John McCain''s Rage - Not Presidential!!!

[Lauren8211]

Date: 10/10/2008 9:18:13 AM
Author: HollyS

Date: 10/10/2008 8:55:38 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 10/9/2008 6:24:16 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 10/9/2008 5:19:35 PM
Author: Ellen

Holly, the woman who said it, who witnessed it (hardly heresay), is a relative of a POW. If anything, shouldn''t there be some kind of kinship/bond between her and McCain, since he was one too? Why would she make this up? I don''t think she is. But if you want to choose to not believe her, to not believe the emotion that is all too apparent in her voice at the utter dismay of how McCain acted, go ahead. Oh wait, you haven''t seen it yet...


In the meantime, I''ll do more digging when I have time. Maybe I can come up with something that will at least give you pause? Nahhhhh.

Well, after all, it was on Oprah, wasn''t it? She would never have an axe to grind in this campaign, would she? Gosh, I better rethink my position of calling for actual proof.

Nahhhhhh.

The video aside for a moment, are you saying that a US Senator, and an ex head of the Rep party (among others) saying they don''t feel he would make a good president/they don''t trust him, means nothing to you? I guess that begs the question, could anyone say anything that might at least make you pause Holly? (don''t answer that)

Back to the video, yes the link was found on Oprah, and on youtube. Here is the link to an article written by a Staff Sgt. It is about the brother of the woman speaking in the video, the woman who witnessed the backhand. This woman is real, she is not made up by a smear campaign. I''m not posting this so much for you as for others. From our previous conversation, I know it will make no difference.

http://www.dm.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123028253


Seems she is the national chairperson for the National Alliance of Families For The Return Of America''s Missing Servicemen.

http://pages.prodigy.net/lynnpowmia/010630.htm


About the missing brother.

http://www.pownetwork.org/bios/a/a020.htm

Ellen, I''m sorry I''ve disappointed you. Apparently, I have. But if you can look at both men, look at their backgrounds, look at the most heinous things people are saying about each of them, (some of those allegations on both side not being true of course), listen to what they are saying, examine what they say their plans are (how exactly is Obama going to get his precious programs in place and with what money, from where), look at who they associate with or are friends with, read their own writings in their own books, look carefully at who exactly got us into this economic debacle (ala Barney Frank), and tune out the singing nutjobs for THE ONE, and you can still say Obama is someone you would consider voting for. . . . well, then, I''m afraid you have disappointed me.

McCain''s ''anger issues'' should be the least of anyone''s concerns. We are in an economic freefall the likes of which has not been seen in our generation. At this point, my retirement is being flushed down the drain with the stock market. My job, working in the automotive industry is at great risk. I personally do not give a good god&%$m if McCain has ever been in a good mood, let alone a foul one. I do care that we have someone in there that had enough sense to at least say ''hey, wait a minute'' two years ago, even if no one listened. He wasn''t sitting on the sidelines, plotting his career course to the White House.

Ouch. That wasn''t even directed towards me, and I took offense to it.

You must be disappointed in an awful lot of Americans then, since he''s winning in the polls.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/10/2008 9:18:13 AM
Author: HollyS


Ellen, I''m sorry I''ve disappointed you. Apparently, I have. But if you can look at both men, look at their backgrounds, look at the most heinous things people are saying about each of them, (some of those allegations on both side not being true of course), listen to what they are saying, examine what they say their plans are (how exactly is Obama going to get his precious programs in place and with what money, from where), look at who they associate with or are friends with, read their own writings in their own books, look carefully at who exactly got us into this economic debacle (ala Barney Frank), and tune out the singing nutjobs for THE ONE, and you can still say Obama is someone you would consider voting for. . . . well, then, I''m afraid you have disappointed me.

McCain''s ''anger issues'' should be the least of anyone''s concerns. We are in an economic freefall the likes of which has not been seen in our generation. At this point, my retirement is being flushed down the drain with the stock market. My job, working in the automotive industry is at great risk. I personally do not give a good god&%$m if McCain has ever been in a good mood, let alone a foul one. I do care that we have someone in there that had enough sense to at least say ''hey, wait a minute'' two years ago, even if no one listened. He wasn''t sitting on the sidelines, plotting his career course to the White House.

Holly, you are more than welcome to your opinion. The only thing that dissapoints me is when someone can''t, or won''t admit that a candidate might have/has flaws. I have readily admitted that BOTH candidates less than thrill me.

Being a hothead is one thing. Being a man with clear anger issues, in the white house, is another. I want someone diplomatic, someone who wants peace and strives for it, who can keep their cool in touchy situations, but who is not affraid to defend us if need be. I honestly don''t think of McCain when I visualize that person. And when I hear men who have worked with him, served with him, who know him, say he''s not the guy for the job, well, that just reinforces my fears. And that''s just my opinion.

I won''t even go into the rest, it''s just not worth it. I already burned myself out discussing this with my mom. But I''ll end with this, I think we could get screwed either way. It''s just a matter of how....

 

[goobear78]

Date: 10/9/2008 10:06:13 PM
Author: luckystar112

The thing about the threats though...have you seen the video? I can''t tell if Palin even heard the comment. If she did she should have addressed it, but it''s not clear.

