, with all the promises Obama is making, I don't think the U.S. has enough money in the Federal Reserve to keep up with him.
Until tommorow--God bless!!

Posted by: Susej | April 6, 2008 5:44 PM

Gee, the Obama haters are out in full force today, guess they are feeling threatened. I just wanted to note the Rendell comment that Hillary will win PA by 5-10pts, and that will be a big victory for her. I think not. She started out at 20 pts ahead and its just been steady erosion. If they are thinking it will be that margin now, what are they going to think by election day?

Posted by: nclwtk | April 6, 2008 5:45 PM

Mac believes in free trade with our friends in the Western Hemisphere, including Colombia.

Mac is opposed to what Hugo Chavez is doing to subvert democracy in Latin America. He is not anti-Latino, just anti-Chavez.

Mac is friendly to the environment and is a champion of increased fuel efficiency, energy independence and solar energy.

Posted by: alance | April 6, 2008 5:46 PM

"I watched him last week let a heckler follow him around for hours." Chief.

This is just nonsense. The Secret Service had no business letting this obviously deranged, angry person near Senator Obama. Don't they remember Robert Kennedy?

Can you imagine what would have happened to this heckler if he had been in the face of George Bush?- or Jesse Ventura for that matter?

I thought that Senator Obama handled it appropriately by telling the man that he was rude, and that he could have his picture, " but I won't be smiling." Good for him.


www.barackobama.com

Posted by: Lucia | April 6, 2008 5:47 PM

Solution to Iraq - U.S. Military acquires one large building to hold a conference. U.S. military enforces a 5 by 5 city-block perimeter around this building to ensure the safety of all conference participants.

Conference participants are locally "elected" throughout Iraq. Each neighborhood elects one participant via town hall meetings. No ballot voting shall be used in this process. These meetings shall be small-scale and open forum in nature, occurring in each neighborhood of every city throughout Iraq. Current elected officials are welcome to lobby for a nomination through their respective neighborhoods. Participants must live in the neighborhood they are nominated from. Each participant is allowed a 2 working staff escort. Participants may be male or female, and of good health.

Participants of the conference shall create a living document that immediately declares Iraqi ownership of all Iraqi oil. This document must satisfy all Iraqi ownership of oil.
All oil within the borders of the sovereign Iraqi nation will immediately belong to Iraqi citizens and any Iraqi citizen will become an immediate shareholder in the Iraqi Oil reserve. The Oil reserve will consist of both refined and unrefined oil deposits. The conference members must achieve a workable consensus and create the document.
The document must be written by hand. All participants will then sign this document in front of U.N. Security Council witnesses.

This proposal is then offered to the United States Head of State via live telecast. The United States can then accept or reject the proposal.

Conference participants are elected in the summer of 2008. Once all participants are registered the conference shall begin no later than October 28, 2008. The conference, once commenced, shall last no longer than 13 days. Upon entry of the conference building all participants will be protected by the U.S. Military and no personnel will be allowed to either leave or enter the grounds of the conference perimeter whatsoever.
Food and any necessary medical supplies will be provided by the United States military and any interested foundations. All living supplies of this nature are supplied once. The supplies must be more than adequate to feed and sustain the well-being of all participates for 13 days. Each participant and his or her staff member is given a package which includes all the necessities they will need for the duration of the conference. Participants are welcome to bring their own food. Microwaves will be available for cooking. All items however are subject to Military screening before being permitted into the conference perimeter.

Local and International press will be allowed to attend the meeting's conclusion, when the document will be formally released and offered in a televised reading. The reader will be elected within the conference by the participants. The reading of the document aloud marks the official adjournment of the conference.


Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 5:47 PM

Libs have ignored the fact: we've been in a 100 year war ever since WWI.

A historian looking back on the past 100 years would see the effort of a growing Republican empire to protect its people and make the world safe against dictators, petty power bosses and dictators.

We have been succeeding time and time again. We must bring down the Chinese oppressors. We must secure Arabia. Obama has already said he will flee from that duty. Hillary has never submitted to the effort.

Only McCain can be historical.

Posted by: John Bailo | April 6, 2008 5:47 PM

Obama is winning the nomination by winning votes across America. There was no other path to the nomination if Hilary was not aware of this. She depended on her name and the establishment to give her the nomination. And the voters have said, not now, not this time. Even McCain is saying what Hilary is too bitter to utter. That Obama will be the next POTUS.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 5:47 PM

Only thing McCane qualifies for is a spot in the RETIREMENT home. What a loser the Republican have for there nomiee. Repubs have no change of winning the election concernig the state of this country, war, and econmony.

Posted by: k2007 | April 6, 2008 5:48 PM

That jerk who was harrassing Obama was not a heckler. He was a prostitute who wanted a picture of Obama that he could sell to make a profit. That's nothing that should be supported.

Posted by: POed Lib | April 6, 2008 5:52 PM

John McCain is not only the best candidate for President, he is the only "real" candidate for President. Clinton cannot win. Obama cannot win. The Democratic party is completely fractured on all fronts. All they do is spit this rhetoric about change, but not one of them have any concept with merit and are at best, good speakers. McCain is not only the best choice, he is the only choice. The thought of Clinton or Obama answering the 3 AM phone call terrifies me! Canada here I come if that happens!

Posted by: Mike | April 6, 2008 5:53 PM

My Republican friend - who once worked on the Hill as a congressional aide (not for McCain) - says that McCain is "bat s#!t crazy." And he WILL NOT vote for McCain.

He is considering voting for Obama, or voting for a write-in candidate (which is more than likely what he will do).

Posted by: anon | April 6, 2008 5:56 PM

How could McCain could say he was "honored and humbled" to have Bush"s endorsement?

I guess I would call myself "optimist", but right now I'm more "mad" than anything. I'll vote for Obama, but I'll also vote for Hillary. My optimism makes me a Democrat. Even if Obama doesn't win the election I'm still glad he's out there......same with Hillary....

Republicans are sad;..... an angry tragedian...the worst America has to offer....

We have yet to endure the tactical and strategic blunder that the war in Iraq really is.

I know! Why don't we bomb other countries that have schools, water, power, and police for their people? We can quickly lower the population, while creating enemies for our industrial military complex?

How's that sound Republicans?

Bush Sees "Defining Moment" In Iraq? He saw WMD, Al Qaeda; mobile weapons labs, terrorist training facilities, missiles that could reach New York, 45-minute ready chemical weapons, none of which were there.

What he will see is his legacy and his Parties demise, but at least I got my $600 "tax-rebate" check from China!!

You wanna get some Republicans?....lets go.........other wise go sit in the corner with your talking point spewing fallacy of a constituency.....

"The great Rousseau said it:
"...Conservatives have learned nothing and forgotten nothing"

Posted by: ApostasyUSA | April 6, 2008 5:57 PM

Hillary the best qualified. Why, because she sleeped with the president - probably didnt' even do that well.

Posted by: Sam Spam | April 6, 2008 5:58 PM

Can there be a stupider group than the current Repukeliscum voter group? After 8 years of incompetence, all they can do is say "Well, that didn't work....we'll try again."

Conservatism is a disaster as an approach to government. It simply involves selling off government to the friends of politicians.

We need a Democratic government that will make government work, and work well.

Posted by: POed Lib | April 6, 2008 6:00 PM

McCain said a few weeks ago that he hoped his words would not be used against him. Because there have been so many wrong ones lately, and they don't put him in a good light.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/06/john-mccain-is-clueless-on-the-ceasefire-in-basra/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/01/mccain-in-the-dark-over-malikis-actions-yet-another-foreign-policy-gaffe/
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/06/mccain-ceasefire-sadr/

As I viewed McCain making his speech at the Lorraine Motel, the reason my annoyance with him reached the point of no return is not just that his umbrella was being held by a young black man - as if an attendant. No, it didn't stop there. It was that this young black man was not dressed as an attendant - he was wearing the kind of outfit many of the young sanitation men in my part of the state typically wear. And wasn't King in town to speak to the cause of the sanitation workers. If the rumors of Rove setting up this appearance are true, McCain has no visible flag pin, and is making an extraordinarily condescending speech. Beyond shameless. McCain, Clinton, Penn, Rove and BursonMarsteller really do deserve each other.

Posted by: kravitz | April 6, 2008 6:00 PM

I just read a comment stating "vote for Hillary to bring our precious soldiers home." Didn't she vote send our soldiers into Iraq? (we've heard all of the excuses) Obama gave a high profile anti-war speech in 2002. I know... it's just words, and he didn't have to vote, but his words detailed the mess created by an invasion of Iraq. Someone should have listened. Chief and Mary May King, why not be honest and say why you are Truly anti-Obama. (A heckler and a pastor??? hmm...) We saw with Obama, when the heat was on, he remained calm, cool and collected. When the Clinton's are "under fire", Hillary gets snappy and defensive, and Bill gets red-faced and hostile. That's not what we need in the White House.

Posted by: #99 | April 6, 2008 6:00 PM

And your fears are based on what, Mike? Bush lied us into an unnecessary war that destabilized an already volatile region of the world. His cowboy policies have disgusted our allies, helped our enemies gain recruits, and caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents considered collateral damage of this immoral administration.

Dems have done much better, and nobody could do worse.

Posted by: Saltwater | April 6, 2008 6:03 PM

"Canada here I come if that happens!"

I love it!! Now the GOP/Republicans are saying they're gonna move to Canada, when just a few years ago they were insulting liberals for saying the same thing...go figure.....

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 6:03 PM

It's not weather he or she is republican or democrat that matters,it is weather he or she is the best person to be president.RON PAUL is the best man to be president and i'm a (democrat).He is the only one that hasn't been bought by a corporation.He will restore health freedom and abolish the Federal Reserve which is owned by private bankers.I'ts never about repiblican versus democrat.It's about the wealthy elite versus the american people.SO Vote for Ron PAul.

