McCain takes 5-point lead over Obama - Decision '08

I trust the polls and I trust voting machines,
and I especially trust the man who knows where the ditch is.

Globally speaking (sic), I feel sorry for the Libs who feel sorry for America.

As a liberal I don't feel sorry for America, I feel great sadness. A country I used to be incredibly proud of has turned into an arrogant and ignorant monster. It's obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that the average American is pretty uninformed and incredibly ignorant of the world around them, and the people we pick to lead us just reflect that ignorance and stupidity (W of course is the poster child for setting the bar as low as possible). Bush and his cronies have driven this country right into the ground and are slowly but surely bankrupting it. If American voters are dumb enough to put McCain in office, rest assured that he will complete the destruction of this country that Bush started. And frankly, if that happens, America will deserve exactly what it gets.

Gaithersburger-move to France; they need you! And besides, you dont want to be here when the destruction comes.

"As a liberal I don't feel sorry for America, I feel great sadness. A country I used to be incredibly proud of has turned into an arrogant and ignorant monster. It's obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that the average American is pretty uninformed and incredibly ignorant of the world around them, and the people we pick to lead us just reflect that ignorance and stupidity (W of course is the poster child for setting the bar as low as possible). Bush and his cronies have driven this country right into the ground and are slowly but surely bankrupting it. If American voters are dumb enough to put McCain in office, rest assured that he will complete the destruction of this country that Bush started. And frankly, if that happens, America will deserve exactly what it gets."

There is nothing more truthful than Americans being completely uninformed and uneducated. I mean come'on 4 out of 5 Americans can't find Iraq on a world map, even after being there in war for nearly 6 years!! These are the people who are voting!!! Scares the crap out out of me daily!

Gaithersburger I agree with you about America being a ignorant wasteland and all that but do you really think that Obama will be an intelligent choice and why? I am really looking for your answer because I am so undecided. I think neither one of the candidates is Presidential material, but I am open to hear intelligent people's comments.

Gaithersburger - well said. With the vast majority of Americans saying the country is on the 'wrong track' you would think that it would be a slam dunk for Obama. You would think people wouldn't be saying, "Give me some more of that wrong track!" but they are. You're absolutely right...it is sad. And responses like Brent's "...move to France" brilliantly illustrates how ignorant people are.

Heck, half the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging conservatives on this board can't even spell...even when they have a 'Check Spelling' button at their disposal. With that dearth of education, it's no wonder the Republic - which depends on an informed populace (see Thomas Jefferson's writings) for its well being is in the state its in.

But I also agree with Marvtol's comment - this is going to go back and forth a few times between now and November.

To: no color no gender,

First, let me say that I don't think Obama is the messiah and I don't even think he was necessarily the best that the Democrats could have offered the country. But if you look at what he is proposing in the way of policy and what he stands for and contrast that with what McCain is offering, the differences are sharp. Obama will try to move the country toward universal health care, which is a right, not a privilege; McCain won't. Obama will try to end the war in Iraq sooner rather than later; McCain won't. Obama's tax policies will favor the middle class; McCain will favor the rich. Obama won't recklessly invade a country and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on an unnecessary war. With McCain who knows. He is belligerent and always ready to go on the attack. Just look at the hostile statements he made recently after the Russia-Georgia conflict.

On issue after issue, if you look carefully at what each candidate is proposing and the real-world consequences, Obama is the smart choice by far. Look at it this way: if you feel the country has done well these past 8 years and want more of the same, then you should probably vote for McCain because that is what you are going to get. But if you feel that things are terribly out of whack and we are heading over a cliff, you should vote for Obama because he is the best chance we have right now to turn this country around before it's too late. Obama won't be able to solve all of the country's problems, but he will at least try. I don't think the same can be said for McCain.

Sorry Jacob but "W's" rating is still higher than Carter's at his peak and higher yet than the Dem controlled house and senate! Bush bashing is so passe, Try again!

No color no gender, I agree that neither candidate is my first choice. Seems to be a trend in presidential politics. That aside I'm voting Obama for the following reasons:
1. we must raise taxes on the most wealthy to pay down the budget deficit. I may be wrong, but common sense dictates that it can't continue like this and there's no one else to pay more taxes than the most wealthy. I will be caught up in the higher taxes but I think it's immoral and bad economics to keep kicking the can down the street.
2. Obama is more focused on alternative energy than McCain. He may not achieve independence in 10 years as he says but he'll make a lot more progress than McCain on what I see as one of the most critical issues facing our country.
3. Obama doesn't have the cowboy mentality that I see in McCain. He seems to understand that we have to work with other countries and that it's not a "you're with us or against us" world that we live in.
4. Republican campaign tactics disgust me and I think it says a lot about their approach to policy and their character.

I believe that universal health care is a right no a privilege...I also believe that the government should create jobs for all Americans not the private sector...I also believe that we should create housing for all Americans that is their right....I also believe that the government should provide cars for every American so that they can get to work...I also believe the Government should create a bond of $5,000 for every child born...I also believe that Government should pay for my education (all of it, regardless of my grades)...I also believe that if you do become wealthy, then you should pay for all the things for those who did not get 'lucky enough' to become wealthy...hmmmm wait...why would I want to become wealthy...I can get everything I want by just being average...yeah...I love socialism...

Social medicine is a joke...google japan healthcare...read the wiki post on it...that is universal health care..or you can google british healthcare..and see that it is bankrupt and few health care providers get into the system because there is no money to be made...Boy I really hope we get this soon...I want long waits to see the doctors...common procedures not covered...and 1 trillion dollar price tag at least to pay for it...yeah..

Folks - Those are Campaign promises - in other words LIES

Stop believing the BS they are spouting to get elected. Once in office - they will never accomplish what they promised. The democratic controlled legislative branch will never go along with it.

Get Real Folks - They will pretend to do something and take vacation instead or blame the other party for why nothing is getting done while denying they had anything to do with it

um....Rainman.

I just need to point out that my comment had no "Bush Bashing" in it. The comment above mine that I quoted and replied to the first parts of did however. But My comment alone was about my agreement of the Uninformed. Thanks though.

It's obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that the average American is pretty uninformed and incredibly ignorant of the world around them,

Compared to whom? You ask the average Bolivian if they're up on current events. Ask the average guy from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to point out Toronto on a map. Americans are only ignorant when compared to each other. On a global scale... shoot.. global ignorance is par for the course. 70% of people on earth can't read or write...

I also believe that the government should provide cars for every American so that they can get to work...

Um. Ok. I believe evolution should promise every animal safety from predators.

We may be human but we're still subject to the laws of evolution. Without them, we'd just be a bunch of commies ;)

I tease of course, I live in a country that is mildly marxist. Marxism may work for small nations who don't value a high degree of personal freedom. I don't think America is one of those countries.

I believe that universal health care is a right no a privilege

Then you have decided that some people have a"right" to ther peoples property, or time.
In other words you have decided that some people have a right to enslave other people.
You have just turned the concept of "right" on it's ear. But you are not alone, unfortunately.

Oh sorry, I just realized you were being sarcastic. Well, the above is for anyone who agreed with mathew's sarcastic statement minus the sarcasm...

Gathersburger, you are exactly correct.

I could care less about these sham "likely voters" polls. These polls are not counting the huge number of newly registered Democrats. Even if they did, all of these polls are nothing more than crap. The primaries have already shown that polls are inaccurate.

I will follow the money ...and the money backs Obama. 51 million in July compared to McCain's measly 27 million in July. That's on top of all the millions Obama raised during the primaries.

McCain has nothing--His tax policies are a ridiculous extension of Bush's failed policies. His Iraq policy is to follow whatever Obama says while falsely claiming that the surge worked (the stated goals have NOT been met and there is no evidence that the reduction in violence in Iraq is sustainable)

McCain hasn't the intelligence nor the conviction to lead this country.

I don't understand what the big deal is. Of seven polls done this month two show McCain leading while five show Obama ahead. LINK Is there something magic about the Zogby poll? Also, what the heck difference does it make who is leading in a national poll? It's the individual State polls that are important. President's aren't elected by a national popular vote.

Sorry to confess this but I worked in a polling place. They are fixed depending on who is doing the paying of the poll. If it is an independent pollster and people are hang up the phone on you, you just complete the poll yourself because you get paid on how many polls you complete in an hour. The more you complete the more you get paid. The truthfulness of the poll does not matter. That is why you should never believe in polls. Besides in the last two elections weren't the polls all wrong.