Also, apparently it isn''t clear if it was directed at Ayers or Obama, but there is a probe into the incident. They aren''t even sure if the words are definitely ''kill him''.

Heck, at this point they aren''t even sure if it was a McCain/Palin supporter!

See, the thing is though that now everyone and their brother has heard those threats made by someone at McCain/Palin rallies, the head of the campaign should address it. McCain and Palin should come out and state that they do not condone, endorse, or believe in those threats made by people attending their rallies. Heck, McCain and Palin haven''t said anything about it. That''s where I find fault. They can''t stop what people shout out even if it is their own words that are enticing people to spew hatred. But they can and should make a statement that these types of threats should stop. It ultimately takes away from their campaign and their message.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 10/10/2008 10:05:17 AM
Author: goobear78

Date: 10/9/2008 10:06:13 PM
Author: luckystar112

The thing about the threats though...have you seen the video? I can''t tell if Palin even heard the comment. If she did she should have addressed it, but it''s not clear.

Also, apparently it isn''t clear if it was directed at Ayers or Obama, but there is a probe into the incident. They aren''t even sure if the words are definitely ''kill him''.

Heck, at this point they aren''t even sure if it was a McCain/Palin supporter!

See, the thing is though that now everyone and their brother has heard those threats made by someone at McCain/Palin rallies, the head of the campaign should address it. McCain and Palin should come out and state that they do not condone, endorse, or believe in those threats made by people attending their rallies. Heck, McCain and Palin haven''t said anything about it. That''s where I find fault. They can''t stop what people shout out even if it is their own words that are enticing people to spew hatred. But they can and should make a statement that these types of threats should stop. It ultimately takes away from their campaign and their message.

+1000. not to say something implies condoning.

movie zombie

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 10/9/2008 11:04:24 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
McCain has a temper - wow - newsflash. Really, who is changing their vote at this point? Anyone on PS that has done their research on both candidates knows all about McCain's temper and Obama's associations. No one is 'flip-flopping' at this point so to post link upon link of contradictory sources while arguing with each other about which source is better is pointless. The links are good but I have yet to see a PSer switch votes based on a link/thread posted here. These are good topics of discussion but the personal attacks should really be cut out. I also wanted to say that one or two gross words/name-calling said in anger (hearsay at this point unless any of us personally heard it) hardly equals abuse IMHO.

That very well may be your opinion, but unfortunately you're mistaken. Any time one person calls someone else a derogatory name, that is verbal abuse. Period.

And as far as it being "hearsay" . . . I can't help but wonder why neither John McCain nor Cindy McCain have ever denied that this occurred? Possibly because it did occur . . . in front of several witnesses . . . a few of whom happened to be reporters. If he says something this awful to her in public, I shudder to think how he treats her in private.

ETA: Oh, and by the way, I do know what I'm talking about. As a paralegal who handles quite a bit of family law, I've worked with more than my share of abuse survivors. Also, I am one.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 10/10/2008 9:23:33 AM
Author: elledizzy5

Date: 10/10/2008 9:18:13 AM
Author: HollyS

Date: 10/10/2008 8:55:38 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 10/9/2008 6:24:16 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 10/9/2008 5:19:35 PM
Author: Ellen

Holly, the woman who said it, who witnessed it (hardly heresay), is a relative of a POW. If anything, shouldn''t there be some kind of kinship/bond between her and McCain, since he was one too? Why would she make this up? I don''t think she is. But if you want to choose to not believe her, to not believe the emotion that is all too apparent in her voice at the utter dismay of how McCain acted, go ahead. Oh wait, you haven''t seen it yet...


In the meantime, I''ll do more digging when I have time. Maybe I can come up with something that will at least give you pause? Nahhhhh.

Well, after all, it was on Oprah, wasn''t it? She would never have an axe to grind in this campaign, would she? Gosh, I better rethink my position of calling for actual proof.

Nahhhhhh.

The video aside for a moment, are you saying that a US Senator, and an ex head of the Rep party (among others) saying they don''t feel he would make a good president/they don''t trust him, means nothing to you? I guess that begs the question, could anyone say anything that might at least make you pause Holly? (don''t answer that)

Back to the video, yes the link was found on Oprah, and on youtube. Here is the link to an article written by a Staff Sgt. It is about the brother of the woman speaking in the video, the woman who witnessed the backhand. This woman is real, she is not made up by a smear campaign. I''m not posting this so much for you as for others. From our previous conversation, I know it will make no difference.

http://www.dm.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123028253


Seems she is the national chairperson for the National Alliance of Families For The Return Of America''s Missing Servicemen.

http://pages.prodigy.net/lynnpowmia/010630.htm


About the missing brother.

http://www.pownetwork.org/bios/a/a020.htm

Ellen, I''m sorry I''ve disappointed you. Apparently, I have. But if you can look at both men, look at their backgrounds, look at the most heinous things people are saying about each of them, (some of those allegations on both side not being true of course), listen to what they are saying, examine what they say their plans are (how exactly is Obama going to get his precious programs in place and with what money, from where), look at who they associate with or are friends with, read their own writings in their own books, look carefully at who exactly got us into this economic debacle (ala Barney Frank), and tune out the singing nutjobs for THE ONE, and you can still say Obama is someone you would consider voting for. . . . well, then, I''m afraid you have disappointed me.