Posted by: David | April 6, 2008 6:04 PM

Wonder what on earth his rationale could have been for opposing an MLK national holiday?

Posted by: Karen
--------------------------------

Republicans are racist.
Always were always will be.

Nothing has changed.
They just changed there names from the Dixiecrats to Social and Christian conservatives.

It was only 20 years ago they were known as
the party of Racists.

They tried to change there image by accepting Blacks into there ranks.

The ones they accepted would sell a ship of slaves in a second

posted by " "
----------------------------------------
It was the democrats that advocated for each state to choose whether they wanted slavery or not. Not like the Republicans, with President Abraham Lincoln in charge, that wanted to destroy slavery and unite the country again.

It was the democrats that advocated for "seperate-but-equal" during the civil rights movement. Unlike the Republicans that wanted integration.

It was the democrats in 2001 after 911 to not go into afghanistan to go after al-qaeda even though they said they were in afghanistan and the taliban would not give them up. Unlike the Republicans that said that it was a blatant attack on Americans and called for action against al-qaeda.

(I know Iraq this, Iraq that. Some rich, powerful ppl stand to make money from war. There is no money in peace. McCain wants to stitch the Republican Party together but its falling apart, and fast.)

If you ask me the "democrats" have wanted to keep the status quo for too long and we see that status quo inhibits change. The democrats have always been wrong and always will be wrong.

Posted by: moy | April 6, 2008 6:05 PM

Why would anybody want to vote for BushMcsame. McCain is a clone of George Bush. Have we not suffered enough in this country with the wrong war?

Obama will get us out of Iraq and capture Osama BIn Laden. make no mistake of that one everybody.

I will be voting for Barack Obama because it is time to turn the page from arrogant people like Bush, McCain and Hilary.

Posted by: nkgilb | April 6, 2008 6:05 PM

Most qualified? Huh?? He even admits he knows next to nothing about the economy. So his solution to that problem -- he buys a book "US and World Economy for Dummies". God help us if he wins.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 6, 2008 6:07 PM

Dean created this mess. Four states changed their primaries, but only Florida & Michigan are penalized. Dean's legacy will be the Democratic nominee losing in 2008. Well done.

Posted by: Jack Straw | April 6, 2008 6:08 PM

Whatever his war record, he's a horrible politician. He never passes up an opportunity to tell people what they don't want to hear or something he disagrees with them about. I'm not saying he should lie, but he needs to find a better way to communicate his views.

Besides that, he strikes me as a candidate who might fall into the 'entitlement' trap: I'm more qualified; I've done my time; Its time you voted for me for the President of the United States.

Posted by: UncleRemus | April 6, 2008 6:08 PM

McCain foreign policy:

1) Stay in Iraq for 100 years.
2) Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
3) When all else fails consult G. W. Bush.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 6, 2008 6:09 PM

I smell svreader. Anyone else?

Posted by: Zelda101 | April 6, 2008 6:12 PM

Saltwater: Obama is guilty by one degree of separation. Maybe you would sit in a church for 20 years that preached hate and racism, but I know I wouldn't. And it's a little odd that we're even discussing this; would we be discussing this issue at all if it were a white presidential candidate whose "mentor and spiritual adviser" of 20 years was openly racist against black people? Of course, we wouldn't. Once that came out, that white presidential candidate's career would be over.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 6:12 PM

The "success" of the "surge" is like claiming Sadam Hussein gasing the Kurds was "successful".

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 6, 2008 6:13 PM

McCain is most qualified to have a heart attack.

Posted by: Ed | April 6, 2008 6:14 PM

President Mr MaGoo McCain. I don't think so.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 6, 2008 6:17 PM

Will Cindy be able to guide a senile Gramps McCain the same way Nancy did with Ronnie?

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 6, 2008 6:20 PM

OBAMA WILL NOT COOPERATE IN RELEASING 8 YEARS OF HIS STATE SENATE RECORDS
Judicial Watch: Obama 'intended to leave no paper trail'
By Klaus Marre
Posted: 03/26/08 01:01 PM [ET]
The president of a prominent watchdog group said Wednesday that he believes Democratic presidential frontrunner Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "intended to leave no paper trail" during his time in the Illinois Senate.

Judicial Watch, which has been seeking access to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) records from her time in the White House, argued Wednesday that the Illinois senator, who has criticized the former first lady for a lack of openness, has his own "records problem."
"The more we learn about the Illinois Senator, the more obvious it becomes that he is anything but the ethically upright outsider he purports to be," said Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch.
The group rose to prominence when it repeatedly took on former President Bill Clinton during his time in office. It also sought records from the Bush administration regarding Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force.
In a statement, Fitton noted that his group has sought access to Obama's records as a state senator and questioned whether the presidential candidate has been forthcoming with regard to what happened to those documents.
He said that "nobody knows where they are, if they exist at all" and claimed that "Obama's story keeps changing."

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 6:20 PM

I think McCain made the Obama is qualified statement because he is an honorable man and he was just expressing his true belief; it's sad that HRC is unable to be as classy. I've always thought McCain was doing something right simply from the fact that the mainstream Republicans were opposed to him. McCain also has spoken out in support of Obama on at least two other occasions as well.

I am a Democrat and Obama supporter but McCain is sounding more decent than HRC.

Posted by: JMR | April 6, 2008 6:21 PM

Check this email out I received yesterday. If anyone thinks McCain is qualified to be President, or that he is classy or that he has good moral charachter, think again. He is a shameful hate mongering, racist conservative Republican. He played into and help the past republican congress to press on with the Bush administrations disaterous policies. Everyone also needs to scrutinize his voting record. This man deserves nothing in politics, He was a hero in Vietnam but that is where his credentials end fo me. Very many people from his own party describe him as hotheaded and unstable. We don't need another disastrous Presidency.

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."4


5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5


6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7


8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9


10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0--yes, zero--from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10

John McCain is not who the Washington press corps make him out to be.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 6:22 PM

Seldomly do my comments get posted by the Washington Post. Perhaps that is because I am too far to the right and I am surprised to read comments from the liberal commenters who use profanity, yet their comments get posted. Maybe I will get lucky this time!

Senator John McCain is the most qualified to be President of the United States. He has the most experience and he has proven that he has the statesmen-like qualities to do what is in the best interest of the American people. How can the liberals dispute this? Even Republicans dispute his ability to lead, but, I have never read or observed John McCain do anything that was contrary to doing the will of the people.

So, John says that Obama is qualified to be President of the United States. I disagree with McCain on this observation because Obama has "0" experience in foreign policy and his proposed programs for this country will total 800 billion dollars in addition to the trillion dollar debt we already have. Obama says nothing about cutting spending which would include all of the social programs now on the books that have done absolutely "0" over the past 40 years. Now, he and Clinton want to add Universal Health Care to the burdensome debt.

Unfortunately, we Americans do not have much of a choice this election cycle. Clinton; a liar and a cheat; Obama, also a liar, controversial and inexperienced; McCain,a flip-flopper and taxer.

We blew it! Mike Huckabee was the man for the job. Americans! We never learn do we?

Posted by: Larkin G, Mead | April 6, 2008 6:23 PM

Good sign for democrats. McCain will run on his policies, which are proven failures.

The only way McCain would have a chance is by claiming Obama is not qualified.

Posted by: cstarr | April 6, 2008 6:25 PM

I really don;t think the hard core Republican base will show up for McCain. I suspect many think McCain will do more damage to the party as president than having Dem as president. They may punt this election and regroup for 2012.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 6, 2008 6:29 PM

How about Bob Barr the Libertarian? He might have a better chance to win than McCain?

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 6, 2008 6:31 PM

OBAMA: DIRTY POLITICIAN FROM THE START
http://tinyurl.com/2zwwte

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 6:33 PM

GOOD ARTICLE ON OBAMA'S LIES - TOO MANY TO MENTION
http://tinyurl.com/34bcu3

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 6:34 PM

BREAKING: Mark Penn resigns!! Hooray!!

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 6, 2008 6:37 PM

Well, Since I am probably the only one posting a comment on this page that has actually served in Iraq as a Combat US Marine Officer during the assault on Fallujah, I can tell you that the majority of the troops over there do not agree with the cut and run strategy of the Democrats.

I completely agree with the notion that the
invasion of Iraq was a mistake however; since many of our brothers and sisters have laid down their lives & limbs, it would be an insult to their honor to hand it over to the insurgency, the terrorists and the Iranians who took their lives.

Bush was ill advised by Rumsfeld and Cheney and it had catastrophic consequences. McCain is the only candidate that offers a real solution, not wishful thinking.

The threat to America and its allies is real people. It is not the Republican propaganda machine as I have faced it directly.

These Mullahs are fanatical and tyrannical in every way. They only understand absolute power and it has existed that way for "thousands" of years. They do not respect the lives of their people and never have.

Bush should have weighed down on Saddam and his henchman instead of invading. The United States certainly had other options instead of an all out invasion of Iraq, but that mistake was all encompassing and passed through all political parties, not just Republicans.

The threat that Iran & Syria poses to Israel, The United States and our Western European allies is real and terrifying. Obama and Clinton are selling everyone a pig in a poke as there is not an easy way out of the Middle East and success is now our only option.

Believe what you will from your couch at the house, but I have been there. Fanatical Islam is real, it is dangerous and it will lead to a disaster of catastrophic proportion if not dealt with. Much larger than 9/11.

I think it is important that people remember who started this war. It was not the United States and since the vast majority of Americans do not have any real idea as to the threat that exist, we had better make the right choice and McCain is the only viable option.

I am curious as to what the liberals think is going to happen if the US retreats out of the Middle East? How many Shiites, Sunni's, Kurds and Christians do you all think will die within weeks after a retreat? You all think Rwanda was a mass killing field, watch and see what happens in the Middle East.