Yes comparing America to underdeveloped countries is just fine for our self-esteem, but I am a patriotic American, and I think we should be on top of education.

American 15-year-olds rank 24th in math out of 29 countries.
OECD, PISA 2003 Results, Chart A4.1

Also, with McCain, he will do damage to our economy, as often the over-selling Capitalists tend to do; I'm all for capitalism, but there are definently areas that need to be confined. With friends like Phil Grahmm, is quite scary that people would vote McCain in, even though we can thank people like Grahmm for the real-estate collapse after loosening restrictions on sub-prime loans, just like had happened to the Savings and Loans not even that long back. Jeez, we keep doing the same stupid mistakes, again and again and again. But hey, a select few profit, and we're gullible enough to believe them. I do hope you people realize that there's a LOT more to economics than supply and demand, as almost no real scenarios fit directly into the perfect supply/demand model.

Health care can be argued as a right, as denying health care is infringing on the right to life (in lawyer talk, that is). However, houses are not a right, but that was the American dream, to buy a house and raise a family without going bankrupt. I would not suggest socializing the housing market, and neither politician is imposing much socialistic ideas. Even Bush signed a law to help pay for prescription costs, definently a form of socialism (although the law was ful of loop-holes and entirely ineffective, but it helped pharmaceutical make more profit a least).

McCain has shown no way of paying for his tax cuts, which is just rediculous, we're already in severe debt and it is hurting our economy, and McCain's cuts to the rich well only worsen that. Neither candidate has offered to tackle the real waste spenders, and both are too scared to stand up to special interests. But I would much rather have solar, Planned Parenthood, and the like bossing us around than big oil, the NRA, and like.

Obama is not in support of Universal Healthcare, Dems push that he is but go to his website and read for yourselves, He wants to reduce medicine and healthcare costs and provide "affordable" insurance. This is not universal health care, everyone will not be covered....please educate yourselves and know your candidate.( this is not aimed at anyone, I just want people to truly know their candidate on both sides before trying to explain things wrongly)

Vote Absentee. Surely our future is worth a stamp.

Yes, vote the absentee ballot. Who ever you decide to vote for, just vote.
Also, nice reply Jay. Been awhile since I've seen anyone discount (don't like that word, but was at a loss for a better one) either party without venom.

Jay, I used to work in the oil industry and I can tell you you are under a huge delusion if you have bought into the "drill here drill now" mantra. Here are some indisputable facts :

> No matter how much we drill, we only have about 5% of the world's oil under our feet. We know this from surveying work

>On average we use 25% of the world's annual oil production, annually

>Opening up new drilling areas will not produce more oil for at least 7-10 years, much longer than say building solar and wind farms, or passing better MPG requirements

>The new oil if drilled is only forecasted to add maybe 200,000 barrels max a day to our supply. This would at most cut the price at the pump by about 10c a gallon.

Its really sad how ill-informed the public is, and how well the GOP is using this as an electoral game to win an election. Drill here Drill Now is a false argument, sorry, but there is no easy solution and this one is a huge red herring.

Of the existing leases already held by the oil companies, only about 40% of the known oil fields are being exploited at this time. The reason is in the industry we calculate the profit margin on each well, those other areas just aren't as cheap to drill in, so we don't.

Please do some research, and I'm not criticizing anyone on here personally at all (and hope for the same), but really, this is a piss poor energy policy.

200,000 barrel a day, your figure. Lets use $95 a barrel. Should be a $0.10 drop there.

200,000 x $95 =$19,000,000 x 365 days in a year=$6,935,000,000

Those are dollars that stay here. Drill Now. And its not just drill. McCain and Obama have said to do alternatives. Nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, and bio. When I hear someone say there is an energy crisis, and at the same time say "can't get it from here or there", It baffles me. They want the energy, but they seem to want to magically create it without building it in their backyard. I'm from Kansas, our Governor has successfully killed a coal plant being expanded in the state. She's all for wind, OK me too, But do you think they can develop wind here? Nope. Can't build it there, hurts the view of the land. Can't build it there migratory route. (What part of Kansas isn't?) Back to National. Nuclear, yeah, right, get one of those built in some ones back yard, Good luck. Solar takes acres to get a usable amount of electricity from. Just not to many volcanoes here either. Hydro. You going to Dam a river. Yeah right. Tidal you say. you'll kill the whales and Dolphins. I'm for all of them. Do them all. It will be 10 years for oil, might be 30 for the rest.

Hmmmmmmmmm.... solar and wind farms....

From "Tilting We Will Go?". William Tucker. National Review. August 18,2008:

"Because wind blows irregularly, even the best wind farms now generate electricity at only 30 percent of their theoretical capacity. (by conrast, nuclear reactors run at 92 percent capacity.) That means he ( T. Boone Pickens) will need 1200 square miles of windmills to equal the output of three or four coal or nuclear plants, each of which occupies only a square mile."

"GreenFuel Technologies, a Massachusetts startup, has a plan to grow photosynthesizing algae that will consume the carbon emissions from coal plants, and can be turned into biodiesel to run cars. It sounds like a great idea, except that the pools required for gathering sunlight to convert 40 PERCENT of the exhausts from a single power plant will occupy 15 square miles."

"...Denmark-the world leader in wind generation- stopped building windmills altogether in 2007. After long discussions at numerous symposiums and in professionalenergy journals, a consensus has emerged that,even with very accurate weather forecasts and other improvements, a grid can AT BEST tolerate a MAXIMUM of 20 percent wind energy. Above that, the fluctuations become too difficult to mask."

So much for solar and wind REPLACING fossil fuels.

The big reason I can't jump on board with offshore drilling is because it doesn't solve the problem, it only adds to temporary relief. There are too many quick reliefs going on with gas and it's like taking cough drops to cure bronchitis. I don't want to hear about offshore drilling, I want to hear about other forms of energy. I want to hear about breaking away from fossil fuels and going with something that won't run out in 20 years or so.
And in the meantime, I like Obama's idea of taxing the oil companies when they try to have a field day at our expense. There's no reason why they should make profits when many of us have had to sacrifice our vacations this summer which for much of us meant we couldn't go see our own family.
Also, I can't trust a candidate who publicly makes fun of someone for inflating their tires. Epic fail there, McCain.

My take On T. Boone is why would we trust anything he says?
I will say this on energy. We have been swindled by the energy producers worldwide. In doing so we have set on our hands and been slaves to them for too long. They have manipulated politicians controlled prices and stopped all reasonable legislation on new energy sources just to fill their greedy pockets. Energy companies are in control of enough people in Washington to thwart any effort at meaningful solutions to the energy crisis. Like a man in the dessert with a half canteen of water if you drink it all today what are you going to do tomorrow.
Years back we came together and decided to put a man on the moon. We did that easily. You cannot tell me that if we start now we cannot come up with a viable plan to reduce consumption while building a new source for energy that would lead the US into the world leadership on renewable energy.
We cannot do this without leadership. One candidate offers a future thinking positive approach the other offers more of the same which has not worked and may lead to this country becoming a second rate country in the future.
The first word is sacrifice. We all are going to have to sacrifice here. The rich big business and all the rest of us. We need to wake up and start on another venture like putting a man on the moon. We have the mental resources and the money to do so. Lets get started!

Great post, I couldn't agree more. If there was ever an opportunity for American inventiveness and to rebuild jobs here in the US, its investing in pioneering green energy industry. Barack is right on this point.

Read 4.7 again.

And do some math and geography.

Domestic drilling will mean we stop sending Saudi Arabia $ 700 billion dollars per year.

ONLY fission nuclear power plants can produce enough electricity energy density ( 2 million times the energy density of coal) to re-electrify the US.

Fusion nuclear energy would free the world from poverty.

Axel- I am not so sure about how indisputable you facts are

"No matter how much we drill, we only have about 5% of the world's oil under our feet. We know this from surveying work"

Conservative estimates put the total amount of recoverable oil in conventional deposits at about 39 billion barrels. Offshore, we have another 89 billion barrels or so. In ANWR, 10 billion barrels.

In oil shale deposits, we have more than 1 trillion barrels of oil. In perspective, that's about four times the total reserves of Saudi Arabia. And if estimates of shale reserves as high as 2 trillion barrels prove true, we'll have about a 300-year supply of oil just from shale. This compares with current estimated total U.S. oil reserves of about 21 billion barrels.