McCain''s ''anger issues'' should be the least of anyone''s concerns. We are in an economic freefall the likes of which has not been seen in our generation. At this point, my retirement is being flushed down the drain with the stock market. My job, working in the automotive industry is at great risk. I personally do not give a good god&%$m if McCain has ever been in a good mood, let alone a foul one. I do care that we have someone in there that had enough sense to at least say ''hey, wait a minute'' two years ago, even if no one listened. He wasn''t sitting on the sidelines, plotting his career course to the White House.

Ouch. That wasn''t even directed towards me, and I took offense to it.

You must be disappointed in an awful lot of Americans then, since he''s winning in the polls.

I''m extremely disappointed in a great many people who have been sold a pretty package that is just dressing up an empty box.

In 1976, the Dems were so caught up in winning, their first real opportunity since Watergate, they chose the wrong guy. And his presidency went down in flames. They''ve chosen the wrong guy again; but this time America will pay a much steeper price.

I hope I''m wrong. I pray I''m abosutely dead wrong. I will gladly eat a huge portion of crow if he is the person you believe him to be. You had better start hoping I''m wrong.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/10/2008 10:20:07 AM
Author: HollyS

I'm extremely disappointed in a great many people who have been sold a pretty package that is just dressing up an empty box.

In 1976, the Dems were so caught up in winning, their first real opportunity since Watergate, they chose the wrong guy. And his presidency went down in flames. They've chosen the wrong guy again; but this time America will pay a much steeper price.

I am sure no one is interested in this except Holly and me, and perhaps not Holly, either. It is irrelevant to the general discussion in this thread. I just wanted to note, for the record, that Holly and I are still-as far as I can tell-always in total disagreement on political issues. I took from her description above that Jimmy Carter seemed like a "pretty package" in 1976, but was "the wrong guy".

I hated Jimmy Carter when he was a candidate. I really, really hated his Christian fundamentalism and feared what he might do with it. I was angrier than a hornet that the American people elected him. He was no "pretty package" to me! Throughout his term I came to love him...even as the rest of America seems to have felt he failed. The one disagreement I had with him is the same one Cyrus Vance did (and Cyrus Vance resigned over it).

Since Mr. Carter has left the presidency, I have come to cherish and revere him. If nothing else, my changed opinion of him shows that I am capable of changing my opinion!

End of threadjack!

Deb

 

[dragonfly411]

Freke I just wanted to respond to your post really quickly as I felt it was ignored and shouldn''t have been - no one on here has said that Obama is a terrorist. The one post that mentioned it said that some McCain Followers rallied and said "kill him" and said he was a terrorist. We didn''t though.

That being said. I HAVE seen the photo and video evidence of Obama''s hand sign, refusal to pledge allegiance, and refusal to wear the flag or have the flag on his jet. That speaks VOLUMES to me.
Do I think Obama is a bad person? No
Do I think he should run this country? NOPE
Do I think McCain has a temper? Possibly but I have yet to see ONE VIDEO showing him TRULY losing his temper. OR a photo
Do I think McCain should run this country? I really don''t know.


Right now I''m on a fence because both of these men have faults. Both of their vice presidents have faults, and neither of them meets my standards for a president. But only ONE of them truly truly FRIGHTENS me.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/10/2008 10:13:38 AM
Author: Irishgrrrl
That very well may be your opinion, but unfortunately you''re mistaken. Any time one person calls someone else a derogatory name, that is verbal abuse. Period.

And as far as it being ''hearsay'' . . . I can''t help but wonder why neither John McCain nor Cindy McCain have ever denied that this occurred? Possibly because it did occur . . . in front of several witnesses . . . a few of whom happened to be reporters. If he says something this awful to her in public, I shudder to think how he treats her in private.

ETA: Oh, and by the way, I do know what I''m talking about. As a paralegal who handles quite a bit of family law, I''ve worked with more than my share of abuse survivors. Also, I am one.

I don''t really need to be told that I am mistaken in my views about what constitutes abuse in my opinion - some people say that everytime a child is spanked that equals physical abuse and there have been some heated debates about this on PS about it - I know you realize that "abuse" is a very controversial term and people will have differing opinions, hence why I wrote "IHMO." I don''t know the inner working of their relationship and I won''t begin to try and label McCain, or anyone for that matter, as an abuser based on one disputed isolated incident. I believe I can offer my opinion without this all-or-nothing, I''m right, you''re wrong-type of response. As far as my categorization of these things as hearsay, I am correct as far as this forum is concerned. Hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness offered to prove the truth of the allegation - since no one around here heard him say it then this qualifies. That is not to say that hearsay is not the truth, as it often it. Three anonymous reporters reportedly telling this to a man trying to sell an anti-McCain book doesn''t really cut it for me, but like I said earlier, it''s pointless to argue or try to convince people on opposite sides of the fence one way or the other. I''d imagine it''s sort of like Obama supporters reading allegations in Obama Nation.