When that happens, these same Liberals will be calling for the US and its allies to do something and they will all form their little charities and run their commercials with all the little movie stars crying about the oppression and genocide taking place and they will blame it on Bush.

Suck it up America, this is the price of being the only Super Power in the world and the price of having all the liberties afforded to us.

We have to clean up this mess we are in and there is no other way and McCain is the only candidate that can get it done. Obama and Clinton will do nothing but talk nonsense because they are willing to lie to you all about anything to be in power.

Posted by: Dale | April 6, 2008 6:39 PM

This one is pretty funny. It is Obama on video congratulating Bush on his appointment of Rumsfeld and other cabinet appointees.
OBAMA APPROVING RUMSFELD AND OTHER BUSH APPOINTEES
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxPA37n0oOU

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 6:39 PM

When John McCain endorsed Bush in 2004 he basically threw away almost everything he had claimed to stand for. McCain claimed to be opposed to wasteful spending but Bush didn't veto a single wasteful spending bill or even oppose raising the debt ceiling which was raised several times. McCain even went so far as to vote for the more recent increase in the debt ceiling when even Obama (tax and spend liberal?) voted against it. Since McCain was so busy trying to curry favor with lobbyists from corporations and their Manchurian candidate Bush he just went ahead and endorsed Bush hoping it would help him become president after Bush. Well Shame on John McCain for being a phony fiscal conservative and an enemy of efficient government. We don't need that wolf in sheep's clothing doing favors for lobbyists and cutting back room pork spending deals just like his fake fiscal conservative, tax and spend pal Bush.

Posted by: McCain the Fake Maverick | April 6, 2008 6:40 PM

McCain/Rice? Huh? Is this a joke? I guess the simple minded Repubs think because Condi has dark skin and wears skirts they will get the black and female vote. Dumb.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 6, 2008 6:40 PM

"OBAMA WILL NOT COOPERATE IN RELEASING 8 YEARS OF HIS STATE SENATE RECORDS
Judicial Watch: Obama 'intended to leave no paper trail' " from the far right wing smear organ, Judicial Watch.

"Fred" is up to his same old tired smear rhetoric. Not this time.

Fact: The salary of an Illinois State Senator is $56,000 a year with no expenses for a secretary or staff.

1. The State of Illinois has specific record-keeping requirements for their State Senators and, naturally, business occurring in the legislature. It has been confirmed that Obama abided by these requirements flawlessly.

2. All of said records, i.e. anything to do with the IL state government, i.e. everything is available through the State of Illinois. Some documents require a FoIA request but there is no OK that Obama needs to or can give. The public record is, well, public record.

3. Cases, legislation etc. that were ongoing at the time of Obama's election to U.S. Senate were transitioned to his successor Kwame Raoul.

4. Obama does not have any remaining personal records. Anything that is not part of the official record (see #1) would have been discarded because it is by definition inconsequential. There was no staff that could handle these as mere keepsakes.

That is all the information you need. Please contact the State of Illinois if you want access to the extensive public record.

Period, done, the end.

We will not be distracted. Not this time.


www.barackobama.com


Posted by: Adelaide | April 6, 2008 6:43 PM

Funny, there are still some who refer to the "cut and run" strategy of the Democrats. Anyone who is paying attention knows that is not true. The Democrats plan a deliberate careful well thought out phased withdrawal. McCain on the other hand wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. That will bnakrupt America and Al Queda wins by default.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 6, 2008 6:45 PM

I understand, we favour a candidate, and I understand, we dislike or dislike strongly another. Yet, I respect those of us who believe that McCain should be our president, he has enough reasons why a sane and intelligent person would want to vote for him. I understand why many people back Hillary. She has many characteristics that would make her a fine president. I myself will vote for Obama. He has an attitude that makes me for the first time in years excited about politics. Will it solve all our problems. No, our problems will be solved if all Americans work together, beginning with not calling everyone names, who has an another political conviction than they have.

Posted by: Max | April 6, 2008 6:47 PM

I just realized it ... I'm an idiot provocateur.

Posted by: Chief | April 6, 2008 6:50 PM

McCain is the Most Qualified for Social Security.

McCain is the Most Qualified to KEEP TAXES low for the rich AND CUT SOCIAL PROGRAMS.

McCain is the Most Qualified to make up a lie to invade Iran and keep us in Iraq for BIG OIL!

Judgment?

Sorry John McCain but voting for using force and invading Iraq disqualifies you from any office other than the one you hold.

McCain divorced and remarried for POLITICS.

McCain was guilty of conspiracy with Charles Keating and the Savings and Loan Scandal and his WIFE DESTROYED the evidence, then got hooked on drugs and got off as most rich do.

McCain's judgment got us into Iraq and WILL KEEP us there. (Documented fact)

McCain's judgment on taxes will increase the debt by BILLIONS a year (WSJ)

McCain is qualified for Social Security, AARP and discounts at many restaurants and movie theatres.

Posted by: nacirema | April 6, 2008 6:50 PM

Do you Repubs realize that McCain nearly left the Republican party and was about to join John Kerry as VP candidate in 2004? Doesn't that bother you?

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 6, 2008 6:51 PM

"GOOD ARTICLE ON FRED'S LIES - TOO MANY TO MENTION"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOb2i80YuTA&NR=1

Posted by: Emily | April 6, 2008 6:52 PM

John McCain will be our next president, folks. Barack Obama will win the Democratic nomiation, and a significant percentage of the moderate and conservative Democrats who would have been willing to vote for Clinton will end up voting for McCain instead. McCain will win the national popular vote 51%-47% with 2% going to fringe candidates like Ralph Nader.

Posted by: Dan R. | April 6, 2008 6:52 PM

This is a NO BRAINER, McCain says OBAMA is qualified. Why??? The sh*t is going to hit the fan as the days go by. OBAMA is losing support. And, McCain will win by a LANDSLIDE WITH OBAMA.

WWW.STOP-OBAMA.ORG

Posted by: max | April 6, 2008 6:54 PM

"The Democrats plan a deliberate careful well thought out phased withdrawal."

Insurgency, Iranians, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, Fatah Al Islam, Islamic Jihad, Armed Islamic Group, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Abu Sayyaf Group, Etc, etc..

What does this statement translate into for these groups?

"The Democrats plan a deliberate careful well thought out phased withdrawal."

Ummmm...let me think. Oh Yes, I know! AMERICA RETREATS IN DEFEAT!

There is no way that anyone could be misguided about that notion!

Posted by: Dale | April 6, 2008 6:55 PM

Adelaide: I posted a news article which was my source for the information about Obama not coming forward with his state senate records. Please post your source for your information. Otherwise, it is just your word against United Press International and other news outlets. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 6:56 PM

McCain = patriot & hero BUT not a viable choice as he will continue Bush's Republican path to the country's complete disaster making it a RUINation for all Citizens

Hillary = consistently find the TRUTH INCONVENIENT

OBAMA = Unite the states, solid judgement, integrity... the winner!

to the poster FRED, go cut and paste your drivel somewhere else

Posted by: Only 1 real choice | April 6, 2008 7:00 PM

We could spend 100 years in Iraq and nothing will change. It will still be a mess with insurgents and religious fanatics fighting over control of oil, territory, money and power. Meanwhile Al Queda and the Taliban will be florishing in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 6, 2008 7:01 PM

Emily: You post a Bill Maher rant to counter all of Obama's lies and racist connections? Come on new, can't you do better than that?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 7:03 PM

Clinton's senior advisor Mark Penn steps down. If the Clinton's can't manage their own campaign, how can they manage our country? Bosnia, the false story about the pregnant woman with no healthcare, Hillary even wants the American people to believe that she had an anti-war stace before Barack Obama. What? Mmm,Mmm,Mmm.

Posted by: #99 | April 6, 2008 7:04 PM

Only 1 Real Choice: Yes, sir. Any other orders, sir? You are pitiful, really. Why don't you argue the issues, rather than rely on petty insults? Is that all you have?

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 7:05 PM

Responding to Fred,s list of Obama lies and flip flaps:you are right on the money.Your list is based on facts,not fiction.Sadly the idiots who live in denial and support him blindly,have a good chance of putting him in the white house and the leader of the free world will be a man who has had an intellectual relationship for the last 20 years with a minister who hates all white people and america in particular,not to mention his prior upbringing in the muslim world.This fact in particular is not a racist accusation but a very important fact to consider because he will definitely will be simpatetic with those who want our destruction.But you see,those simple minded idiots are not mentally able to analize and articulate this very important point.God save America from what could be total disaster.

Posted by: John | April 6, 2008 7:07 PM

John McCain (a.k.a.) McBush, will get us in a bigger hole than the current junta in the white house. I just hope that people with a cool head and a brain to think remember that come November. Only someone living under a rock would vote republican next November.

Posted by: Mr. Computo | April 6, 2008 7:11 PM

Frequent cut and paster Fred, I will kindly take the time to debunk you're cut and paste bile.
For example, the article you use to bolster you're rejection of Obama is a classic example.
Obama does not take PAC money, nor does he take money from federal registered lobbyists.
The "Oil money" is from individual employees. Everday hard working American taxpayers who desperately need someone in the WhiteHouse that is looking out for them. That's Obama, these people back their choice with their hard earned money.
Below is a quote from the MSNBC article that debunks your propaganda, and I have also included the MSNBC link.

The Quote:
However, many of those contributions appear to come from workers at the firm not just executives. For example, Patrice McGowan, an Exxon-Mobil shift supervisor, who lives in Joliet, Ill., has donated $982 to Obama as of January. She also has a blog profile on Obama's campaign Web site.

"I am a single woman who has worked shift work all my life, sometimes never seeing another woman on the job for weeks," her profile reads, in part.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/834887.aspx

Posted by: FRED is MISLED | April 6, 2008 7:12 PM

Senator, Good one. Makes you healthier in the race spat going on within the donkeys' camp.