ANWR alone is expected to yield 1 million barrels of oil a day. Now make the highly conservative assumption that we're able to get a like amount of oil from the other sources — for a total increase of 3 million to 4 million barrels of oil a day.

"The new oil if drilled is only forecasted to add maybe 200,000 barrels max a day to our supply. This would at most cut the price at the pump by about 10c a gallon."

That's an enormous rise in oil output. Today, we produce just under 8 million barrels of oil a day from domestic sources. So we could, in effect, boost our energy output 50%, and thus our energy independence, by bringing an additional 4 million barrels of oil to thirsty world markets each and every day.

By the way, those calculations don't include the trillions and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas found in the same locations, which, along with nuclear power, could be used to fire our power plants.

By 2030, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we will need at least 30% more energy to fuel our economy. Nearly 85% of that increase will come from oil and gas, even with expected gains for alternative energy. Can't drill our way out? In fact, it's the only way out of our energy crisis.

"Of the existing leases already held by the oil companies, only about 40% of the known oil fields are being exploited at this time. The reason is in the industry we calculate the profit margin on each well, those other areas just aren't as cheap to drill in, so we don't."

Oil companies have spent billions of dollars for those leases. Drilling has increased by more than 66% since 2000. They are searching for oil even as you read this. Some parts of those 68 million acres will have oil, some won't. But at $145 a barrel, you can bet oil companies have plenty of incentive to find it.

That said, 68 million acres is in fact a minuscule amount. Some 94% of federal lands — 658 million acres — remains off-limits to exploration. Another 97% — or 1.7 billion acres — of federal offshore properties likewise remains off-limits. These lands contain tens of billions of barrels of recoverable oil. It's there for the taking, now

I am not criticizing you, but I would hate to think of where we would be with your energy policy.

No single power source will replace fossil fuels. We need them all. Now is the time to start. Drill to maintain short term. Instead of giving out "stimulus checks" BUILD SOMETHING! Boulder Dam (Hoover) was a depression era spend that i like. people still had to earn the money. Use the money to create actual jobs. Not some perceived job at the end of the money trail. Build a Nuclear plant on a military base. Its already defended and you don't have to claim any body's land. Government can get a little funding to boot. Is that too hard to do?

Drill Now: I have a few concerns with this concept. First, I would like for the oil companies to drill on the land that they already have leases to. If further expansion is needed after using what is already readily available to them, then we can address that issue. Second, please tell me what assurances the American people should have that the oil yielded by this new drilling will not be sold to a foreign country? If that happens, then how have we benefited? Please don't tell me that I just need to "trust" oil executives. That's laughable. Lastly, environmental protections have to be in place and enforced. It galls me that Exxon still hasn't been fully punished for their last oil spill.

Alternative energy: I don't trust T. Boone any further than I can throw him. I am convinced that he is pushing the idea of wind energy because he has his money invested in it. I don't want to go from lining T. Boone's pockets with oil money to lining his pockets with wind money. However, I do know that we have to move forward and seriously invest our time, energy and resources into alternative energy sources. We simply cannot afford to do business as usual. We need fresh ideas and passionate people to get it done.

Partisanship: Look, this shouldn't be some partisan issue. We are all here in this country together and need to come together to come up with solutions. Our environment, our troops, our religious beliefs, etc should not be partisan issues. To paint them as such is being narrow minded. I don't know anyone that is a hardline democrat or republican. Truth be told, I've never met a person who believed 100% in their party's platform. Most folks I know believe in a mixture of the two.

For example, I'm pro-choice, I have a license and carry a weapon, I am 100% behind our efforts in Afghanistan, I think going into Iraq was one of the most ignorant decisions ever, I believe in the rights of all Americans whether gay or straight, I believe that it is treasonous that our borders are still not secure almost 7 years after 9/11, I am a Christian who loves the Lord, but I refuse to be intolerant of other religions, I want some new blood in Congress as well as the White House.

I don't fit neatly into any "box" and I believe that most Americans are the same way. That is why it is so frustrating to see everything turn into an us versus them argument unless by "them" we are talking the establishment. I am sick and tired of nothing getting done in Washington. I feel that people are there too long and lose touch with everyday Americans and their concerns. I feel that politicians spend too much time trying to settle old scores, line their pockets through shady dealings and enjoy their privileged lifestyles. This is one of the main reasons that I am voting for Senator Obama. I don't want another politician that knows how the system works. I want someone to come in and buck the system so that something actually gets accomplished. I want someone that is willing to listen to all sides of an issue and compromise if need be in order to actually get something done. I don't think Senator Obama is the messiah, the second coming or the one, but I do think he will listen to the concerns of the American people and work for us rather than special interests. I want to see this country move forward and not remain stuck in the rivalries and divisions of the past. Senator Obama is the best chance that I have to see any of my wishes come to fruition. I will be casting my vote for him proudly.

ben you may not criticize him but I will...

Axel..you are full of crap by saying you working in oil...everything you spout is straight from the left blogs. If you work in the oil industry then you work as a janitor...

Keggerlord (great name btw) I like the way you think.

I live in Canada so I don't get a vote come this fall. But I'm like you. I vote for the guy, not the party. The fact that every second person calls the republican candidate McSame is disturbing in the extreme. Anyone who really reads about this guy will see right away that he and Dubya are two different people. Very different people. But party prejudice is keeping a lot of people from looking with clear eyes.

Liquorup, no you call McCain "McSame" because you have ponied up to the liberal left's line of garbage.

Even Barack Obama would have voted with Bush 95% of the time because Bush was making decisions for today, for the future, NOT decisions based on hindsight. At least John McCain admits when he was wrong.

The problem with BO is he has never made a difficult decision for this country or put himself at risk in the process. His inexperience is evident in every move he makes. AND his career track has been all about BO - not serving this country.

I say that because his record shows it. Hillary Clinton has a better track record than Obama does and she voted with Bush most of the time on critical issues.

I don't listen to what politicians say, I watch what they do. Pay attention - actions say everything, words nothing.

NOBAMA in '08

I agree

Cha-ching! And we have a winner!

I have no regrets on voting for him in the primary. I believe his policies are better than Hilary's in the way that he does threaten to charge people for not having health insurance and his talks of not only withdrawing from Iraq but also sending them to legitimate threats to fight the terrorists that were threatening us from the start.

NO, the Republican party was stupid for nominating McCain. He is a dangerous man.

I find it interesting that you McCain followers will grab onto one poll which shows McCain in the lead and ride it. Obama is still in the national lead. Obama is winning in electoral votes, look it up. When Obama is in the lead everyone talks about why he does not have a bigger lead, "what is Obama's problem." Now that one poll has McCain in the lead among likely voters (WTF is a likely voter anyway) you claim victory. Please. I guess now that one poll shows McCain ahead everything is as it should be, RIGHT.

Lieberman as McCain's running mate......GOD Help us if he wins. With Lieberman that close to the power seat he will make Bush look like a boy scout with the wars he will have us fighting on behalf of Israel.
Just cannot chance that in a million years. Lieberman with the potential to be at the helm of this ship.

We are at the edge of the abyss no thanks to W....no doubt in my mind Lieberman will have us in WW!!!. He will be attacking Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, S Arabia....even Russia if they get in his way.
We just cannot chance that. He seems to have no apparent allegiance other then to the state of Israel.
Too dangerous a man to have around the oval office let alone with the power in his hands.

This election reminds me of the "tortoise and the hare".

This one is for shawn: You seem to have a Problem with people of Jewish descent, don't you! Saying that because Libermann is Jewish we are going to go to war with those that oppose Israel! You sir are a total hypocrite! What if I said things about Barrack Huessien's Obama's race, or perceived race? Isn't he really only 1/2 Arab American? You seem very paranoid! Go and see a therapist, please!

We have had enough with war mongers and people with agendas and split allegiances to foreign nations. Lieberman's record is quite obviously reflects where his allegiance lies. We need to take care of our own and not waste our treasury and blood resurrecting tyrants, occupiers and torturers. We need to be looking out for NUMBER ONE and not fighting our "so called" friends causes.
Bringing death & destruction in Iraq has not earned us any good will or friends it has given reason to our old foes in Russia to get bold and do what they are doing in Georgia.

Looking the other way while Lebanon got dismantled is not what America has been about.

Attacking Iran at the urging of Lieberman shows where and what he stands for. We can do without those that will bring us harm and push their own causes at any price.
We need a new foreign policy and same sanity in the oval office.

I think Daschle got canned four years ago.
A good start.