Oh, and by the way, I never said ANYONE didn''t know what they were talking about...

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/10/2008 10:55:11 AM
Author: dragonfly411
Freke I just wanted to respond to your post really quickly as I felt it was ignored and shouldn''t have been - no one on here has said that Obama is a terrorist. The one post that mentioned it said that some McCain Followers rallied and said ''kill him'' and said he was a terrorist. We didn''t though.

That being said. I HAVE seen the photo and video evidence of Obama''s hand sign, refusal to pledge allegiance, and refusal to wear the flag or have the flag on his jet. That speaks VOLUMES to me.

Barack and the Pledge

Barack and the flag on his jet

He has since started wearing a flag pin again but I agreed with the reason that he stopped. This country is far too obsessed with nationalism in its superficial forms. Far too often you see a politician wearing his little flag pin as he is stripping our rights away. Why do people get more upset over the superficial rather than the deeper things that truly make this country great? It bugs me to no end.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 10/10/2008 10:56:39 AM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/10/2008 10:13:38 AM
Author: Irishgrrrl
That very well may be your opinion, but unfortunately you're mistaken. Any time one person calls someone else a derogatory name, that is verbal abuse. Period.

And as far as it being 'hearsay' . . . I can't help but wonder why neither John McCain nor Cindy McCain have ever denied that this occurred? Possibly because it did occur . . . in front of several witnesses . . . a few of whom happened to be reporters. If he says something this awful to her in public, I shudder to think how he treats her in private.

ETA: Oh, and by the way, I do know what I'm talking about. As a paralegal who handles quite a bit of family law, I've worked with more than my share of abuse survivors. Also, I am one.

I don't really need to be told that I am mistaken in my views about what constitutes abuse in my opinion - some people say that everytime a child is spanked that equals physical abuse and there have been some heated debates about this on PS about it - I know you realize that 'abuse' is a very controversial term and people will have differing opinions, hence why I wrote 'IHMO.' I don't know the inner working of their relationship and I won't begin to try and label McCain, or anyone for that matter, as an abuser based on one disputed isolated incident. I believe I can offer my opinion without this all-or-nothing, I'm right, you're wrong-type of response. As far as my categorization of these things as hearsay, I am correct as far as this forum is concerned. Hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness offered to prove the truth of the allegation - since no one around here heard him say it then this qualifies. That is not to say that hearsay is not the truth, as it often it. Three anonymous reporters reportedly telling this to a man trying to sell an anti-McCain book doesn't really cut it for me, but like I said earlier, it's pointless to argue or try to convince people on opposite sides of the fence one way or the other. I'd imagine it's sort of like Obama supporters reading allegations in Obama Nation.

Oh, and by the way, I never said ANYONE didn't know what they were talking about...

Indy, you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to disagree with it. Perhaps you didn't want or need to hear what I had to say, but I wanted and needed to say it. Just as you "wanted to say that one or two gross words/name-calling said in anger (hearsay at this point unless any of us personally heard it) hardly equals abuse IMHO."

And anyone's opinion as to whether spanking a child constitutes physical abuse is hardly at issue here. Spanking one's child and verbally abusing one's spouse are two very different things.

I do realize that abuse is a controversial term. However, assuming that the story about McCain calling his wife that name is true (and I have seen nothing to prove that it isn't), that was an instance of verbal abuse. Yes, it was an isolated incident as far as we know. But, I think the key words there are as far as we know. He admittedly has a hot temper, and I'm sure no one is more aware of that than his wife who lives with him every day. Having been in an abusive relationship myself and watching my mother go through one as well, not to mention all of the clients I've had over the years who have also been abused by their significant others, I am very willing to bet that this "isolated incident" is just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm very well aware of the definition of hearsay. I'm a certified paralegal, and that's one of the many legal terms I had to learn in order to pass my certification exam. However, this isn't a trial. This is a message board where people are free to exchange their views on a variety of topics. The topic of this thread is "John McCain's Rage -- Not Presidential!!!" I'm convinced that Mr. McCain does have an anger problem, and I choose not to vote for him partially because of that anger problem (as well as a number of other reasons which are not the topic of this thread, so I will refrain from mentioning them here). Of course, you are entitled to vote for whomever you choose, and I'm not attempting to convince you that McCain is the wrong guy to vote for. I agree with you to the extent that this debate (and pretty much any debate regarding the upcoming election) is basically pointless, at least here on PS. I think it's safe to say that we've all made our decisions and no one's mind will be changed by something they read on a message board.

As far as the "ETA" in my previous post is concerned: That was simply a general statement, and not directed specifically at you. I felt the need to mention that so that no one would waste any time questioning how I would know.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 10/10/2008 10:10:10 AM
Author: movie zombie

Date: 10/10/2008 10:05:17 AM

Author: goobear78

Date: 10/9/2008 10:06:13 PM

Author: luckystar112


The thing about the threats though...have you seen the video? I can''t tell if Palin even heard the comment. If she did she should have addressed it, but it''s not clear.