That should make the other two go for the juggler.

These are the lobs which will accost you to victory.

Stop sabre-rattling and speak of peace. The second world war was 1941-45. This loony things goin on for six years. People are tired and want a break.

Here is another technique. When attacked, be like the tortoise. It has the toughest shell in the world. The head and the 4 legs are the five senses with which one relates with the world, viz., sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch. Pull back into your real self, and await till the attacker is clear away.

No sense reaction is the best reaction.

Good luck!

Posted by: mds | April 6, 2008 7:12 PM

many of the posters seem merely to be venting their own bigotry or disgust, rather than offering honest opinion, rational analysis, or relevant facts that have not been adequately evaluated. there are many reasons for these poster deficiencies. few posters spend enough time in bars, cocktail lounges, classrooms or coffee shops arguing with people of similar backgrounds and values. such arguments can be enlightening and help people resolve their indecision about how to vote. here there are too many wildly divergent and in temperate views for peaceful, rational discussion. if i had to listen to some of the ignorant, racist, nuts who post here in my local, there would be violent, physical confrontations leading to mayhem. that's why most of us in real life spend time in discussions where there is a large measure agreement. as it is, newspaper comments are like unedited letters to the editor. they rarely inform, disclose more about the writer than about the topic, and are written mostly to annoy rather than enlighten. because most posters use pen names, honestly and self restraint are seldom found. pity.

Posted by: folk1 | April 6, 2008 7:14 PM

The Real "Inconvenient truth"

There is a correlation between Hillary's complete lack of effort to verify facts.

1. Iraq war: Hillary cast her vote in favor of the Iraq war without reading the National Intelligence Report on Iraq

2. Bosnia Sniper trip: Hillary failed to consult her self to check the veracity of the story. Turns out the truth was the only casualty that day.

3. Hospital Stump speech: Hillary grabbed the most hear wrenching story for her stump speeches and again shows her disdain for the truth.

Hillary has really come into her own by rebranding herself as the champion of her own version of "THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH"

The truth shall overcome!

Posted by: The Real “Inconvenient truth” | April 6, 2008 7:14 PM

As a non-American, I can objectively say that having seen the qualities of all Presidential candidates on display, Obama is the only one truely qualified for The President of USA. He has sound judgements and compassion for all Americans and he is very highly regarded by the rest of the world. American world image ,so utterly destroyed by your present imcompetent incumbent, will be greatly enhanced and strongly applauded by his presence at the White House this coming Noveber.

Posted by: Clue | April 6, 2008 7:15 PM

"Fred"

He didn't keep the "records" as they are only considered by most to be memorabilia. On $56,000 a year and only a one person staff, boxes of papers really aren't going to be relevant. All the records of his Senate dealings are available through the Illinois state government.

Why don't you ask where Hillary's records are when she headed the Young Republicans, or her record of the minutes during meetings attended when she served on the Board of Directors at Wal-Mart?"

Fact: The salary of an Illinois State Senator is $56,000 a year with no expenses for a secretary or staff.

1. The State of Illinois has specific record-keeping requirements for their State Senators and, naturally, business occurring in the legislature. It has been confirmed that Obama abided by these requirements flawlessly.

2. All of said records, i.e. anything to do with the IL state government, i.e. everything is available through the State of Illinois. Some documents require a FoIA request but there is no OK that Obama needs to or can give. The public record is, well, public record.

3. Cases, legislation etc. that were ongoing at the time of Obama's election to U.S. Senate were transitioned to his successor Kwame Raoul.

4. Obama does not have any remaining personal records. Anything that is not part of the official record (see #1) would have been discarded because it is by definition inconsequential. There was no staff that could handle these as mere keepsakes.

That is all the information you need. Please contact the State of Illinois if you want access to the extensive public record.

In Barack Obama's words

"When asked about why he hadn't released his papers, Obama said that he had only one staff person assigned to him during his years in the senate and simply did not have the resources to keep archival records.
"I don't have archivists in the state senate," he said. "I don't have the Barack Obama state senate library available to me. I do not have a whole bunch of records from those years."

Period, done, the end.

We will not be distracted. Not this time.

www.barackobama.com

P.S. "Fred," why don't you spend some time googling the Keating 5?

Here's an especially good one concerning your horse McCain that might interest you. Happy reading.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter7.html

Posted by: Adelaide | April 6, 2008 7:18 PM

Adelaide: Still no source for your assertions. Come back when you have one, and I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 6, 2008 7:24 PM

Considering that buying a home is a major commitment, why are people pointing fingers at the LENDERS for "swindling"? And Obama is on and on about "youre-on-your-own" society. Yes, if you buy a big dang HOUSE (we're not talking peanuts here) without thinking it through, you MUST be on your own.

Were these "innocent" homebuyers FORCED to go through the entire homebuying process, and sign ALL those papers and put an albatross around their necks? Hello?

THAT's what McCain/republicans are pointing out. But as usual, the extreme left-wing folks are portraying this as "unfair". People, when governments start doling out money and "help" people, then its the third world. Not America. (And yes, stop the subsidies for the Corporations as well.)

The Obama adorers need to COOL down and study comparative history of nations. What Obama (and hillary as well, but one suspects/hopes that Bill Clinton will put the brakes on her tendency towards socialism, if elected) is advocating is totally unamerican, utopian hogwash. When Governments start "helping" people it eventually ends up in tyranny. Scandinavian nations are somewhat on a curious experiment, but we'll see how long it will last. Small, homogenous nations are more likely to be successful (meaning, they can stil keep their liberty inspite of the quasi socialism) than the massive continental/polyglot nation that is America.

Not to forget that Europe's propserity is _completely_ underwritten by American military protection. As an immigrant, I'm appalled by the left's comparisons to, and attempts to emulate "sophisticated" European (exluding Britain) government models. Europe is a "client" continent and can AFFORD all sorts of social experiments. The America is the fountain-head of the world order - its not JUST another COUNTRY. I grew up in a dirt poor town in the third world, and an alleged democracy, but as a lower-middle class brown human being. I know what tyranny, oppression is - first hand. (And I'm not talking about my third grade english teacher either. ;) )

Without American "Arms" and the willingness to exercise it, the world would be a desparate, dark hell-hole. The Germans,the Japanese (and the Russians) came so close to extinguishing all civilization in the last 70 years.

The Anglo-American alliance should never take one's eyes off Europe, lest they become suddenly oversophisticated and go on beating up the colored people of the world again ;) Just kidding , of course. Ahem.

Anyway, I wish Colin Powell were running; considering the other options I'd vote for McCain, inspite of his crude humor and ferocious temper. One almost wishes that Bill Clinton could run again.

Posted by: immigrant centrist | April 6, 2008 7:24 PM

To the arrogant Adelaide who defends Obama,s refusal to provide records while state senator on a $56,000 salary.How do you explain his owning a multimillion dollar hous right next to that crook Repko with whom he has been associated for a long while.What right do you think Obama has to be exempted from scrutiny,while Hillary had to release documents about her life for the last 20 years.What is so specialabout him that people like you need to shelter him?

Posted by: john | April 6, 2008 7:29 PM

Fred is Misled: The article I posted is from factcheck.org. Please direct your arguments to them.

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 7:30 PM

"The America"?. Beg your pardon, I meant "America". (a small member nation of the U.N , and usually found near the northwest border of costa rica)

Posted by: immigrant centrist | April 6, 2008 7:31 PM

Heavyweight Bout underway

Hillary Rodham Clinton vs The Truth

background:
up and comer Clinton has suddenly found herself in danger of being an afterthought. After moving up the ranks in what many insiders have deemed an absolutely incredible feat of consistently always keeping the truth at arm's length. Now with a short arm reach and an impressively documented memory that incorporates her Vague-on-demand patent-pending technology she now finds herself locked in a Battle Royal with the Truth.
the Truth needs no introduction, but let it be said now that against HRC it is being cast as the David for her Goliath by all Oddsmakers in Las Vegas.
This just in, the Truth has landed another frightening left hook after yesterdays shocking display of consistent sucker punches, groin kicks, ear biting and the list goes on by HRC.
To be continued...

Posted by: Heavyweight Bout underway | April 6, 2008 7:31 PM

has anyone else noticed the ait force ad on this page. it runs something like "u.s. air force, above all". Reminds me of the old german national anthem "deutschland, deutschland ueber alles, ueber alles in das welt." i think the germans in their new peaceloving democratic pajamas now parse it as "above everything" but even that reading is contradicted by the u.s. air force hospital planes bringing in the wounded to be treated at the huge u.s. hospitals before they are shipped back to be ignored at walter reed. maybe 63 years after ve day, they should sing "u.s. air force ueber deutschland, ueber deutschland und das welt." it scans, i guess, but i still prefer "give peace a chance."

Posted by: folk1 | April 6, 2008 7:31 PM

The Real "Inconvenient truth": Regarding your statement about Hillary's position on the war when she voted for the resolution, as I'm sure you know, Obama was not in the Senate when the vote was taken, and when asked about the vote in 2004, he said he wasn't sure how he would have voted on it. FYI, here is a quote from Hillary's speech on the Senate floor on October 10, 2002 regarding this issue:
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 7:36 PM

90% of Iraqis polled report being opposed to US troops settling in. Almost 50% think "killing [peaceful] US troops" is justified. The insurgency could easily last for 100 years. McCain's comparison to South K. and West G. merely illustrates how we lack a just cause.
Imagine if Eisenhower, after being informed by our intel that Ho Chi Minh would win by a landslide, had decided NOT to call off Vietnamese elections, the way Ike did. Imagine instead, like Bush. he decides to hope the Vietnamese will ring in democracy, with the consequence that Ho Chi Minh is elected and rangs in a communist state. Imagine Ike then says we'll work with Ho Chi Minh "to change him". In return for reconstruction money, Ho agrees US troops can stay in Vietnam to fight his domestic enemies, whom we want defeated, because the Soviets are assisting them. The Chinese communists are rivals of the Soviets, so they start crossing into Vietnam to fight them. Ho Chi Minh fears the Chinese more than the Soviets so he's really angry when we start paying the Soviet funded Vietnamese $300 to turn on the Soviets, whom he feels will protect his govt better against the Chinese than us, because we're getting cozy with the Chinese. This is where we are in Iraq.