I gurantee sweetie, If Hillary was the nominee McCain would be ahead by more points. The republican party wanted Hillary to win because they thought she would be easier to beat because of all the baggage she has. Keep in mind sweetie, If Obama loses because of the Clintons, she will never win in 2012, because that so-called minority base that they are so proud of and all the millions of Obama supporters will abandon her. Do not be mislead by one poll (WTF is a likely voter) when all other polls show Obama ahead nationally with more electoral votes. If you vote for McCain this November, those so-call women's rights Hillary and her supporters believe in so much will be gone. McCain is anti-woman, believe or not.

I'm registered as a Democrat, but I can't imagine myself voting for Obama. I've read the reports that say McCain thinks women get less pay because we are undereducated. But I've decided I'd rather vote for McCain and have the option of fighting for my rights as a woman than vote for Obama and probably end up with no rights at all. I voted for Hillary and was sad to see her throw in the towel. If Obama is truly eligible under the Constitution to run for our President then why won't he produce a VALID paper copy of his birth certificate instead of allowing all the rumors to go on. All American citizens at some point in their life need to prove birth place be it for entrance to a college or passport or driver license. Shouldn't someone aspiring to be our President at least be required to do the same? If there is nothing to hide, then why not settle the rumors once and for all?

If Obama is truly eligible under the Constitution to run for our President then why won't he produce a VALID paper copy of his birth certificate instead of allowing all the rumors to go on

Are you really so naive as to believe that the Democratic Party would let Obama go this far if they had not absolutely checked out his credentials and eligibility. Don't you realize that our Secret Service thoroughly checks the background of every person that runs for high public office in this country?

What "rumors" are you talking about, and if they're only "rumors" ...forget about them.

This is the first time I got involved in an MSNBC thread. What a joke!

Over 1200 comments on an on a poll that is already out dated.

And, with people that believe the Democratic Party would be running a 500 million dollar political campaign, and the mans "Birth certificate" could bring it all crashing down.

How naive can you be?!

Dovie:

If Obama is truly eligible under the Constitution to run for our President then why won't he produce a VALID paper copy of his birth certificate instead of allowing all the rumors to go on. All American citizens at some point in their life need to prove birth place be it for entrance to a college or passport or driver license. Shouldn't someone aspiring to be our President at least be required to do the same? If there is nothing to hide, then why not settle the rumors once and for all?

Read this: The truth about Obama's Birth Certificate.

It's settled. Can we now move on to an important issue?

Unfortunately, especially in this campaign, people are not only voting along party-lines, they refuse to investigate their own party's assertions and claims. I mean, McCain leads Obama in foreign affairs, even though he doesn't know the difference between sunni or shiites; I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't know the difference between Iran and Iraq. He also denies Obama's stance to take us out of Iraq (while listening to our generals, he has said that all along) and reinforce the troops in Afghanastan, despite everyone, Iraq, even Dubya and Condi supporting that stance now.

As for the oil thing, this is just retarded. Despite our own Dept of Energy saying that opening up drilling off FL coast would provide little cost/benefit ratio, people still scapegoat saying "we need to drill here, and drill now". Yes, we should drill offshore, in the millions of acres that are set aside. Yes, we should even bring back nuclear power. However, to deny renewable energy saying it's too far away or just a pipe dream, than how come several European countries have successfully inserted Solar and Wind on a large scale. Look at Germany and solar, and it's a freaking gloomy country! This is America, we used to be the epitome of innovation, and we are getting our butts kicked.

Well said Phillip

Now that we have a timetable for withdraw from Iraq what are yoiu all going to attack McCain on, I believe Dems would have rather stayed in Iraq without a withdraw plan until the election just so they could win over some undecideds.

mhally,

factcheck.org isn't very reputable, they have ties to Obama to begin with. Also another problem is they say it's aforgery, this doesn't rule that out, it may be a good forgery. Thats a pretty pristeen birth certificate, I'm only 27 and I've never pulled mine out of the envelope except when needed 2 or 3 times and mine isn't that perfect, but I do think it's probably useless and silly to test this, but I love to play devil's advocate, so factcheck.org isn't qualified to rule on the authenticity of a birth certificate from Hawaii.

It looks more like a car title to me. Kansas has a lot different looking birth certificate then that. Ours is a form that is filled out by hand from the doctor, and the mother signs it. You ask for a copy, you get just that. A copy of the original hand filled out form. This is a copy from 2007 so it should be in good condition.

Raymond:

factcheck.org isn't very reputable, they have ties to Obama to begin with.

Could you provide some sourcing for that comment. I've been visiting FactCheck.org for a number of years and have always found them fair. I would be very interested to see what it is that makes you think they have ties to Obama.

....

doesn't rule that out, it may be a good forgery...

PolitiFact has the perfect response to this allegation:

It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world's biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything's possible.

But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what's reasonable has to take over.

There is not one shred of evidence to .... support allegations that the birth certificate he released isn't authentic.

And that's true no matter how many people cling to some hint of doubt and use the Internet to fuel their innate sense of distrust.

I can't believe I've spent so much time on this ridiculous non-issue.

Raymond, I look forward to reading your source on FactCheck.org.

It's indirect through Annenberg, so I don't think it plays a big part, but I can show you an example of them being biased...

I was reading a question on whether Obama cancelled a visit to a vets hospital because of reporters and cameras not being allowed to come....at first I thought good job, they state he did cancel the trip at the last minute, but there is no basis to McCain's claim of reasoning, fair to both, then I read this...

"Furthermore, Obama probably did go to the gym that day, as he does practically every day. So the bare facts stated in the ad are true, but they don't support McCain's insinuation......again, very fair......

We can't read minds and so are in no position to know Obama's motives, or McCain's for that matter. It's unlikely, however, that the absence of press coverage would have been a factor in Obama's decision, as the ad implies. Obama says he never planned to take reporters on the Landstuhl visit, and Department of Defense rules prohibited him from taking reporters on previous visits he made with wounded troops."

The writer is stating what motives they think might have played a part, or more specifically, that the absence of cameras would not have played a part, which they obviously have no way of knowing.......clear bias, they should be sticking to facts, because people who can't think for themselves are very easily persuaded, the writers of this know that and exploit it.

Federalist-

I think you're reaching a little. You claim that the writer ascribed a motive to Obama by stating,

the absence of cameras would not have played a part

. As your quote of the article shows, what was actually written was,

We can't read minds and so are in no position to know Obama's motives, or McCain's for that matter. It's unlikely, however, that the absence of press coverage would have been a factor in Obama's decision, as the ad implies. Obama says he never planned to take reporters on the Landstuhl visit, and Department of Defense rules prohibited him from taking reporters on previous visits he made with wounded troops.

The article, I believe correctly, asserts it is unlikely

that the absence of press coverage would have been a factor in Obama's decision

because he had visited wounded troops multiple times when cameras weren't allowed and it had not been an issue.

Bottom line, I'm not convinced. Also, Im going to need a little more than,

It's indirect through Annenberg

before I'll swallow that FactCheck is tied to Obama.

It's still stating opinions of the writer. Period. By their own admission, they cannot know what caused the decision. Period. End of conversation. To go on and say they don't it's unlikely, not that its false or true, but unlikely which means they are interpreting something. They should have left it without this comment. The part that says that the DoD rules prohibited him from taking reporters on previous visits he made with wounded troops stand alone as good evidence that this was not his motive. They didn't not nee to add it is unlikely because. it's not a fact or a lie based on unlikely.

Like I said before, I know it didn't play a role in his decision, and most people should know that, clearly. This websites needs to stick to just the facts, and they speak for themselves, anyone who reads that without the Unlikely sentence is still going to come to the same conclusion. It seems like they are saying we can't get the point they are making so they have to tell us, the stupid public, it's unlikely, and thats not a fact of the matter. The answers stands alone without it is my point. Putting it in therefore must serve some purpose in the writers intentions, it was not to state the obvious, that is not a fact checker's websites job, therefore they are showing bias in that they are trying to make it clear they don't believe it is a factor. But what they think is not a fact, and what they know is not that it wasn't a factor.

COMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL: If Obama put in a request to take cameras for this visit, and it was denied, that would change the outcome. We have no way of knowing that because the DoD wouldn't exactly release that info. That would change the likelyness of the decision, so it is heresay, and not fact on how likely a factor it was in his decision.

BTW, we don't have a time-table for withdrawl. We have a "time-horizon" as of yet. And McCain still won't even hop on board with that.