Also, apparently it isn''t clear if it was directed at Ayers or Obama, but there is a probe into the incident. They aren''t even sure if the words are definitely ''kill him''.


Heck, at this point they aren''t even sure if it was a McCain/Palin supporter!

See, the thing is though that now everyone and their brother has heard those threats made by someone at McCain/Palin rallies, the head of the campaign should address it. McCain and Palin should come out and state that they do not condone, endorse, or believe in those threats made by people attending their rallies. Heck, McCain and Palin haven''t said anything about it. That''s where I find fault. They can''t stop what people shout out even if it is their own words that are enticing people to spew hatred. But they can and should make a statement that these types of threats should stop. It ultimately takes away from their campaign and their message.

They have released this statement, “We do not condone this inappropriate rhetoric, which distracts from the real questions of judgment, character and experience that voters will base their decisions on this November,” said McCain spokesman Paul Lindsay.
Not exactly sure if that''s what you had in mind or if a statement should be released each time someone in the audience shouts something stupid...but that statement is out there, and was released in response to another campaign official of emphasized "Hussein" to the crowd.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/10/2008 11:26:06 AM
Author: Irishgrrrl
Indy, you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to disagree with it. Perhaps you didn't want or need to hear what I had to say, but I wanted and needed to say it. Just as you 'wanted to say that one or two gross words/name-calling said in anger (hearsay at this point unless any of us personally heard it) hardly equals abuse IMHO.'

And anyone's opinion as to whether spanking a child constitutes physical abuse is hardly at issue here. Spanking one's child and verbally abusing one's spouse are two very different things.

I do realize that abuse is a controversial term. However, assuming that the story about McCain calling his wife that name is true (and I have seen nothing to prove that it isn't), that was an instance of verbal abuse. Yes, it was an isolated incident as far as we know. But, I think the key words there are as far as we know. He admittedly has a hot temper, and I'm sure no one is more aware of that than his wife who lives with him every day. Having been in an abusive relationship myself and watching my mother go through one as well, not to mention all of the clients I've had over the years who have also been abused by their significant others, I am very willing to bet that this 'isolated incident' is just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm very well aware of the definition of hearsay. I'm a certified paralegal, and that's one of the many legal terms I had to learn in order to pass my certification exam. However, this isn't a trial. This is a message board where people are free to exchange their views on a variety of topics. The topic of this thread is 'John McCain's Rage -- Not Presidential!!!' I'm convinced that Mr. McCain does have an anger problem, and I choose not to vote for him partially because of that anger problem (as well as a number of other reasons which are not the topic of this thread, so I will refrain from mentioning them here). Of course, you are entitled to vote for whomever you choose, and I'm not attempting to convince you that McCain is the wrong guy to vote for. I agree with you to the extent that this debate (and pretty much any debate regarding the upcoming election) is basically pointless, at least here on PS. I think it's safe to say that we've all made our decisions and no one's mind will be changed by something they read on a message board.

As far as the 'ETA' in my previous post is concerned: That was simply a general statement, and not directed specifically at you. I felt the need to mention that so that no one would waste any time questioning how I would know.

Irishgrrl - if you had just stated your own opinion on the matter (that McCain verbally abuses his wife) instead of singling me out to tell me that I was wrong (Period.) then I wouldn't have responded at all. I know that this is not a trial - but the use of the term "hearsay" on this thread is 100% accurate. It is even hearsay in the anti-McCain book that was written alleging the controversy in question, let alone here. Whether people believe hearsay (which I did mention does not mean something is not true) is up to them. I, of course, never equated physical child abuse to spousal verbal abuse, but pointed out that what constitutes "abuse" is, at times, in question. When I call my SO an @$$ neither he nor I consider that verbal abuse, maybe some others would - matter of perspective there. Constant and daily derogation would certainly be considered verbal abuse, but until actual proof is given of this ONE incident and of other incidents pertaining to derogatory comments about his wife, I choose to reserve judgment just as you are free to feel however you do based on your own life experiences and education. Like I said earlier, if you had just stated your opinion without arguing with me about mine there would've been no response.

ETA: Sorry for the threadjack all.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 10/10/2008 11:38:28 AM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/10/2008 11:26:06 AM
Author: Irishgrrrl
Indy, you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to disagree with it. Perhaps you didn''t want or need to hear what I had to say, but I wanted and needed to say it. Just as you ''wanted to say that one or two gross words/name-calling said in anger (hearsay at this point unless any of us personally heard it) hardly equals abuse IMHO.''

And anyone''s opinion as to whether spanking a child constitutes physical abuse is hardly at issue here. Spanking one''s child and verbally abusing one''s spouse are two very different things.

I do realize that abuse is a controversial term. However, assuming that the story about McCain calling his wife that name is true (and I have seen nothing to prove that it isn''t), that was an instance of verbal abuse. Yes, it was an isolated incident as far as we know. But, I think the key words there are as far as we know. He admittedly has a hot temper, and I''m sure no one is more aware of that than his wife who lives with him every day. Having been in an abusive relationship myself and watching my mother go through one as well, not to mention all of the clients I''ve had over the years who have also been abused by their significant others, I am very willing to bet that this ''isolated incident'' is just the tip of the iceberg.