Posted by: jhbyer | April 6, 2008 7:40 PM

"The article I posted is from factcheck.org. Please direct your arguments to them." Fred

But you only posted an excerpt. The article clarified that it was the employees who made the contributions- mostly under $100, and that they were unsolicited. You left out the part that stated that Mrs. Clinton received twice as much from same said employees, and McCain even more.

Fred you are a sham. I'm amazed that anyone, including myself, even responds to your cut and paste trash.

I'm going to www.barackobama to donate another $100 from "the intelligence agency."

Must be a vast right wing conspiracy. Fred, you are so pathetic.

Posted by: Fred is a dope | April 6, 2008 7:43 PM

Yes, Fred is a Dope, but you must read the article more carefully. The practice Obama uses is called "bundling." It is when, for example, one of his oil company CEO supporters gets a lot of people at the company to make small donations en masse. Then, it looks like they are all individual donors, but in actuality, they are really "bundled." I have to admit that Obama and his connected friends are very cunning.

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 7:49 PM

Can anyone take a moment to answer some questions that I have about Hillary Clinton? You may look at it as a chance to convince people to vote for her

1. Lied since at least December about her Bosnia trip.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/25/politics/main3967223.shtml?source=mostpop_story
2. Architect of her campaign had met with the Colombian ambassador to the United States earlier in the week in his role as Burston Marsteller's chief to discuss the pending U.S.-Colombia trade pact, which Clinton has criticized on the campaign trail.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/06/clinton.campaign/index.html
3. Campaigns on platform of sound judgement yet frequently told a confirmed fictional story at her stump speeches to scare people into voting her way. "It draws gasps from people when told"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4597361&page=1

Posted by: Questions need answering please | April 6, 2008 7:56 PM

Firstly, to the person who said that Republicans have always been racsists, read your history. The republican party found its roots in the abolitionist movement. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

As to why McCain may have voted against MLK day, perhaps he felt we already had enough federal holidays and that adding additional ones might have an effect on the economy, or cheapen the others. MLK was a truly great man, but if we had to have a national holiday for every great american, we would need ones for Cesar Chavez, Harriet Tubman, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Benjamin Franklin, at a minimum. Think about how many billions of dollars are lost to the US economy every time that the whole american public get a day off, or retailers are expected to pay double time to their employees.

I'm not saying his vote choice was correct, but think about some of the possible reasons why senators vote before condemning them.

By the way, I'm a democrat, and an Obama supporter. I just don't think that McCain ought to be treated unfairly either.

Posted by: Reeve | April 6, 2008 7:56 PM

RE: Bundling

You are resorting to innuendo now in regard to the "Bundling" statement. If you use your theory any large company will have campaign donors for each candidate. So each candidate and their donor group would be guilty of "Bundling", and then each candidate would be "cunning" right?
C'mon,
that's weak and people aren't going to fall for that, it hurts your credibility to post that, no?

Posted by: Cunning | April 6, 2008 8:03 PM

Cunning: Regarding Obama's "bundling," I am merely quoting various articles on the subject. Here is a post to one of them, if you'd like to read it:
http://tinyurl.com/229ht4

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 8:12 PM

Response to "Questions Need Answering Please": There are no answers that would satisfy any non-Clinton supporter, nor Clinton supporters, for that matter. As I previously posted, most candidates equivocate, sad but true. Why I find Clinton less offensive than Obama is, quite simply, because he's told the biggest lie of all - that he was different from the other candidates, and that he would NOT lie. He presented himself as someone with a "call to serve" and no other agenda or ulterior motive.

Like millions of other Americans, I wanted so much to believe him, so it is the "unkindest cut of all" to find out he is just like the other contenders (both past and current...)

For every seeming falsehood one can post about Clinton, her supporters would have a matching one for Obama. Actually, perhaps more. See, for example, http://savagepolitics.com/?p=268. And the list just keeps on growing.

I acknowledge Clinton's own equivocations. So, why do I continue to support her? Because I believe she can prevail in the GE against McCain. We've got a far-right Republican in the latter and Obama has the dubious honor of voting the most far-left liberal platform of any senator on record. That leaves Clinton pretty much in the middle. Well, I'm tired of extremist ideologies, and I figure many others are as well. So Clinton represents a conservative, moderate approach. That might appeal to Republicans who are not in the far-right category.

Is this all personal opinion? Of course. But unlike many bloggers, I've done my homework on all three candidates. I created a chart/table with those three, and then added each issue that is important to me. Then I found out how each candidate voted on that issue (if indeed they voted at all...) If the issue is not yet resolved or ongoing, I read some more to ascertain each candidate's proposed platform to resolve the issue. In short, I can vote in a reasoned manner, and leave emotion out of the equation.

May I respectfully suggest that each of us do just that. We may still disagree, and our votes may cancel out the other's, but if we do NOT participate as informed voters, we don't deserve to vote at all.

I realize I digressed a lot here. With regard to your initial question, I'll repeat - there is no answer. It comes down to which lies I have found least offensive.

Posted by: Denise | April 6, 2008 10:10 PM

the only reason there is no answer to my why-clinton questions is because we demand the truth, nothing less.

the tree you have made for the candidates is rotten with the branches of Hillary, just like the branches of government will be if she is elected.

Posted by: Just_the_Facts | April 6, 2008 10:40 PM

OBAMA: DIRTY POLITICIAN FROM THE START: Chicago Sun-Times--A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: Obama, who runs on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless, first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it. Alice Palmer, friend and mentor to Obama, served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor. But when Palmer lost the congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat. Obama not only refused to step aside for the woman who was his friend and had recommended him for the seat, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw. Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. "He wondered if we should knock everybody off the ballot. How would that look?" said Ronald Davis, the paid Obama campaign consultant whom Obama referred to as his "guru of petitions." Davis filed objections to all four of Obama's Democratic rivals at the candidate's behest. All other candidates were disposed of by Obama's challenges. He then went on to win the election.

http://tinyurl.com/2zwwte

Posted by: Fred | April 6, 2008 10:51 PM

Senator Clinton is easily the most qualified of the three by eloquence, intellect, experience, and composure.

Posted by: John
---------------
John, are you on meth? Eloquence?? More like schrilly; intellect? Is that why she lies so much, is that why she remembers so vividly about landing amidst sniper fire, ducking, heads down, and running to get to their cars, a scene that never happened? Experience? Fraudulant---hand-in-hand with the sniper fire. Composure? Exhibits rage, anger, resentment, envy, yells (although she has toned down), race card, gender card (the boys' club is piling on me; the boys are picking on me). What composure??

your claims are a fairytale!

Posted by: NinaK | April 6, 2008 11:35 PM

A country that leads the world does not have to follow. 911 happend and instead of playing a power tune of leadership and constraint with our allies. We decided to go with the terrorist tactics of war and genocide.

2 trillion dollars used in another way could have closed the deal on PEACE and our security. But bush wanted WAR! couse theres money in WAR. Money the tax payers cannot help but to pay to the weapons makers and the banking industries the money is borrowed from to pay for the weapons. DEBT.

Haven't we seen this time and time again.
McCain is using the same judgment as BUSH.
Stop acting as if WAR is the only tool.

It's not at all.

Posted by: vicbennett | April 6, 2008 11:49 PM

I don't think any of you understand the "real" Hillary Clinton. Two things shed light on her whole candidacy.
First, her tax returns. Second, Mark Penn's secret negotiations with the Colombian government.
The tax returns are relevant, not because of the $109 million in seven years, but the source of the income. Specifically the $15.3 million from Ron Burkle's "consulting" company. That company is partially financed by Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai. Does anyone think the value of Bill's "consulting" would be anywhere near that amount if Hillary wasn't running for president?
The Mark Penn Colombian connection is more straightforward. It is obvious that this was a blatant attempt to influence a presumed future president, and obtain favorable trade status.
Why does Hillary lie? Primarily because she knows that in order for her to preserve that $109 million income, she is going to have to sell favors to foreign governments. So she will do whatever it takes to win the white house; if that means lie, or underhanded trade negotiations with Colombia, so be it. She will preserve access to that income at all costs.
After all, what else would they have to sell if they could not sell access to the Presidency. It gives a whole new meaning to the Lincoln bedroom guests/contributors.

Posted by: Walt | April 7, 2008 12:00 AM

Anyone who can stop the "Mighty Clintonion Machine" gets my vote!! Senator Obama has withstood the Clintons' lies, slanders, put-downs, trash-and-burn tactics, scorched earth techniques, and obvious hatred; he has done it with dignity and chosen to take the high road. Senator Obama will do very well against Senator McCain. Their campaigns will be about issues and not the dirty tactics employed by Hillary.

For those Clintonites who say you will not vote for Senator Obama if he gets the nomination: You are extremely selfish, you will abandon your party in the name of Hillary Clinton. Your loyalty should be to The United States of America first and foremost. The crapola you spew about and against Senator Obama is just that: Crapola!

When Senator Obama wins the Presidency, you'll be the first in line to grab those $4,000.000 to help you with your schooling; you'll be the first in line to grab the great things he will do for our country, and you'll be so busy grabbing you won't even feel remorse for the hatred, racism, and bigotry you are now spewing. So, don't help make the cake, but you will certainly be first in line to eat it!! And you'll want to take some of it home with you too!