No it proves that Obama is an empty suit and a creation of the left wing media. I am a centrist and have voted both ways. The problem is that Hillary was the one capable of winning and instead of nominating her, the weak Demo leaders, Peosi, Reid and the like who are way too liberal for their own good got caught up in the whirlwind of change and hope.

Most of America find Dachle, Pelosi, Reid annoying and since they speak for Obama he will lose. It is sorta sad because the guy is very intelligent and means well but he is way too liberal.

We have not had a liberal President since Jimmy Carter, not a shocker as to why. I may have voted for Hillary.

Ray,

We are probably more intelligent then George Bush, so what is your point :)

Never take advice from a republican

This type of negativity is why I refuse to align with most liberals. I can proudly say that I am a Republican with socially liberal and fiscally conservative leanings (read Libertarian, like most Republicans). I can also say that I do not agree with how the war has been fought, I do not agree with the hard line stance the US has taken with Russia. I disagree with most Neo-Cons on subjects such as Global Warming, Environmental Conservation, Off Shore Drilling, and WTO globalization. I think the patriot act is an abomination.

But I would not say "Never take advice from a Democrat". I would also refrain from saying all Democrats are Socialists who want to sell out our country to the next dictatorship.

But then again, I am a Republican, so I must be souless and complete slime. I am glad that people like you do not actually have any power outside of your arm chair, or else we would all be against the wall for having a different opinion.

I will however say this, wake up sheeple, your leaders are getting you fat for the slaughter. Read up on the WTO, read up on NAFTA, read up on the proposed budgets and see why they will all fail and you will pay the price.

Bill those that disagree with the Republican "line thy pockets" agenda are just upset. This once great country is embarressed on the international stage, our forces stretched, 4500 dead for no reason in a war the White House lied us into.

We have standards, and we see over and over again the wool being pulled over the publics eyes. While our jobs are sent overseas and the top 1% get richer, the middle class is becoming the working poor.

What are we supposed to say "oh well, so be it ? " Give me a break. Its really disheartening how much the public seems to excuse the GOP for every failing in the past seven years. Its not a personal attack on those that voted for Bush, its frustration that a large segment of the population wants more of this. I mean really, when do your standards kick in ? When is another lie too much ?

Jay K--
Those comments (a, b, c) definitely don't apply to the vast majority of Republicans, but they do apply to the Republican leadership, and in spades. The Republican leadership, composed mostly of neo-cons, have hijacked the party and it leaves most Republicans with no place to go. The Republican Party's leadership is loyal only to big business and the rich, and not to the Republican rank and file. You, and other Republicans like you, need to take back your party again. Ironically, the quickest way to take back your party is to help elect a Democrat for President, because that's the only thing that will provide the emotional shock that is needed to cause a revolution within the Republican party, and that's what it will take to dislodge the entrenched leadership.

For a good example of Republican leadership duplicity, take the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (see Wikipedia entry) passed in 2003 by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Republican President. It actually prohibits the Federal government from negotiating discounts with drug companies! Think about it. Every since Reagan, the Republican leadership's solution to most every problem has been to let the free market work. They've practically shouted it from the rooftops: "Free Market!" If they have a core principle, that's it. But they sold it out in this legislation for a few pieces of silver in their campaign fund, and all taxpayers pay the price for it.

If you look closely at most of the Republican leadership's policies, you'll find the same things. They tell the public that the policies are good for the U.S., but really they're only good for the U.S. rich. Don't listen to what these guys say, but look closely at what they do. If you do this, you'll see the hypocrisy underlying everything. Republicans, take back your Party! The country needs a good debate between liberals and conservatives to get the best policies, but it needs both parties to have the best interests of the country as a whole in mind, and not for one party to be only advocating for the best interests of the rich and powerful while pretending to help the common man.

Bill,
I like your moxie and views, even though I am fiscally moderate.

Jay I am dumbfounded how did you figure out anyone's intelligence? Your statement saying Obama is much more intelligent than Hillary Clinton, has me in a quandary cause I cannot figure out it from the little we know about each of these Senators. I await your reply

No Democrat can win unless he or she "gets into the slime pit" as you call it with Republicans. The trouble with Democrats is they never throw any slime on Republicans. They just want to talk policy and fix America's problems. Can't win with that strategy.

So conservatives get away with everything because no one holds them accountable.

Well this proves that mutual respect and debating the issue's don't work.

(it's, doesn't work Ray)

Anyway, you cannot "debate" with Right Wingers, you can only argue with them, and you can't do that unless you want to waste your time.

Jerry--
That's true. You're never going to change the mind of the rabid right-wingers who are posting. But I think there are undecided people who are lurking, and some of those you may reach. Certainly if extreme right-wing views go unopposed, you have no chance of reaching them.

What about extremem left wingers.....both are very dangerous, the majority of Americans are mmoderate and in the middle, and I've seen very few of us posting here, so don't act like left wingers are better than right wingers....they are all extremists and nuts and in the minority of political views

Yes we believe that you are BLOND!

And they are now trying to replace a C student in the white house with a D student. Arent there any intellegent people in the Republican party that are qualified to be president?

No we have an F student running the country! So anything higher than that will be good!

Didn't Einstein flunk out of school because he was totally daft?

Let's look at the issues. Not a report card from, what? A thousand years ago?

Yeah, Obama aced his IQ test upon admission to Harvard, and Bush has an IQ of 90! Electing another sub-intellect as president is also reflective of the quality of intellect of the vast majority of Americans! How low can we go with Mc War-lover, who finished fourth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy.

Most Americans vote for sound bites, propaganda and brainwashing. What other explanation exists for American's voting for another anti-intellect whose entire life speaks of rah's rah's, flag-waving and brainwashing.

Jeri,
You are correct.

Jeri,
You are incorrect.

Chad,
You are incorrect about Jeri being correct.

Thanks Mr. Blonde for correcting me :)

??????Fairy Dust. Nice post.

And republicans are wacko wingnuts?

Looks like Obama's gonna' have to sit down with Pennsylvania low-lifes, hug a gun, get a god, and do some haying.

Maybe so. The Zogby Poll has a history of being the most accurate of all polling services over time. There have been a few hiccups, but largely his tracking is rather spot on. What I find amusing is this: when his poll favors Democrats, he is branded as just another liberal, but when it favors Republicans, the GOP runs to the bank with it.

I'm not putting much faith in any poll at this point. For that matter, I'm not putting full faith and confidence in Obama being the Democratic nominee. They read polls, too ~ and Hillary's name will be put in nomination. As long as the Clintons are drawing breath, it is unwise to count them out.

So, it is NOT legit when your candidate is losing?

Zogby was waaaaay off throughout the primary season. And there is no reason to believe that he's any better now. Note that this is a poll of "likely voters", in other words, they do a poll of registered voters and then throw out the results that don't fit their voter profile.

why use the color brown ding-dung or is it dong, oh well you probably know what I mean

If the Republicans had any sense they would not nominate a hot tempered senile old man. It's obvious they don't care about putting a qualified man on the ticket. Didn't you have enough of that with Reagan?

One Patriot . . . I actually don't know what you mean . . . brown paper bags are mandatory at my child's school . . . not white, not yellow, but brown . . . so that's why . . .

Democratic Presidential Hall of Shame:

Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton

Nixon
Ford
Reagan
Bush I
Bush II
Charter members in the hall of shame

ahhhhhhh....thanks.....I haven't had my dose of leftist histrionics today....now for some coffee.

ahhhhhhh....you're welcome......actually pffft what you've gotten is a dose of truth. You certainly need the coffee because you need to wake up!

"a dose"....yes....."of truth"......ehnnnnnnn.

.......hummmm........yes........what pffft wants is another........ahhhhhhhh.......4 more years.....hummmmm........like the past 8 years......duhhhhhhhhh. It is almost inconceivable that the people of this nation can sign on for four more years of this economic disaster. The great mind behind McCain's economic platform is Phil Bloody Grahm , the creator of the ENRON Loophole. McCain has championed deregulation of all financial industries which has directly led to the mortgage , credit and banking meltdowns. McCain's involvement in financial malfeasance goes back to the 80s and the savings and loan scandal. McCain's involvement with Lincoln Savings and Loan and Daniel Keating led him along with four Democratic Senators to be investigated for corruption. Not enough evidence was found to censure him or John Glenn with both being sited for using extremely bad judgement in the conduct of their affairs. McCain took $112,000.00 in campaign contributions directly from Keating, at the time legal but ethically questionable as he was meeting with Federal Regulators to lay off Keating , He and his family went on nine Keating paid for vacations and his wife invested $359,000.00 with Keating. The S & L bail out cost the taxpayers 125 billion dollars, no one knows what the current bailouts will cost but they dwarf the S&L crisis. These crisis are the direct result of deregulation and the economic policies of John McCain and his fellow Republicans in Congress. If not for Federal bailouts which appear to be fine for corporations but anathema for individuals we would currently be in a depression that would make 1929 look like a picnic.
More McCain financial savvy and their will not be enough money in the world to bail us out.