I''m very well aware of the definition of hearsay. I''m a certified paralegal, and that''s one of the many legal terms I had to learn in order to pass my certification exam. However, this isn''t a trial. This is a message board where people are free to exchange their views on a variety of topics. The topic of this thread is ''John McCain''s Rage -- Not Presidential!!!'' I''m convinced that Mr. McCain does have an anger problem, and I choose not to vote for him partially because of that anger problem (as well as a number of other reasons which are not the topic of this thread, so I will refrain from mentioning them here). Of course, you are entitled to vote for whomever you choose, and I''m not attempting to convince you that McCain is the wrong guy to vote for. I agree with you to the extent that this debate (and pretty much any debate regarding the upcoming election) is basically pointless, at least here on PS. I think it''s safe to say that we''ve all made our decisions and no one''s mind will be changed by something they read on a message board.

As far as the ''ETA'' in my previous post is concerned: That was simply a general statement, and not directed specifically at you. I felt the need to mention that so that no one would waste any time questioning how I would know.

Irishgrrl - if you had just stated your own opinion on the matter (that McCain verbally abuses his wife) instead of singling me out to tell me that I was wrong (Period.) then I wouldn''t have responded at all. I know that this is not a trial - but the use of the term ''hearsay'' on this thread is 100% accurate. It is even hearsay in the anti-McCain book that was written alleging the controversy in question, let alone here. Whether people believe hearsay (which I did mention does not mean something is not true) is up to them. I, of course, never equated physical child abuse to spousal verbal abuse, but pointed out that what constitutes ''abuse'' is, at times, in question. When I call my SO an @$$ neither he nor I consider that verbal abuse, maybe some others would - matter of perspective there. Constant and daily derogation would certainly be considered verbal abuse, but until actual proof is given of this ONE incident and of other incidents pertaining to derogatory comments about his wife, I choose to reserve judgment just as you are free to feel however you do based on your own life experiences and education. Like I said earlier, if you had just stated your opinion without arguing with me about mine there would''ve been no response.

ETA: Sorry for the threadjack all.

Indy, I don''t feel that I "singled you out" any more than you singled me out in your previous posts mentioning whether McCain''s statement to his wife did or did not constitute verbal abuse. Since you have the right to disagree with me, then certainly I have the right to disagree with you as well?

"I also wanted to say that one or two gross words/name-calling said in anger (hearsay at this point unless any of us personally heard it) hardly equals abuse IMHO."

"As for the one or two names, I was specifically referring to McCain & his wife & someone''s reference of it as abuse. I was just stating my opinion that IMHO more is needed before that word is thrown around, having worked with several abused women thru my law school''s domestic violence program."

Your two comments that I quoted above were almost certainly directed at me, since I''m the one who posted:

"They will be making snowmen in hell the day someone who verbally abuses his wife gets my vote."

I do not "throw around" the word abuse. I only use that word when I feel that it is justified.

 

[risingsun]

McCain has some habitual responses to those who disagree with, i.e., you don't understand, I've spoken with those people/parties, I knew this first, I have had this experience so I know and you don't. This is a very abbreviated list. He appears to have very little tolerance for those who disagree with him and responds with condescension, arrogance, and anger. He is restless and on edge. He appears to be hypervigilent. I believe that he needs to function in a smaller arena. He can be reined in by his senate colleagues. He believes in the rightness of his position regardless of others' opinions. He seems to have the need to do so. I'm serious when I say he should be evaluated for PTSD. I wonder if he was ever treated for it after he was released from Vietnam. I get Dr. Strangelove feel from McCain and that does scare me.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/10/2008 11:56:32 AM
Author: Irishgrrrl
Indy, I don''t feel that I ''singled you out'' any more than you singled me out in your previous posts mentioning whether McCain''s statement to his wife did or did not constitute verbal abuse. Since you have the right to disagree with me, then certainly I have the right to disagree with you as well?

''I also wanted to say that one or two gross words/name-calling said in anger (hearsay at this point unless any of us personally heard it) hardly equals abuse IMHO.''

''As for the one or two names, I was specifically referring to McCain & his wife & someone''s reference of it as abuse. I was just stating my opinion that IMHO more is needed before that word is thrown around, having worked with several abused women thru my law school''s domestic violence program.''

Your two comments that I quoted above were almost certainly directed at me, since I''m the one who posted:

''They will be making snowmen in hell the day someone who verbally abuses his wife gets my vote.''

I do not ''throw around'' the word abuse. I only use that word when I feel that it is justified.

Last response since I''m sure people on this thread are sick of reading this back and forth - Yes, I was responding to your post by saying that IMHO more is needed before I consider McCain a wife abuser. I have no problem with people personally disagreeing with my statements but to flat out say one opinion is wrong is improper. I never said "That''s not verbal abuse. Period." as you said it was. There is a difference there and if you don''t agree then that''s fine.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 10/10/2008 12:19:20 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/10/2008 11:56:32 AM
Author: Irishgrrrl
Indy, I don't feel that I 'singled you out' any more than you singled me out in your previous posts mentioning whether McCain's statement to his wife did or did not constitute verbal abuse. Since you have the right to disagree with me, then certainly I have the right to disagree with you as well?

