I think you are exactly right shinerbock- in fact every time Obama has gone a bit deeper- such as in his interview on CNBC when he got into the capital gains tax- he revealed an incredibly liberal approach.

Obama's "Hope and Change" attitude is a cover for the fact he has the mentality of an angry liberal during the Reagan Administration. He is NOT a man for our time- and even back then at the height, that kind of liberalism was never given free reign. America gave centrist Bill Clinton a Democrat-controlled Congress for 2 years. They won't do that for Obama- assuming it becomes apparent he might win, and I think he has no chance.

The fact "Hope and Change" is a snow job is what goes a step further and makes Obama a huge hypocrite and the worst politician of all in this race.

McCain can be an incredible speaker. Plus he has substance and gets very specific when he talks on key issues. I really think that in their first debate McCain will get all the undecideds and swing voters he needs for this to be essentially over.

Many times during the Obama-Hillary debates, Obama got flustered when Hillary nailed him on something. Many people, myself included, think Hillary "won" just about all the debates with him in terms of logical argument. But Obama and Hillary largely agree. There was not a whole lot to debate there from a big picture perspective.

Just wait until he gets one on one with McCain. I am going to enjoy watching Obama get his clock cleaned by a man who really does respect America and the intelligence of its citizens.

That is a ridiculous statement.

Did you see the recent speech where Obama said we should not worry about Iran because it is a tiny country? I am not speaking out of context- that is what he said. That is a complete and utter disregard for what terrorism is and how terrorism works. It was not some huge nation that killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11.

Have you heard the many speeches Obama has made on evil oil companies or high gas prices? They sound very appealing but lack in substance or solutions.

How often has Obama given you specific information you can understand and trust in when it comes to why and how he would accomplish something- and where the money would come from?

Did you hear Obama talk about poor people who cling to guns and religion?

Have you heard the very few times Obama has spoken about taxation and given very strong indications he will raise the capital gains tax by double digits and increase taxes across the board? Has he ever explained who the capital gains tax really affects to your satisfaction? Are you familiar with who that tax effects in the most common types of transactions to which it is subject? Did you know higher capital gains taxes decimate the middle class as well as "rich folks" and "big business."

Why did it take him until this weekend to withdraw from his church?


I am proud and happy to say that Obama is a liberal elitist who really thinks the average American is stupid enough to buy into his Utopian "Hope and Change" crap when all the time he is the ONE candidate who is refusing to put his neck on the line and be specific about his goals and honest about his past influences.

Hillary and McCain have both been very specific about what they will do, and very pragmatic in their approaches. They show a degree of intelligence, experience and maturity to rule this nation.

Obama does not. He is a fraud. Call me wrong all you want, but just wait until November when he get absolutely skunked in the general election.

PS- Apologies if the strength of my conviction comes off personally preciousjeni. I do not mean to attack you at all. I really am this adamant about Obama, but if I am this strong in my view with blinders on to the other side- then I know and accept others are in the opposite camp with perhaps just as strong a view with just as strong a personal conviction.

his thoughts on oil and gas companies are some of the most idiotic, clueless things i've ever heard

Well you're talking about substance over style and I'm assuming you haven't read the books? The first was written before he was elected for political office and about his life, his struggles to find his identity. It's not really political or "inspirational" other than it is his life up through his work as an organizer in Chicago. The second is actually presents his political perspective and what he'd like to see for the government and the country. It's not just high level talk about change and hope, it's also detail oriented. Don't brush off the books just because of their titles or your assumptions about them.

If all you do is watch the headline news, you don't see the substance because the media (whether CNN or FOX) doesn't really care. The political question/answer shows are better because at least there people are forced to answer, or to make and obvious dodge. But if you listen to actual speeches, read opinion articles from all perspectives, etc. you can see the substance.

I hope you're really fired up because the republican war machine is going to drag that man through the mud. How long until Obama is a running joke on South Park?

In other words, my Whitney comment wasn't too far off. LOL.

HAHAHAHA!! That show is great for that kind of stuff!!!

Each time I see the battles for this election on TV I think about the douchebag vs. terd sandwich episode.