Wateva, the entire planet wants war for some reason. America is not alone in the aggression. They never were alone and they're sure as hell not now. ITS AN ILLUSION. America only SEEMS like the bigger war monger because it's the most powerful country on earth right now. I don't live in America so I'll tell you. This weird feeling of destructive global hostility is EVERYWHERE right now.

I think that it's an energy grab. Personally, I think it started during the first Gulf war coming to Kuwait's rescue, more recently with the current war in Iraq. The Russians securing natural gas rights under the Arctic Shelf and lastly with the Russian invasion of Georgia. The direction that all parties involved does not look hopeful.

Gosh, Ma. Every generation since prohibition has been borrowing liberally from their children. It's a shame you resort to disparagement and unfounded assumptions in your comment rather than trying to engage in intelligent debate. You probably should try to get your rage in check before you try to find your polling place in November. If you live in a big city, you might be able to get some government-funded counseling.

Another blind to the truth repuke. let me list just a couple of items.
Largest deficit in history
Two wars and Osama still on the lose
Mortgage lending crisis
Foreclosures at historic record
Constitution being shredded
Election tampering and fraud
Tax cuts to the richest and corporations
No oversight on imports no inspection of imports
No accountabilty by this admin
Politcial hiring and firing
Biggest gov. in history
The truth is there, but nicely hidden so nieve little kool-aid drinkers like you don't have learn the truth.
Oh, sorry it's time for you to tune into Rush

Ma - I'd go into detail, but your response proves my point better than anything I could say would. Buh-bye.

Which administration are you referring to?

Could you be happier in Zimbawe?

Why can't anyone write a comment without McShane, McBush, McShame, repukes &%$#@, Have the school's stopped teaching proper English? Also how to write something that makes sense and might possibly enlighten the receipents? And most importantly, how to do research so that you have some idea of what you are talking about.

funny all the problems, and the country still dont want obama to run it. lol

Jean, they just don't know how.
Most of us are looking for intelligent points of views, and all I see is this back and forth insulting each other which helps nobody.
Haven't seen one person change their mind on anything, all they do is throw stingers to have all the bad feelings come out. It would be nice if everybody could speak and present some alternate points of views, without the hatred and bad feelings and narrow mindedness if you speak up your a lefty if you retract your a righty or whatever the buzz word of the day may be, I guess divided we stand is the rule for the good old USA.
Whatever happened to the middle ground.

"Whatever happened to the middle ground."

Karl Rove and the neocons pissed all over it.

My thoughts exactly. It would be a refreshing change for people to stick to issues and refrain from insults. It would also be nice if people considered that a dissenting viewpoint does not make that person a traitor.
It a sign of the times though and I really do believe that people like Rove and Limbaugh, who says "Liberals want to destroy this country" fostered the "us or them" attitude more than any other people in this country.

This is for Jean: Schools in this country are the direct result of the extreme Liberal viewpoint! You know dummed down cirrulculum and sex ed for grade school children, Oh and No prayer allowed since 1964. That is why the average American can't read or write!

Get stronger Democratic leaders and you will get a Democratic President. Hillary WAS the chance to win.

The leaders of the party now always bow to the extreme left, a big mistake and it is what got Obama nominated

Chad I agree with you. Hilary could still be the one to pull this off if Obama would come off his high horse and nominate her for VP.

Obama has not laid out any solid plans on how he plans on creating the changes he rambles on about.

Maybe a miracle will occur and at the Democratic convention with all the delegates allowed to vote Hilary will get nominated....well one can dream.

Chad, I have to disagree. Hillary had tons of baggage to be honest and Obama has been coasting along with a 3-9% up and down lead in the polls since the end of the Primaries. The real campaign doesn't really kick in until after the conventions when we start the three debates.

Its easy if you haven't been paying attention to think that Obama is another Kerry, but he's not. He's a Chicagoan (7 years Illinois State Senate for Chicago) and anyone that knows politics knows you have to be a fighter to thrive in Chicago. Just wait and see, McCain has had it easy so far. Don't take my word for it though, you'll see it in the debates.

Beyond this though, McCain has been throwing the kitchen sink at Obama for the past month or so. Meanwhile Obama is amassing a large reserve to go full bore Sept/Oct. He's running a very intelligent campaign that the GOP is unwise to get complacent about.

Even more so, on average, he has opened 20-30 x as many field offices in all 50 states compared to the GOP. That 3-5% lead in the national poll is not any reflection of the actual GOTV effort thats going to slam dunk him into the Presidency in November.

Remember this post election night :)

Axel - The debates are Obama's weakness. AN open forum is the worst thing for Obama. Saddlebrrok proved that. Why do you think the Obama camp turned down all of the town hall debates that McCain proposed?

Obama does not do well without a prepared solo forum. I respectfully disagree with you.

Sorry Chad but i have to correct you on this. Saddleback was not an open forum as u say, the questions where pre-determined and where the only questions that could be asked, second of all it was not even a debate! Did you not watch it? McCain and Obama where only togther on the stage for about one minute. And Obama is the one who has asked McCain for town hall meetings and McCain has never got back to him. Chad where do you get your facts?? I love it when all these rumors lies and Republican talking points are presented as facts. do your research please!!

You are wrong on that one. McCain asked for the open debates and Obama has said no or never answered which means the same

Good g-331557, and not only that, but it is being said that McCain was not even in the church, but on his way to the church during the Saddleback forum, so could have heard the questions, which might be the reason he jumped in with the answers before Warren had finished asking them. In addition to that, there is some speculation that McCain's story "a cross in the dust." was taken from the autobiography of Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who was imprisoned in the Soviet Union during the '60'sand recently died. McCain "wrote" an article about the author earlier this month.

Good g-331557, and not only that, but it is being said that McCain was not even in the church, but on his way to the church during the Saddleback forum, so could have heard the questions, which might be the reason he jumped in with the answers before Warren had finished asking them. In addition to that, there is some speculation that McCain's story "a cross in the dust." was taken from the autobiography of Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who was imprisoned in the Soviet Union during the '60'sand recently died. McCain "wrote" an article about the author earlier this month.

Senator John McCain and Cindy McCain were investigated.
They were never charged, nor convicted of any crime.
They were chided by Congress for bad judgement(sic).

Having pals like William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko are Obama's bad judgements.

Good g-331557, and not only that, but it is being said that McCain was not even in the church, but on his way to the church during the Saddleback forum, so could have heard the questions, which might be the reason he jumped in with the answers before Warren had finished asking them. In addition to that, there is some speculation that McCain's story "a cross in the dust." was taken from the autobiography of Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who was imprisoned in the Soviet Union during the '60'sand recently died. McCain "wrote" an article about the author earlier this month.

In the USA, drug addiction is classified as a disease and disability.
The demeaniing of any person because of a disease is childish and crass, as well as against the law.

g-331557 - Jean and I are correct. Obama is the one that is running from the earlier debate offers.

No McCain didn't ask for more debates, he asked for 10 orchestrated town halls. We all know what a McCain townhall is. its a pre-arranged meeting of the GOP faithful. Obama wasn't stupid enough to fall into that trap.
Instead Obama offered 4 debates in place of the usual 3. McCain declined.
As per every other election, the dust has settled and they have agreed to the customary three debates.
In all honesty, neither side got what they asked for.

Sorry about it posting three times, first newsvine said they couldn't post it because of an error and they came back and posted it three times! Oh, well, technology.

Yes Axel you got it right that's the real truth about the debates of course the conservatives like always mangled the truth and took it out of context so it would seem like McCain was asking for more real debates then Obama. Anthing to discredit his reputation, attack and distract. LIke I said wait to the real Debates between Obama and McCain take place not the orchestrated Republican town hall meetings hat you see now ,but REAL debates. In a REAL OPEN forum. McCain is going to get scorched and people will start to see who he really while the blinds are finally taken off of the American public eyes , which have been put there by the Republican Propaganda Machine.