'I also wanted to say that one or two gross words/name-calling said in anger (hearsay at this point unless any of us personally heard it) hardly equals abuse IMHO.'

'As for the one or two names, I was specifically referring to McCain & his wife & someone's reference of it as abuse. I was just stating my opinion that IMHO more is needed before that word is thrown around, having worked with several abused women thru my law school's domestic violence program.'

Your two comments that I quoted above were almost certainly directed at me, since I'm the one who posted:

'They will be making snowmen in hell the day someone who verbally abuses his wife gets my vote.'

I do not 'throw around' the word abuse. I only use that word when I feel that it is justified.

Last response since I'm sure people on this thread are sick of reading this back and forth - Yes, I was responding to your post by saying that IMHO more is needed before I consider McCain a wife abuser. I have no problem with people personally disagreeing with my statements but to flat out say one opinion is wrong is improper. I never said 'That's not verbal abuse. Period.' as you said it was. There is a difference there and if you don't agree then that's fine.

I'm glad it's OK with you that I don't agree, because I don't. I'm not one to use "IMO" or "IMHO" in my posts because I think it goes without saying that anything posted on a message board is the opinion of the poster and "IMO" or "IMHO" is redundant.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what would rise to the level of verbal abuse "in your opinion"? Calling one's wife a trollop and a c*** in the same sentence evidently isn't enough. I wonder what would be? If he had slapped her, would that not be enough to qualify as physical abuse since it was an "isolated incident"?

BTW, I don't think this is a threadjack at all, since we are essentially discussing McCain's treatment of his wife and how that might give us a glimpse into his personality and the possibility of an anger problem. Which is the topic of this thread.

 

[MoonWater]

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/10/2008 12:25:59 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl
I'm glad it's OK with you that I don't agree, because I don't. I'm not one to use 'IMO' or 'IMHO' in my posts because I think it goes without saying that anything posted on a message board is the opinion of the poster and 'IMO' or 'IMHO' is redundant.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what would rise to the level of verbal abuse 'in your opinion'? Calling one's wife a trollop and a c*** in the same sentence evidently isn't enough. I wonder what would be? If he had slapped her, would that not be enough to qualify as physical abuse since it was an 'isolated incident'?

BTW, I don't think this is a threadjack at all, since we are essentially discussing McCain's treatment of his wife and how that might give us a glimpse into his personality and the possibility of an anger problem. Which is the topic of this thread.

To answer your question - scroll up and reread my posts, please.

To say that you don't use "IMHO" or "IMO" is inaccurate, as you have used it many times in several posts. The back and forth between you and I over what she said, she said was off topic IMHO and I apologized for my part in it. If you don't think so that's fine. Time to go back to my happy thread now - apologies to everyone for responding.

ETA: If you did mean that you are accepting of different people's perspectives on what constitutes proof of and should be classified as "abuse" then just disregard all of my posts to you.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 10/10/2008 12:40:36 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/10/2008 12:25:59 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl
I'm glad it's OK with you that I don't agree, because I don't. I'm not one to use 'IMO' or 'IMHO' in my posts because I think it goes without saying that anything posted on a message board is the opinion of the poster and 'IMO' or 'IMHO' is redundant.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what would rise to the level of verbal abuse 'in your opinion'? Calling one's wife a trollop and a c*** in the same sentence evidently isn't enough. I wonder what would be? If he had slapped her, would that not be enough to qualify as physical abuse since it was an 'isolated incident'?

BTW, I don't think this is a threadjack at all, since we are essentially discussing McCain's treatment of his wife and how that might give us a glimpse into his personality and the possibility of an anger problem. Which is the topic of this thread.

To answer your question - scroll up and reread my posts, please.

To say that you don't use 'IMHO' or 'IMO' is inaccurate, as you have used it many times in several posts. The back and forth between you and I over what she said, she said was off topic IMHO and I apologized for my part in it. If you don't think so that's fine. Time to go back to my happy thread now - apologies to everyone for responding.

ETA: If you did mean that you are accepting of different people's perspectives on what constitutes proof of and should be classified as 'abuse' then just disregard all of my posts to you.

OK, let's split hairs. I did not say "I have never used 'IMO' or 'IMHO' in any post." I said "I am not one to use 'IMO' or 'IMHO' in my posts." As in, I don't use them very often or on a regular basis, as some other posters tend to do. (Not that there's anything wrong with doing that if you feel the need to do so, but I just am not in the habit.) Thank you for taking the time and showing the interest to look this up, though.

Personally, I don't accept what people say on a message board as fact, and I always assume that whatever is said is the poster's opinion. I'm sure you can understand that, since anyone, anywhere, can say anything on a message board at any time and that does not make it fact. I could tell you, on this message board, that the world is flat and not put an "IMO" after that statement, and the statement would STILL be false.

I stand by my statement that abuse is abuse. If someone calls someone else a derogatory name, it is verbal abuse. If someone slaps someone, it is physical abuse. That is a fact, IMO. And I feel pretty certain that I'm not the only one with that opinion.