Do whatever your conscience tells you, afterall, you have to live with your own conscience, no one else but you.

President Obama will take this nation forward toward a better tomorrow, with or without you. 98% of America will be there to help him and support him. You, see, Obama believes in "A GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND OF THE PEOPLE"; He is extremely well versed in our Constitution and will abide by it.

You might want to ask Hillary and Bill for a small portion of their $109 million, see if they'll give it to you?? By the way, that $109M probably does NOT include Bill's millions he hides, tax-free, in the Cayman Islands.

Posted by: NinaK | April 7, 2008 12:05 AM

THE RACIST THEOLOGY OF OBAMA''S CHURCH:
The theology which Wright has been teaching Obama and others at his church is called "black liberation theology," which is based upon the premise of the white oppressor against the black oppressed. This is why Wright refers to Jesus as black, and his killers as white. This is the only way the story of Jesus fits within his theology. Wright cites James Cone, another proponent of black liberation theology, as his theological inspiration. Here are a couple of James Cone''s quotes: 1. To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people. 2. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. 3. All white men are responsible for white oppression. 4. Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man the devil. 5. Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

Posted by: Fred | April 7, 2008 12:38 AM

For those who are unaware of Hillary Clinton's true feelings about the Iraq war from BEFORE the intervention, here is an excerpt from her U.S. Senate floor speech on October 10, 2002:
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Posted by: Fred | April 7, 2008 12:43 AM

Are you for real? or are you trolling? :)

Is obama giving away the $4000.000 (sic) from HIS pocket?

"98% of Americans will support him?"

What are you talking about> He gets the approval of 51-52% MAXIMUM of registered democrats. How about the rest of America?

The President of the United States is there to execute/enforce the laws . Not to play rich Uncle distributing other people's money to those who are "most in need of it" (to quote obama).

WHO decides who is in "need"? Obama? Bush? who? I thought you are against bush because hes playing God? You want Obama to play God instead?

Posted by: To NinaK | April 7, 2008 1:03 AM

Senator Obama is qualified to be President, if that is what the American people want. The American people were stupid enough to vote for G.W. Bush in 2004, and 49% voted for him in 2000. So hopefully they aren't making the same mistake this time with Obama. I think they are, and am supporting Sen Clinton. I feel that to be President, you need accomplishments; Senator Obama is known as the do-nothing Senator. He hasn't passed any legislation, or done anything to make American lives better while in the Senate.

Posted by: Rick Kendle | April 7, 2008 1:23 AM

The election in November will be between John McCain and Barack Obama and the choice is rather clear. McCain is not the devil, nor does he represent the end of the world. Obama is not a savior whose brilliance will solve all our problems and lead us into a utopia.

John McCain clearly represents the continuation of the policies of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party. Barrack Obama represents a change of course for America, away from those policies.

If you believe that in domestic and foreign matters George W. Bush was mostly right and we should continue in that direction, vote for John McCain. If you believe we have been on the wrong path as a nation and need to redirect our energies and resources, vote for Barrack Obama.

Take away all the vitriol and rhetoric and that seems, to me, to be the choice. I think Barrack Obama represents a step in the right direction and I plan on voting for him.

Posted by: Stan Denski | April 7, 2008 2:15 AM

Fred, How much are you getting paid to waste your whole day smear Obama? Try doing something positive with your life or the candidate you favor.

Posted by: Fred's dead baby, Fred's dead. | April 7, 2008 3:09 AM

Jim King,

You probably really wanted to call him an uppity N*****, but you thought the post would block it.

You are obviously a racist! This is so sad!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2008 3:20 AM

Chief, I think that Obama handled himself rather well and better that most in the exchange with the very annoying photo seeker. The man deserved a gut punch from a secret service agent. He got off easy.

Posted by: Bussta Brown | April 7, 2008 3:39 AM

Senator McCain is a disgraceful opportunist. According to GOP research, McCain has Obama beat but would have a tough time against Hillary Clinton.

Senator McCain is fully aware of Senator Obama's lightweight performance as a Senator--of Senator Obama's voting record (appalling number of missed votes), legislative record (nil, unless he has managed to muscle his way onto the bills created by another), chairing of the important Senate Nato Subcommitte (Obama was 'too busy' to call even one meeting in the 3 years of his chairmanship --note the committee met at least monthly before Obama took over--but not 'too busy' to pocket the extra US$52000), and of his dubious financial relationships with Antoin Rezko, Nadhim Auchi and Stuart Levine among others. Senator McCain knows full well that the hatredfilled, anti-White/Asian/Hispanic/Semetic Black Liberation Theology does not sit well with the majority of White/Asian/Hispanic/Black voters and that the 'pastor/mentor' issue of Rev. Wright has not gone away no matter how many lies and platitudes Obama spouts.

The GOP is looking forward to having a field day exposing Obama for the lightweight charlatan that he is should he get the Democratic nomination while McCain's fulsome charade attempts to deprive the United States of a candidate that grows in stature with every passing day much to the GOP's and the media's chagrin.

Posted by: politics12 | April 7, 2008 3:48 AM

In case you missed this. Posted by Elen.

What a terrible example "seasoned" politicians are setting for our youth.
Ten steps to shame.
One: There was a general consensus that there are DNC rules to be followed to avoid that states, during primaries, move dates around to position themselves at their whim.
Two: States were warned and two basically flipped the DNC off.
Three: Other states that had their placement tied into their own rules had to then move around their own primaries as a result of Two.
Four: The candidates were asked to sign a pledge. They did.
Five: Sen. Clinton remarks: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"
Six: Sen. Clinton now needs the votes.
Seven: Clinton now reneges on her pledge and starts demanding that the vote count.
Eight: Dean who has unfairly been made the scapegoat, now backs off and wants a compromise/
Nine: All the other states, who would have liked to choose their own dates now realize that following the rules is only for chumps.
Ten: Those watching this fiasco including those new young members of our party watch and learn.
This tragedy of disenfranchising voters was not triggered by Dean and the DNC, it was triggered by the injudicious actions of the leaders of these states, and fueled by the one candidate whose signature on the pledge was not worth the paper it was written in.

Sums it up just fine. Clinton is a liar and a fraud.

Another thing, the third post by Chief, says Obama is not qualified because a Heckler followed him around. To make a decision on Presidential qualifications based on an insane and ridiculous premise is what Hillary is counting on. Hillary benefits from "Dumb and Ignorant" Americans. Americans, smarten up and look at the facts objectively, not some idiot heckler. BTW Chief, you're an idiot.

Posted by: Elen's Friend | April 7, 2008 5:10 AM

You can't believe anything that comes out of McCain's mouth. Anyone who says the McCain Kennedy Bill was not Amnesty can't be trusted.

Posted by: Paul Kaston | April 7, 2008 5:14 AM

Chief,
You are an ignoramus.

Posted by: Ryan | April 7, 2008 2:18 PM

John W. McCheney would be in a better position to be the next president if he weren't a republican and exceedingly old. Across the nation the multitudes are increasingly aware of this gutter party and their "lucifarian", dead end policies and agendas. Thanks bush. Maybe he wasn't a total bum, but im not so sure he achieved the desired effect. The ugliest things God ever created, are conservatives. Anyhow, I have some parting shots for you Billary Clingon supporters. These lackluster, subpar, and baseless comments only highlight your inabilities to construct thoughtful or humurous anecdotes as a rebuttal to the superior lexicon of an Obama supporter. We forgive you though. Judging from the contents of some of these comments the average Clingon supporter is incapable of reading, writing, and worst of all, failure to explicate an independent thought. But as they say "stupid is as stupid does". Theres always 2016. Chow. See you at the finish line.


Posted by: Expletive | April 7, 2008 5:26 PM

The word is "ciao". not chow. Thinking of chow mien, are we ;)

Anyway, hopefully the the superior intellects that are pushing for an Obama ticket will succeed in nominating him.

And the inferior jacksonian "multitudes" (democrats) of the greater appalachian region would roll their eyes and vote for McCain - THEIR guy.

Thank god for the innate superiority and the matchless lexicon of the Obama supporters. ;)

Posted by: Ugly Conservative | April 7, 2008 6:21 PM

McCain's appearance on MLKs 40 Anniversary angered many; and talking to the people, apologizing for NOT VOTING FOR MLK HOLIDAY IN ARIZONA. IT WAS FAKE AND A POLITICAL STOP PLOY TRYING TO WIN VOTES. He took a GREAT DAY FOR MLK, to promote himself, INFURIATING. And he did not mean a word he said.

He is not capable or qualified for the job of President and he knows it. BUT I will give him credit that he had enough sense to recognize A MAN WHO IS WORTHY AND QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT, BARACK OBAMA.

HE SEES WHAT KIND OF A MAN OBAMA IS...BUT HE ALSO KNOWS THAT HE IS NOT QUALIFIED AS OBAMA, and WAY OUT OF HIS LEAGUE.

We as people can always see the greatness in others when it is there, and wished it was us. But we also know that for a specific job THAT WE MAY WANT, WE ARE NOT QUALIFIED FOR IT. THAT IS MCCAIN.

Many people like to bluff their way thru the process period to get a job, knowing they are not qualified for it, and can't do it. That is why our country is so messed up, because we have UNQUALIFIED PEOPLE RUNNING IT. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO MAKE THOSE KINDS OF MISTAKES AGAIN, OR THE UNITED STATES WILL GO DOWN THE TUBE. THIS IS THE LAST HURRAY.

These are McCain's qualifications...NOT BE PRESIDENT.

1. HE IS TOO OLD. He will probably have a heart attack or something else, and his VP will have to take over. BOY, THAT'S SCARY.

2. He is not educated or knowledgeable enough in the areas of America's problems to solve them. And he is 'out of touch' with the American people.