No G: It will be Obuma that is going to get SCORCHED! He won't be able to debate his way out of a paper bag! he is lost without the teleprompter and the prepared speech! He will ah, um and hu through the debate! He will probably change his mind mid-way through the debate! This guy can't keep a single stance on anything!

It continues to amaze me how the right tries to label Obama as a flip-flopper. Obama has, with very little exception, remained 100% consistent on his views. McCain, however, either can't remember what he believes or doesn't really believe anything and just spews out what sounds good in his head at the moment. I get such a kick out of the McCain camp saying "look at his record." The problem is, his record doesn't reflect what he's saying now. Here's a McCain flip-flop list

Remember, people in glass houses.......

The Dem. converntion, unfortunately will be a mess. Obama was not strong enough to slam the door in Hillary's face.

Oh come on, have you not read the news about at least a third of the Republican congressional members not evening planning on going to the GOP convention... lets be realistic here.

Axel,

We also can't forget that Ron Paul is having a separate convention in St. Paul. He has so much support that he has had to move to a larger venue. Sounds like a mutiny to me. While the ones you mention have already abandoned ship. Seems like the S.S. Permanent Republican Majority is sinking.

Exactly! He's a one hit wonder. I wish we could have done better than McCain, but I don't think we can do much worse than Obama.

The gifted speaker line is wearing thin. He's a gifted speaker as he is intelligent. Normally when I am hiring someone I hire the intelligent candidate.

He was a constitutional law professor for goodness's sakes - he knows his business. He worked as a community organizer for years, even though he was a Harvard graduate and wrote for the law review. He put people first.

He was rightly against the war in Iraq, when McCain was all for it and said it would be easy.

What are you measuring by ? Who had the good judgement ? Certainly not McCain.

he worked as a community organizer for less than 2 years and probably even less time as a law professor. take a look at his age and then at his resume ???????

Yes he is 47 ? And your point is ?

If we want to talk about age McCain will be 73 in his first year in the White House, 77 at the end. Is that what this country needs ?

Does a 73 year old represent your average American ? He doesn't represent me.

On a related note, if we are talking resume - Obama graduated top of his class from Harvard, even though he was raised by his Grandparents and single mother.

McCain graduated second last out of a class of 960 in military school. He crashed five aircraft, four in training, one causing a fire on an aircraft carrier.

He was a POW, and no one is taking his service away from him, even though the GOP very distastefully attacked Kerry, who also served his country well. What is at issue here is what has McCain done in 27 years in Congress ? What has he really done for the people.

Not enough, thats the answer.

Axel, you've been reading too many conspiracy websites. McCain did not cause the fire on the carrier. He did not graduate second last. McCain has shown how much of a Centrist he is during his 27 years. Centrist means "able to work with the other side".

Not quite.

Obama graduated 212/3829- hardly the TOP.

McCain 5th from the bottom of his Annapolis class.

He did NOT crash an A-10 on the deck of the Forestal. The jet was PARKED, he was seated and barely escaped. Over 140 other Navy personnel were killed. HE DID NOT CRASH.

The GOP DID NOT attack Kerry - the Swift Boaters did- his own comrades in arms. Kerry's second Purple Heart was likely a self-inflicted accident. Amazing two Purple Hearts in 18 months.

The REAL ISSUE here is that Obama trails McCain by 5 %.

BTW:

General George Patton West Point rank 46/103.

Have you ever attended a military academy? They deflate scores and put on huge workloads. Don't forget that hazing was a part of life back then. To give you an idea, most cadets have around around 20 credit hours per semester plus required athletic participation as well as military obligations such as drills, inspections, physical fitness exams, standing watch (sometimes during the sleep/study time), and departmental duties. How many Harvard students are REQUIRED to shoulder that workload? I bet most folks wouldn't have done as well in college if they went to a military academy.

I really don't understand whats so negative about being a gifted speaker?? Good speeches are very important in swaying public opinion and congress when it comes to getting the job done. Someone ,especially in a political office like the President of the United States needs to BE a good speaker because it works in their favor. Tell me one good President that was a terrible speaker and actually got things done? Reagen was known for his great speeches. If you were not a good speaker how would you get public support for your policies , persuade congress to pass your bills and convince other countries to get on your side? That IS a very important quality in getting things done. You just see it as empty rhetoric because you just don't want to believe what he says can really happen, when it CAN. Republican talking points are so strong it has people thinking against all logic and common sense. Stop it and THINK for a minute.

G-there is nothing wrong with being a good speaker. Reagan was a great speaker. Obama is a great speaker. The problem for Obama is that "Speaking" is all he does well-as long as it is not a debate situation. When he has to answer substantive questions that he is not prepared for, he has to carefully answer so as not to let his actual position be known. If his positions become public knowledge, he will start losing support. Oh, wait! Thats happening right now!

Presidents don't get bills passed by congress by having "really neat" speeches; they get them passed by putting meat in them and discussing with members of congress.

Look at their plans because for people who make under 250k they are almost the same. Obama is going to hit the rich harder, no question about that.

You should study up on these things. These polls are based on statistically representative samples, where the primary validity question is whether they are "registered" voters or "likely" voters. Registered voters don't vote as consistently as likely voters.

The pollsters make a concerted effort to collect information from people across the political spectrum. The most significant thing in the story (did you read and understand it?) may be that Obama's support has fallen by 9 percent among those people who say they are Democrats.

You can try to focus some kind of blame on the media for reporting this, but hyping is too strong a term. Check the magazine racks in any 7-Eleven to see the hyping of Obama.

Liberals are so funny. Anytime things don't go there way, there is a scandal or a mistake. They claim McCain cheated at saddleback because he blew Obama out of the water. Now the polls are rigged? When Obama is ahead, it's because he's ahead. When McCain is ahead they polled the wrong people. I bet you believe Gore won Florida, Kerry won Ohio and was a war hero, and Bush bombed the world trade center.

No - I don't believe Gore won Florida - I believe he won period. I also believe that with GW's bro in Florida there was some cheating going on. No savings and loans this time - much bigger fish to fry.

bv-research the 2004 Washington state governers race. The (R) won the original and a recount. Then Seattle "found" 350 votes "stuck in a voting machine to put the (D) over the top. You want voter fraud, we got voter fraud.

The original poster illustrates the real points made by Tammy Bruce- The Left always constructs a "victim of conspiracy" scenario to explain the Universe.

Biden as vp, how about biden as president because he is more qualified than Obama. lol

yes alot more qualified than McCain, LOL ! ;)

so no drilling. we will just watch China and Cuba continue their drilling 50 miles off the shores of Florida, forget about the oil in No Dak, Wyoming even if it takes 10 years. our children can go without they will just have to get by with a windmill in every yard--hey that is a great idea. just make sure no Democrat has to look at it

Wind power would make since in your state but it depends who takes office on what is actually done. Have you noticed that Republicans like Reagan cut programs to encourage self-reliance in the past? Bush was against anything that could help the environment or alternative fuels from the start of his administration. Do you remember when he stated we had no fuel problem and rolled back enforcement of CAFE standards (making US cars obtain and average of 30 MPG for all cars?)
Do you think it has anything to do with the Oil companies funding campaigns to then get the official elected and in their pocket too?

Here is my last comment on drilling...
IF WE HAD ONE KAZILLION GALLON OF OIL GIVEN TO EXXON TODAY IN A MEGA MEGA BARREL ON THEIR PROPERTY DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD CUT PROFITS AND REFINE IT AND LOOSE $$ FOR SHAREHOLDERS AND LOWER GAS PRIZE DRAMATICALLY? The answer is no they are in the business to make money and if this means not utilizing the other 26 million acres already under contract to maintain pricing at all time highs. Yes, I said 26 million acres under contract to drill currently but not being drilled.