A quick run down for those who dont know what I'm talking about before anyone gets offended (but you might anyway)---The kids of south park had to choose a new school mascot and they had to pick between a douchebag and a terd sandwich. Each side had their own campaigns going door to door etc. Stan didnt like either choice and didnt want to vote for either so he was outcast from south park. Once he's finally let back in his realization is that he might as well learn to pick between a douchebag and a terd sandwich because that's usually the only choice you're going to have. This episode came out not too long after the 2004 election I believe.

I have watched him and read him and about him in action and his great gifts seems to be rhetorical rather than substantial to me. You can see and experience the charisma, wit, and underlying intelligence certainly when you see him in action, but I don't see an accumulation of deeply held beliefs I could expect him to act on. [ETA: or maybe I should say deeply held beliefs that I think can possibly hold up in the face of the reality he will have to deal with if elected. What he says about foreign policy is an example. It's not that I doubt he believes what he's saying today, but I think reality is going to be a slap in the face and I don't know what he will actually be able to do.]

But even if I came to an understanding of what motivated his beliefs after reading the books and I felt like he had a lot of substance, I'd still have to reconcile my impression with the candidate in the race, and I'm not sure it would come off favorably.

The whole church thing from beginning to end is just [another but different] kind of a case in point.

What are we to conclude about what Obama believes about Wright or Trinity? Why isn't a reasonable conclusion that he participated and aligned himself with the church as long as he benefited politically from that relationship but jettisoned that relationship when it was no longer beneficial? How do you reconcile that with having real substance or with the content of the speech he made shortly after the Wright thing first blew up?

I think the Vote or Die tie-in is the best part of this episode.

agreed on every count. at this point, i'm voting mccain... at least the guy is specific and not just throwing around the words "hope" and "change".

i live in texas anyway... the republican always wins texas :p

LOl yeah I forgot about that part with Puff Daddy...P.Diddy whatever ridiculous name he goes by anymore.

Gotta love America.

Yep. No matter which way the election goes.

Comedians Chris Rock & Bernie Mac have better interpretations for me... Especially on their movie of "Head of State". http://www.pledgepark.com/images/smilies/lol.gif

I had questions about Obama in that regard also until I really looked at his website. He has every issue with detailed plans right out there for anybody to read. My remaining concern is that everything he wants to do costs a lot of money and I'm not sure that his plan for paying for it all will fly with Congress. But, that's our checks and balances system. I'm not sure we can go for the sweeping changes all at once. It may take baby steps to move toward the change.

You might not need to take baby steps if you've got large majorities in both houses.

But I hope the steps are small, like you say. That way we won't have to do too much to reverse the damage come 2012.

Only because it gave rise to the greatness of the PETA compound.

PetaGuy: "Clearly you don't love animals the way WE love animals"
Stan: "Umm, yeah"

Sure, with gas prices up aroudn $4.00, I would LOVE to have my taxes raised for all kinds of "silver bullet" social programs!

Kitso
KS 361 times I laugh when I watch that episode and the hybrid human-ostrich thing squeals, "Kill......me, kill......ME!" LOL

I was watching...well one of those political shows...last night and one of the guys said something that struck me. Our government was set up to cause "gridlock" so that drastic changes wouldn't unsettle the entire population.

Not just to avoid unsettling, but to avoid rash or extreme decisions based on crisis, to avoid irreversible shifts in policy, etc.

The website was better than I thought. I don't know if it is more expansive than before or if I just didn't look in the right places. I hadn't looked since the start of the primaries.

I don't think there's a problem for which the answer isn't "spend more money" but that's kind of what I expect from all Democrats honestly and lately a lot of Republicans as well. Of course how the government is going to get the money is never spelled out as well as how to spend it. Honestly though, Obama has been a little better about this than most people with his comments about taxes on anyone making more than 75,000 as household income. Scary but honest.

And of course with education especially, there's a lot of stuff that it's hard for me to accept that it's the federal government's job to do. He also seems unaware that some of the educational programs he favors don't deliver the clear benefits he seems to think they do. And the commentary about No Child Left Behind is laughable. But all politicians are bad about NCLB.