3. Economics-(he has no math skills)-how will he know if a budget or economic plan is good for America,if he can't even figure it out, read budget figures or understand them. He needs to be able to edit, delete or add to the plan or budget to make it work for America.

4. Math- How can he design a budget plan for America, and then pass it on to his advisors to improve, if he is incapable of creating one.

5. WAR - not to dishonor his POW and military service. But McCain's military record does not give him experience or qualifies him as an expert war strategist. Nor does it make him more knowledgeable or experience in foreign policy to defend America. He has already shown that he is not ready, he voted with Bush on the Iraq war, and wants to go into Iran.

He don't want to remove troops from Iraq, he wants them to stay there,forever. He and Bush decided to start this war, make a mess, and let the next president fix it. That is evil and incomprehensible.

He does not even understand that we are spending billions of dollars in Iraq, we are alone with no foriegn allies, and America is going broke. Our country is a 'sitting duck for terrorist', because we have no protection. It's in other countries.

When you have to borrow from foreign countries to have money or pay our bills, the WE ARE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE. MCCAIN DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT, or comprehends it.

6. The White House would be "same old politics as usual", because McCain's financial supporters are the 'powerful lobbyist,corporations and all big money people, that America wants to get away from.

7. McCain is not strong enough, skilled in management or finance enough, or fluent enough in national and world problems to be President. He lives in a cacoon and the most contact he has had with the little people and the public is on his campaign trail.

He probably has a headache when he goes home at night, from seeing too many people.

And he is DULL, DIRTY (his past illegals media won't talk about with his State seat in Arizona, and the woman), SLICK, AND DON'T KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING, and UNINFORMED.

EXPOSE THE DIRTY DEALINGS IN ARIZONA AND THE SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK SCANDAL. Why the media STOP about the woman he had an affair with, JUST BECAUSE HE SAID, HE'S NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT ANYMORE. IS HE YOUR BOSSES NOW?

YOU DID NOT STOP WITH OBAMA'S PASTOR, SO WHY WITH MCCAIN'S LOVER. DO YOUR JOB MEDIA.

EVIL DOES AND EVIL DOES...MCCAIN.

Posted by: Willa | April 7, 2008 8:21 PM

The correction did not take.

It's...Evil is as Evil does.

Thanks

Posted by: Willa | April 7, 2008 8:43 PM

The correction did not show.

It's...Evil is and Evil does.

Thanks

Posted by: Willa | April 7, 2008 8:47 PM

CORRECTION DID NOT TAKE.

THE PHRASE IS...

EVIL IS AS EVIL DOES.

Posted by: WILLA | April 7, 2008 8:50 PM

CORRECTION DID NOT TAKE.

THE PHRASE IS...

EVIL IS AS EVIL DOES.

Posted by: WILLA | April 7, 2008 8:50 PM

They are employed by the same puppet master so this isn't surprising at all. Either choice same result. They are both war mongers, they both are globalist, they are both CFR. This mutual masturbation proves they are the same.

Posted by: Ladalang | April 8, 2008 11:11 AM

Sure, McCain dropped expl0sives on North Vietnamese civilians from 50,000 feet, but what of it? He is a national hero. It was the only workable strategy we had at that time. Do you know how many Americans would have died in a direct land attack on Hanoi? Bombing civilians to bow the Vietnamese into submission was the only way. All you cheese-eating liberals who say McCain was involved in something wrong would probably prefer being overrun by Vietcong, wearing bowls on your head and eating rice at every meal.

Posted by: frank burns | April 9, 2008 9:30 AM

OBAMA HAS AWAKENED A SLEEPING ELECTORATE, AND WE AS THE YOUNG, UPWARDLY MOBILE, EDUCATED, WHITES, BLACKS AND BROWNS WILL TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK FROM THE CORPORATIONS, AND WE WILL NEVER GO BACK TO SLEEP. VOICES BY THE MILLIONS CALLING FOR CHANGE. THANKS TO THE POWER OF ONE WHO CAN INSPIRE SACRIFICE. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 12:25 AM

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Latest Results Just Posted Yesterday.
Thanks for Voting!

Posted by: votenic | April 10, 2008 4:35 PM

jadr xavyhfsbo jmyvh ncvjg ujspyacrm njiadegc isecamt

Posted by: nejdc srcmznx | April 11, 2008 1:16 AM

ufqkhmtco isumx eibkasg wumoncvp kldrnm aqsbtox unlgv http://www.htnorsm.bxes.com

Posted by: egrmznd augcnt | April 11, 2008 1:17 AM

Obama may be "qualified" but that does not mean he would be effective. On the other hand McCain is not "qualified". As an attorney I have researched the issue and it is my opinion that John McCain is not a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. First of all, the Founding Fathers were against a standing army, let alone a navy that was stationed on foreign soil. They would have had no sympathy that McCain the son and the grandson of an Admiral can not run for president. They were non interventionist and would not have approved of military personnel being stationed abroad. The fact that McCain will not release his birth certificate is even more alarming. He would only conceal it if he had something to hide. I bet that he was born in a hospital in Panama that was not part of the military base. The military hospital was built after his birth. Either way he is not a "natural born citizen" and in my opinion it is no loss for the American people if he does not run since all three CFR candidates stand for the same erosions to liberty. Isn't it benevolent that Hillary and Obama sponsored a Bill that endorses the citizenship of McCain? Why don't these candidates read the Constitution? It would take a Constitutional Amendment to make McCain eligible. Why are these three our only choices for president when they are oblivious to the supreme law of the land?

Posted by: Kerry Kolsch | April 11, 2008 1:52 PM

Obama may be "qualified" but that does not mean he would be effective. On the other hand McCain is not "qualified". As an attorney I have researched the issue and it is my opinion that John McCain is not a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. First of all, the Founding Fathers were against a standing army, let alone a navy that was stationed on foreign soil. They would have had no sympathy that McCain the son and the grandson of an Admiral can not run for president. They were non interventionist and would not have approved of military personnel being stationed abroad. The fact that McCain will not release his birth certificate is even more alarming. He would only conceal it if he had something to hide. I bet that he was born in a hospital in Panama that was not part of the military base. The military hospital was built after his birth. Either way he is not a "natural born citizen" and in my opinion it is no loss for the American people if he does not run since all three CFR candidates stand for the same erosions to liberty. Isn't it benevolent that Hillary and Obama sponsored a Bill that endorses the citizenship of McCain? Why don't these candidates read the Constitution? It would take a Constitutional Amendment to make McCain eligible. Why are these three our only choices for president when they are oblivious to the supreme law of the land?

Posted by: Kerry Kolsch | April 11, 2008 1:53 PM

VERY GOOD

MR. OBAMA


ATTRACTÄ°VE ADVERTÄ°SÄ°NG

Posted by: EMRE | April 12, 2008 8:25 AM

Posted by: scuko | April 12, 2008 12:45 PM

Posted by: scuko | April 12, 2008 12:46 PM

Its funny even Mcain hasseen the light.Only Clinton is yet to see it, and I guess she need prayers

Posted by: Nick | April 14, 2008 7:05 AM

For those of you who tout/bash experience/lack of experience as criteria to run/not be considered for the high office of President of the United States I say, look what experience has gotten us so far. This country is in serious jeopardy and we need to start planning for a future of high costs for everything. Gas is going to continue to rise and the cost of food will go up right along with it. Don't be fooled into thinking that food is more expensive because of the cost of transporting it either. Rice crops in Australia have been impacted by 6 years of drought (part of global warming) and the cost of rice is rising significantly because of this. Corn crops are being used to create ethanol (and, by the way, due to crop rotation, they will be growing a lot less of it this year) so look for cornmeal and other corn products to go up in price. And while we are talking about corn, what do corporate farmed hogs, chickens and cows eat? Corn feed! The cost of the pork, chicken, beef and eggs you eat will be, you guessed it, going up.

Moving on, Australia's droughts have also impacted the wheat crop this year and we are rapidly running out of wheat stores. Look out America, you are about to find out that your @$$e$ are going to be slimming down because you either can't afford the high cost of the food, or because the food may not even be available because you will need to for you gas tank (if you can afford gas).

And now, switching to fuel, with all of the largest stores of energy (gas, coal, oil) held in some 10 countries that are not the USA, and with those fuels not being able to keep up with present (and growing) demand, we are seriously screwed. The countries where that fuel resides will increasingly exert their political will over our political process simply because we need to heat our house or put gas in our car. To avoid this happening, we need to very seriously research alternative fuel sources - solar, wind, harnessing power of waves, etc.

Instead of talking about sniper fire in Bosnia, Rezko, bitter Americans (yep - I am one of them), who is lying and who isn't, let's get some real discussion on the table. Our way of life is very threatened and so few people know about it that it scares the hell out of me.

Instead of sitting on your laurels speculating on who is right and wrong based on things that are blatantly ridiculous, start demanding serious discussion on the things that are about to impact your life in ways you haven't even thought of.

I don't need to hear about who has the most experience because, in my experience, our leaders have shown over and over that they are only out for themselves.

I will say that Barack was right when he said that it is about more than an election. It is about us getting off of our butt and getting motivated to fix what is wrong. The collective US - not just the politicians (who have already shown they can't get the job done). Organize or join a group. If you don't have the time to spare, then find something you believe in and donate to the cause. Just do something instead of waiting on one of these knuckleheads running for President to fix it for you. I assure you, even if they are qualified, they can't do it alone anyway.

Che-Li
"Love Your Country and SHOW IT"

Posted by: Che-Li | April 17, 2008 2:20 PM

Ok i have posted prier to this heated discussion and have given proff hillarys, obamas and even mccain on how there all not good enuff for the whitehouse.

Now jessie ventura says hes not running the only real change strait talk express we really have even tommy g tompson would be a better fit but thats probily why the reblicains voted him out to begin with.