Here is a good article for you.
Winds of change
The U.S. can greatly boost clean wind power for 2 cents a day. Now all we need is a president who won't blow the chance.
By Joseph Romm

May 17, 2008 | A stunning new report just issued by the Bush administration finds that for under 2 cents a day per household, Americans could get 300 gigawatts of wind by 2030. That would:
Reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation by 25 percent in 2030.
Reduce natural gas use by 11 percent.
Reduce cumulative water consumption associated with electricity generation by 4 trillion gallons by 2030.
Support roughly 500,000 jobs in the U.S.
The report doesn't mention that this would require adopting policies the Bush administration opposes. But that's what elections are for.
Wind power is coming of age. In 2007, some 20,000 megawatts of wind were installed globally, enough to power 6 million homes. Sadly, most wind power manufacturers are no longer American, thanks to decades of funding cuts by conservatives. Still, new wind is poised to be a bigger contributor to U.S. (and global) electricity generation than new nuclear power in the coming decades. As I have written earlier, concentrated solar power could be an even bigger power source, and it can even share power lines with wind.
Thanks for your support.
That means we can realistically envision an electric grid built around renewables: electricity with no greenhouse gas emissions, no fuel cost (and no future price volatility) and no radioactive waste. But while it is poised to happen, and other governments are working hard to claim market share, America will need a bold president to ensure leadership in these major job-creating industries of the 21st century.
Like solar thermal, wind energy has a long history. More than 2,000 years ago, simple windmills were used in China to pump water and in Persia and the Middle East to grind grain. Merchants and returning veterans of the Crusades introduced windmills to Europe in the 11th century, where first the Dutch and then the English improved the design. By the 18th century, more than 10,000 windmills operated in the Netherlands, where they were used to grind grain, pump water and saw wood. Ultimately the mills were replaced by steam engines because they could not compete with the low cost, convenience and reliability of fossil fuels. In America, windmills were widely used in the West by the end of the 1800s, providing water for irrigation and electricity for isolated farmers.
While wind has not been able to compete with large central-station electric power plants for most of this century, it began to see a resurgence in the 1970s because of the energy crises and government support. Those wind turbines, however, were crude derivatives from airplane propellers and were noisy and inefficient. Over the past quarter-century, significant aerodynamic improvements in blade design have largely solved both problems and brought down the cost of electricity from wind power by 10 percent a year (until recently). Wind energy can now be captured efficiently over a broad range of wind speeds and direction. Turbines, now placed where the wind is constant, have been scaled up from 35 kilowatt models of the early 1980s to 2 megawatts (2,000 kilowatts). Better weather forecasting and computer modeling allow much more confident predictions of wind availability 24 hours ahead of time.

With major government investments in wind in the 1970s, the U.S. was poised to be a dominant player in what was clearly going to be one of the biggest job-creating industries of the next 100 years. As late as the mid 1980s, we had over 85 percent of the world's global installed capacity, and U.S. companies possessed the most critical knowledge about how to develop wind farms cost-effectively.

President Reagan cut the renewable energy budget more than 80 percent after he took office, and eliminated the wind investment tax credit in 1986. His administration saw wind power, clean energy and energy conservation as "Jimmy Carter" strategies, and, like most conservatives, Reagan opposed government-led programs to promote alternative energy. This was pretty much the death of most of the U.S. wind industry.

While President Clinton began increasing funding for wind, the Gingrich Congress blocked that effort beginning in 1995. President Bush and John McCain are two more conservatives who make positive statements about wind power while failing to support the policies that will help achieve this technology's potential. That includes failing to provide consistent support of the tax credit, which allows wind to compete with better-subsidized power sources like nuclear, and to partly offset the much bigger subsidies other countries have for renewables.

Both Bush and McCain have also consistently opposed a renewable electricity standard that would have set a minimum requirement for utilities to generate part of their power from sources like wind. Most European countries have such standards and Denmark, Germany and Spain have had stable, aggressive policies for years, a key reason their countries have become turbine manufacturing leaders.

While wind power has expanded steadily around the world, it has grown in fits and starts here, with U.S. capacity additions repeatedly plummeting whenever the production tax credit was not extended by Congress and the president. Half the states have renewable electricity standards requirements, which, together with the credit, is the key reason that wind generation has continued to expand and that the domestic industry has not died out entirely in this country.

Jean-357410

You should check the real facts before you go spouting off propaganda from McCains ads. China signed a contract with Cuba to POSSIBLY drill for oil on the MAINLAND OF CUBA. But it wil tak 5-10 years just for them to survey the land to see if it is even economically feasible. So no they are not drilling and no it is not off of the coast of Florida and it may not even happen.

Furthermore, oil will run out because it is not a renewable resource. We need to look into alternative forms of energy for the long run so we are not screwed when we run out of oil. And it is possible to find new sources of energy. First people used oil from the fat of whales, then people used coal, then oil, and next will be whatever innovation we come up with.

Look at the ACTIONS of politicians, NOT their words. There is a reason why a majority of politicians are lawyers: they know how to use words to their advantage.

For the last seven years , my family has enjoyed the 1,200.00 tax cut signed by Bush. Our income is $68,000.00 before deductions. Once the bush tax cuts are repealed, our taxes will go up 1,200.00. But then Obama promises to give us 1,000.00 tax cut. I am not holding my breath, Clinton made the same promises and then decided against it once in office. Secondly, if Obama is elected, my husband and I are closing our business as those business taxes will go up to a point that will make it not be worth it anymore.

You've enjoyed the $1200? Are you enjoying the highest deficit in 20 years? Are you enjoying the war? How about some of the highest property taxes in 20 years. Are you also enjoying our bridges falling apart, gangland warfare, not enough police officers or teachers? How about the mortgage crisis? Glad you're having such a good time.

I sold my business last year. I was doing very well, but my accountant and financial advisers told me if the democrats take office, I would loose most of it in taxes.

If Obama gets in, then capital gains go up by at least 5-10% and my total income tax would be 68%. Now I put my earnings into and maxed out every retirement and savings account I could in order to ride out the next 4-8 years if need be.

If a republican gets in, I will start another business. This is what people don't understand about Obama, he can take from the "rich" and give to the poor, but say good-bye to small businesses now. The big ones may be leaving, but the small ones will fold.

3rdpartyadvocate,
Some things in economics are so easy to understand, yet so few get it. Taxing people out of business hurts everyone. I like your comment.

Frustrated one--
I think you need a new accountant and financial advisors. The Republican leadership loves only *big* business; small business and the rank-and-file are too small for them to worry about. Business and the whole country did great under Bill Clinton. With Republican policies, no one will have enough money to support ordinary business, but the yacht dealers will do just fine.

Bv48: Since you apparently are blaming Mr. Bush for all the ills in this world I want to remind you that we have a do-nothing Democrat congress headed up by Pelosi and Reid. If anyone raised your taxes, it was not Mr. Bush.

CCryder is on target with this one, show me a small business that the current administration has helped, I know they haven't done anything for mine.

Frustrated One - you sold your business last year because an adviser told you that if Democrats came to power you'd lose??? WTF? Some true American entreprenurial spirit you are. How easy was it for you to find a job once the company was gone?

Steve

The big businesses around America are the ones that fuel the economy. Have you ever heard of a concept called economies of scale? The big businesses provide jobs, make products cheaper, and give to the communities in ways that small businesses cannot.

In case you havent realized the problems being experienced around the country have been compounded by the democratic congress. The price of gas has risen 75% since they took over and unemployment has risen from 4.5% to 5.5%

CCryder-

I am not so sure about everyone doing so great under Clinton and so bad under Bush.

What factually is true is Bush faced the greatest economic challenge of any incoming president since President Reagan. Like Reagan, Bush met the challenge — something for which the media and his foes refuse to give him credit.

It's hard to overemphasize how nasty things were. But the media were too busy penning loving tributes to President Clinton to note that the economy was falling apart as he left office. Here are the facts about what Bush faced:

The economy was already in recession. It actually began shrinking the summer before Bush entered office — by 0.5% in the third quarter of 2000.

The stock market, as measured by the popular Nasdaq, had already plunged 46% from its peak in 2000 — the biggest drop since 1929, slicing nearly $8 trillion from Americans' wealth.

To name just a few of the hardships that we have experienced under Bush.

Real gross domestic product has soared $1.64 trillion, or 16.5%, during a five-year stretch that has yet to see a downturn and that has witnessed average annual growth of 3%.

Disposable personal income — what's left after taxes — has jumped $2.16 trillion, or 29%, to $9.68 trillion.

Productivity, the fuel for future standards of living, has improved 14.3%.

Overall employee compensation has expanded 4% a year.

cgr, of which lies do you speak? Could you please explain?

Please, McCain is the biggest liar of them all. Go to youtube and check out all the videos where he is caught in the lie. Just type "Mccain" and "lies"

Obama Truth:

I was not IN church or I was sleeping when Jeremiah Wright said those things.

Valkyrie666 and you know this to be true? You were there in church sitting next to Senator Obama? Didn't think so.

Wateva............................

And you believe his other excuses?

This poll is a result of the Clintons machinations to get Hillary the nomination. hahahahaha