The page is substantial but kind of affirms how much Obama supports that I don't. I don't want to pin my hopes for change on more federal government spending, thanks.

As a teacher, I don't think you're in the top 1% of the income earners in this country (I know, it's a big let down, but your pay isn't that great, really). He says that he would only increase taxes for those in the top 1% and would actually make the tax breaks larger for those in our tax bracket. And, if we weren't paying for Iraq every day, we'd be saving a lot of $$ too.

But, that is my biggest concern with him too.

And, if you don't agree with his policies, then I don't think you should vote for him. I do appreciate that you took the time to read his site. There really is a lot of substance there so he's not just all words. Someone pointed it out to me when I had similar concerns and I was impressed with how much detail he actually has out there. I do think it has become more expansive because all that wasn't there the first time I looked either.

Had to chime in on that South Park episode:

Diddy: I like it when you vote B****/Shake them ti***es when you vote B****!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hilarious!

And yeah, given the choice between douche and turd sandwhich, I think I'm going for Cynthia McKinney.

Wow. The only thing likely to be worse than a douche or a turd sandwich. She is seriously crazy. Have you followed her long?

How do you reconcile the top 1% of income with the 75,000 dollar income threshold that Obama has mentioned previously?

Do you really think he's going to be able to get out quick in Iraq? Quick enough that we'd be talking about substantial cost savings? Even if we could do it, I don't think it's be the right thing to do, but I really don't see it happening even if he is elected. What do you think?

ETA: I find Obama pretty likable and I think I'd like to have him as a professor, but I just don't want the government trying to do more for us since what they do already they do relatively poorly.

Cynthia McKinney is perhaps the most disgusting human on the planet. The 15 seconds I spent with her on a capitol elevator were among the worst in my life.

I haven't read all of his documents in a while but I thought it was tax cuts for those under $75K, tax increases for the top 1%. Don't quote me on that though. As I said, I have real concerns about how it's all going to be paid for. Then again, most of what candidates promise don't happen because they find out what they're up against when they actually get into office.

I think we need to have a plan for when we're getting out of Iraq and stick to it. The Iraqi government will lean on us forever rather than take responsibility, if we let them. If they know we're getting out and we actually follow our plan, I think it will be fine. In fact, I think violence in Iraq will decrease because the insurgents are insurging against US more than against their own government.

None of these plans are going to be implemented the day the guy is elected. And, as I said, baby steps toward the ultimate goal are what is realistic. I don't think 4 years is enough time to make a significant difference in our country.

The key issues that I want to see addressed are health care, social security, the economy and the war. Those are my 4 biggies. I would also like to retain as many personal freedoms as possible. Each individual has their own hot button issues though.

I think a lot of people would disagree with that.

But I think you're right about what Barack has said on taxation. Cuts for people under 75k, no new cuts for people over 75k, and increases for the top 1%.

Regarding personal freedoms, are you pointing toward patriot act stuff, or a host of things? A lot of liberals assert similar concerns, but aren't bothered by personal freedom infringement when it comes to the 1st amendment (campaign finance), 2nd amendment (increased gun control), mandatory health care, decreased financial autonomy (taxation), etc.

Really? Hmm, and I don't think I'm even that liberal.

I'm now determined to find some common ground with you. Maybe I'd have more luck in the Entertainment forum. ;)

By personal freedoms, it's somewhat the patriot act, but moreso the legislating of values... abortion, gay marriage, the whole moral majority type of thing.

I don't see how ensuring that everybody has access to affordable health care is infringing on personal freedom. In fact, I see it as quite the opposite.

Doesn't it make you a little sick when you hear how much money is spent on financing these campaigns when there are people who can't afford their chemotherapy medications, food, housing, etc? The health care system I work for is giving away more than $100 million annually in care to the indigent and who ends up paying? The employees who don't get raises, who get laid off because there are no funds, whose corporate offices run out of trash bags and toilet paper because the funds are so tight. They've removed half the light bulbs from our light fixtures and shut off our escalator to save every penny they can. I'm very thankful to have a job, but the working conditions are getting pretty scary. They can't cut things like that at the hospitals, but they are cutting costs everywhere they can trying to keep their heads above water as more and more people need care but don't have insurance.