But is jessie out of this ? beacuse he said "i ran for office and shaved my gotee". Well he did it again. No not britney spears mental lapses witch is realy her privacy. No jessie is running for presedent of the united states if you ask me.
"I've learned after 56 years you never say never. I have no intention at this point in time, but who knows, that could change," yes from the horses mouth.
http://search.live.com/images/results.aspx?q=jessie+ventura+pictures&mkt=en-us#focal=570da1c9f04809d4a67c8c2f5ec12408&furl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brucekphoto.com%2Fjesse.jpg go here and this looks like someone who i ready bu he has to tell spacifics and talk a stand on religon beacuse most people are religous.

ventura 08


Posted by: stephen k. | April 19, 2008 3:03 PM

.
I'd feel a lot better about McCain if he'd just say whether he's gay, and for gay rights, or not. Read & listen to what he did say:
MCCAIN
http://blog-me-no-blogs.blogspot.com/2008/04/mccain-turned-on-to-gay-author-by-teen.html.

Posted by: cosanostradamus | April 19, 2008 8:11 PM

Hillary is only qualified to give the impression that she stands by her man when he cheats on her and the whole world knows. Don't she have any dignity? Integrity?? If you can't hold home together, please don't tell me you can hold this country together. Being first Lady, does not make for President experience. Trust like fine china, even though mended, is not the thing of beauty, once broken. Hillary you have lied too many times.

Posted by: french | April 22, 2008 10:44 PM

He who is without sin, please cast the first stone. Tell me who has not expressed some degree of racism? Why should we judge him because he had a pastor who expressed his personal opinion? Every last one of us, has a friend or family member or associate that don't like someone due to their nationality or background. It is time we stop judging and lying to ourselves and vote for the most qualified. This country is not ready for change, change is feared.

Posted by: poison | April 22, 2008 10:51 PM

Hillary has more money then we have, why should we pay for her lies? If being President was important to her, money would not be an issue. She has stolen enough and lied enough or is Billy boy financing his women!!!

Posted by: Shame | April 22, 2008 10:57 PM

It is funny to read what I assume is a young person write in bold letters how young people will take back the country from corporations etc. and elect Barack Obama.

Maybe he/she should look at the voting patterns of young people in this election. Yesterday in PA there were about 2,300,000 votes and the 18-29 year olds voted 60/40 for Obama but they made up only 12% of the electorate. That totals about 280,000 v0tes. So Obama got 168,000 and Clinton got 112,000. Not really enough to take over the world.

And let's remember that in CA and MA Clinton won the 18-29 year olds vote.

So I wouldn't be so sure that it is all Obama who is bringing out the huge vote.

Women actually made up nearly 60% of the PA vote yesterday and Clinton took 57% to 43% for Obama. So Clinton got nearly 800,000 of those votes to Obamas 580,000.

This accounted for a much bigger difference for Clinton than the youth vote for Obama. I think it is time that the Obama people face some realities.

It is great that young voters will come out and vote and I hope they will continue to participate in elections whether their candidate wins or loses. If not we will once again view them as inconsequential. If they continue to be involved we will see a Democrat in the White House and it will mean incredible change whether it is Obama or Clinton.

But if one looks at the total voting block in the nation, in November it is women power that could make a real difference.

Posted by: peterdc | April 23, 2008 1:21 PM

If hilary is elected, i'm willing to bet McCain would win by an "unexpectedly" large margin.

If its Obama, it'll be close assuming McCain picks a good VP.

Honestly though, if McCain doesn't pick a good running mate, ye, he may as well drop out now.

Posted by: HVP | April 24, 2008 6:48 PM

There is no doubt that Mccain is the most qualified person to be President. Then Hillary would be second and last Obuma. Mccain is only saying that Obuma is qualified to make the Black people happy. Obuma is not anything more than a Black racist who wants to be the "man". I have no idea how any White could vote for him..ever. Have you ever seen anything that Obuma has touched and not messed up.

Posted by: Jim King, Va | April 6, 2008 3:17 PM


Does it give you a thrill when you you depict yourself as an idiot online. Get a job if this is all you..sit at home and demean the white race. They are not as stupid as you yourself are.

Posted by: Diego | April 25, 2008 1:18 AM

Blake wrote: "Hillary thinks Obama is not qualified to be President... McCain thinks Obama is "absolutely" qualified... something is horribly wrong with this picture."

Obama speaks highly of Hillary and McCain. McCain speaks highly of Obama and Hillary.

It is only Hillary who speaks highly of McCain... while requiring her arm to be twisted (in a debate) to say anything nice about Obama.

She's playing with a different set of rules. [Kitchen Sink Strategy] It's no wonder, people see her not as a unifier, but a divider.

Posted by: wolf | April 25, 2008 1:05 PM

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Republican Sen. John McCain, campaigning through poverty-stricken cities and towns, said Wednesday he opposes a Senate bill that seeks equal pay for women because it would lead to more lawsuits.

"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters. "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system."

It is named for Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s plant in Gadsden, Ala., who sued for pay discrimination just before retiring after a 19-year career there. By the time she retired, Ledbetter made $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor and claimed earlier decisions by supervisors kept her from making more.

McCain stated his opposition to the bill as he campaigned in rural eastern Kentucky, where poverty is worse among women than men. The Arizona senator said he was familiar with the disparity but that there are better ways to help women find better paying jobs.

"They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else," McCain said. "And it's hard for them to leave their families when they don't have somebody to take care of them."

I respect you for your services Sir. I respect you as a person. I have honestly searched you up to get an idea of where you stand on multiple issues to see if your ideas are aligned with what I personally think ought to be happening, and yet again even after reading this article, I beg to differ with you here. I agree with you on one thing, that Obama is indeed qualified. I also believe that Obama would be the better deal for this country as opposed to what you're proposing to bring to the table, and I believe Obama would find the issue of pay discrimination WRONG. I like the fact that Obama is agaisnt prolonging this illegit war that we're in, and is dedicated to halting that while also for a plan to not just leave Iraq hanging. I think your team, Sir, should come up with similar plans than prolonging the path of our brilliant Bush Jr. I disagree with you on so much. I disagree with you on corporate. I think Obama is down to Earth with the issues of this country, the needs of people, he has what seems to me common sense when it comes to the issues of everything that's simply just NOT RIGHT-but certainly going on. I honestly find Obama the true candidate with a PASSION for us people. I honestly think you are clearly out of touch. I don't think many women are going to take kindly to some of these issues you are opposed to directly help fix. I don't think many people are going to take kindly to this war you support. I don't believe you really have a passion for ALL OF US people in general. I suppose that is why your list of issues are shorter than those of Obama's and Hillary's. I think there's a lot going on around here that you're out of touch on, and I don't believe you have a passion for us.

A Woman, Christian Supporter of Obama '08

With all due respect

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 27, 2008 4:38 PM

Oh, also McCain, there are educated women whom are leveled with other men with the same exact level of education and other qualifications, performing the same exact jobs whom aren't getting paid equally along with the men they share the same standards and duties with. How dare you suggest that women aren't as qualified. I'm ticked about that. This is the Great United States where our leaders think it is ok to let things like this slide. At some point, it's time for our government to indeed get involved and help set some balance around here. Stop standing by and watching. Oh, but it's ok to play Lord Country of the world. We can stand by and let our members be mistreated (where's the patriotism?), but we've got to rescue other lands even if it puts our own country in trillions worth of a debt, drag our economy down with it, for illegit reasons, at the expense of many families, and many lives of our other significant members. I don't want that kind of representation. I want representation of someone whom cares for the country and the world at the same time. If anything, United States is first priority.

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 27, 2008 4:51 PM

there is the professional world of warcraft power leveling here. welcome.

Posted by: jimelyyes | May 3, 2008 12:50 AM

"Chief" stated that Obama didn't have the temperment to be President because he was ruffled by a man who was stalking him in Pennsylvania for his autograph. How does chief feel about McCain calling his wife the C-word when she teased him about his thinning hair? I notice this doesn't get the news coverage that Obamas pastor gets.

Posted by: 6925thcobras | May 4, 2008 6:37 PM

I believe most Americans know what issues we face as a nation as we try to decide which candidate(s) will best resolve them. We see in John McCain's life, past and present a devotion to serve his country. Anyone who knows Senator McCain will tell you that he has passion for what he believes in and a constant drive to serve his country to the best of his abilities with sincerity, truthfulness, and dedication.

I remember seeing John on the Forrestall the morning of the flight deck fire, he was really beat up, but after some medical treatment he was transferred to the Enterprise and joined up with an attack squadron and that same day launched off in a A6A attack aircraft to provide close ground air support for our troops in Viet Nam. That same day his aircraft was shot down and he was taken prisoner.

Most Americans are aware of the courageous service John provided as a naval aviator and POW . But few can fully appreciate how bad the egregious hospitality of the Hanoi Hilton really was .His main concerns were for other POWs' life threatening conditions and how he could help them is spite of the injuries he had received prior to and during his confinement.
Our convictions about John's character were born in the crucible of adversity. We have witnessed his courage, integrity, character and intellect. We know and greatly respect his sense of honor and his tenacity in the face of grave danger and prolonged hardship(s). These qualities, combined with his life experiences, make John ready for the enormous challenges facing the leader of our country. No one -- no one - has a greater knowledge of what war is really like or more qualified to be president, to lead our country and protect our nation. Some pretend to know him or deride his physical short comings but do nor know his physical strengths, his love of country and his commitment to serve it. He has been severely tested, and we have witnessed him under pressure. We trust his judgment and his ability to surround himself with our countries best advisors to lead our country.
.We could do a whole lot worse than vote for John Mc Cain as our next president of the United States for every man, woman and child in our country regardless of their political affiliation. In John's administration there are no Democrats or Republicans only Americans.

God Speed John Mc Cain

Posted by: John 's Son | May 8, 2008 2:58 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company