But, as I said, the personal freedoms have more to do with legislating morality/values that have nothing to do with "harm to others" or "infringing on others rights", especially when the reasons behind it are religious. I do think McCain is less dangerous with this stuff than some of the other candidates were.

I guess we won't know for sure about Iraq until we're actually gone.

Taxes

Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.

Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The “Making Work Pay” tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing payas-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.

Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than what they were in 2001 and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.

Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government’s high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.

End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.

Make the Tax System More Fair and Efficient

End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350
billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.

Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.

Source: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama...tForChange.pdf

I agree, I'm not in favor of telling gay people they can't be gay. However, I am in favor of telling women they can't get an abortion in most situations, as the massive majority of abortions in America are used for birth control. I think it affects another life, and thus, no, it isn't merely a personal decision.

As for healthcare, I think telling Americans that they have to subscribe to a particular healthcare plan is absolutely an infringement. How is it not? They take your earned income and buy something for you that you could purchase on your own.

Sure it makes me a little sick. A lot of things do. That doesn't mean I'm interested in the government taking it over because they know "whats best" to do with those resources. That, to me, is much more frightening.

Doesn't gay marriage legislate morality; it's just a different kind of morality? The government still remains in the business of sanctioning sexual unions. I think the gov't just ought to get out of the marriage game all together. Civil union benefits could exist for couples with children and everything else could be set up with separate contracts. I don't know for sure this is really necessary, but it seems flawed to view expansion of marriage as somehow a value neutral proposition which respects individual rights.

I agree with Shinerbock that I think abortion is a more complicated issue than just a political right for the woman because at some point in the pregnancy you have a second person there. I don't think most people really believe that this happens at conception (look at what we're into as far as fertility treatments) in regards to protecting that new "life", but I don't think that some of the reforms particularly that addressed procedures in the third trimester really can be classified neatly as wrongly restricting the mother's individual freedoms. Sure, banning them may restrict what she wants to do, but we'd recognize and accept that after birth she faces similar restrictions. I don't think the average American really believes that legally protected life begins at birth anymore than I really believe this average American believes legally protected life starts at conception.

I think that because we may rightly need to view the being in the womb as a legal person sometime before birth, there's no clean case to be made about deferring to the legal rights of the mother simply as a matter of principle or again as a clear matter of respecting individual rights.

And I think anyone who is presently insured will lose personal freedom with many of the potential solutions to the health care issue. Sure it will address the issue of who shoulders the cost of the uninsured, but it's going to come at a price to someone else. If you contrast systems of health care internationally, the cost of universal coverage is often choice and control over treatment.

It would be nice if we could decide what we want to do though. Other nations have set a limit. Personally, I believe that life begins at the moment of conception. However, I do not believe that life at an early stage is self-sustaining (obviously). I think abortion is murder at any stage, but I will always vote to allow abortion up to the end of the 19th week. From week 20 to delivery, I think that labor should be induced and the child given the opportunity to live. If it dies, at least it wasn't because its skull was crushed and body torn apart. Why not give the child the hint of a chance?

I've personally had to make the abortion choice twice in my life and elected against it both times. I would rather die myself than murder my child.

I think that life starts with breath. If you can't breathe for yourself, you can't live for yourself.

I say this as someone with asthma/severe allergies. It's the Breath of Life, not the "ultrasound which I think I can see the hands" of life.

When might that take place? The lungs are the last body part to be prepared for birth.

I'm not exactly sure, but whenever it happens, then the person/thing/whatever you call it (baby) has life.

I feel this way about death. My lungs have closed up before to the point where I thought I was checking out. Luckily I had my inhaler. I would not want to be put on any form of breathing machine at the hospital, especially if I couldn't speak/communicate on my own. It's scary to not be able to breath, because we need breath. You can for about 12 days or so with no food, about 2 or 3 with no water and only at most 2 minutes without oxygen/air (breath). So to me, it just makes sense to start life with breath.

If one accepts the breath=life correlation, wouldn't it begin when the child starts to breath on its own, or is capable of doing so?