As far as rereading your posts to find the answer to my question, I did. Here is what you said: "Constant and daily derogation would certainly be considered verbal abuse."

Do you really believe that someone needs to say such things to his wife on a "constant and daily" basis for it to qualify as abuse? What if he only makes these statements to her a few times a week or a few times a month? Where is the line drawn? Who qualifies as an abuser and who does not, in your opinion? And what is the basis for that opinion?

Deb, since you started this thread, please feel free to call me out if I'm truly off-topic here.

ETA: "If you did mean that you are accepting of different people's perspectives on what constitutes proof of and should be classified as 'abuse' then just disregard all of my posts to you." Indy, as I have stated before, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Do I accept that opinion? No. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

Frist: Diversity is what makes this country great, it keeps new ideas and innovation going. I don''t think we shoud place judgement on who people decide to vote for and why.

Second: If some members of the republicaian party are going to try and link Obamas associations with his character and judgement and make the argument that these things are a strong issue, well than be prepared for them to be a strong issue for your canidate as well. No double standards. I think what has been happening in the republician ralleys in the week is unexcusable. A leader staying slilent while people are making threats and calling a canidate names, and giving the middle finger to news reports is enabling, because there is no enforcement that these things are wrong. Even if one of the speakers did not hear the statements during the ralley (which I find hard to believe in at least one instance because I saw McCain''s facial expression after someone yelled "terrorist" very laudly), they are aware of it by now. I have still not herd any public statements from the McCain or Palin themselves that this is not ok, just memos from the campign. If I am wrong, someone please correct me, because it would make me feel better.

I was very happy when I saw Lary King Live last night. I saw a republician, Michelle Laxalt activly speaking out about this. That is the right thing to do. She is not sacrificing her morals for the sake of politics. The election will end in November, people have to live with their actions forever. Here is the quote for those of you who like data. It is mixed in with Sara Palin and I don''t want to take it out of context, so here is the whole thing.




"In my estimation, she is being used unfairly as a tool by a team who, by the way, do not even support, nor does their candidate, equal pay for women for equal work. So if she is going to be the traditional vice presidential attack dog -- which I concur with Bay, that''s very much a traditional role -- why didn''t her male running mate, i.e. the candidate himself, man up and speak to those issues, calling his opponent essentially unpatriotic, calling him a terrorist?
I''m sorry. This is not the Republican Party that Bill Buckley, that Paul Laxalt, that Ronald Reagan raised me on. And I don''t believe the American people like this kind of dirty politics. If they can''t win fair and square, they shouldn''t trash the other guy."


"But character assassination, guilt by association, falsehoods about a candidate''s character, that people know to be untrue are not the way that we should be conducting our campaigns. And it''s not the way to win." http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/10/2008 1:52:29 PM
Author: LtlFirecracker


Frist: Diversity is what makes this country great, it keeps new ideas and innovation going. I don't think we shoud place judgement on who people decide to vote for and why.

Second: If some members of the republicaian party are going to try and link Obamas associations with his character and judgement and make the argument that these things are a strong issue, well than be prepared for them to be a strong issue for your canidate as well. No double standards. I think what has been happening in the republician ralleys in the week is unexcusable. A leader staying slilent while people are making threats and calling a canidate names, and giving the middle finger to news reports is enabling, because there is no enforcement that these things are wrong. Even if one of the speakers did not hear the statements during the ralley (which I find hard to believe in at least one instance because I saw McCain's facial expression after someone yelled 'terrorist' very laudly), they are aware of it by now. I have still not herd any public statements from the McCain or Palin themselves that this is not ok, just memos from the campign. If I am wrong, someone please correct me, because it would make me feel better.

I was very happy when I saw Lary King Live last night. I saw a republician, Michelle Laxalt activly speaking out about this. That is the right thing to do. She is not sacrificing her morals for the sake of politics. The election will end in November, people have to live with their actions forever. Here is the quote for those of you who like data. It is mixed in with Sara Palin and I don't want to take it out of context, so here is the whole thing.




'In my estimation, she is being used unfairly as a tool by a team who, by the way, do not even support, nor does their candidate, equal pay for women for equal work. So if she is going to be the traditional vice presidential attack dog -- which I concur with Bay, that's very much a traditional role -- why didn't her male running mate, i.e. the candidate himself, man up and speak to those issues, calling his opponent essentially unpatriotic, calling him a terrorist?


I'm sorry. This is not the Republican Party that Bill Buckley, that Paul Laxalt, that Ronald Reagan raised me on. And I don't believe the American people like this kind of dirty politics. If they can't win fair and square, they shouldn't trash the other guy.'


'But character assassination, guilt by association, falsehoods about a candidate's character, that people know to be untrue are not the way that we should be conducting our campaigns. And it's not the way to win.' http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/

And I watched Larry King last night as well. The woman hit the nail on the head so hard it went through the wood.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/10/2008 1:33:13 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl
OK, let''s split hairs. I did not say ''I have never used ''IMO'' or ''IMHO'' in any post.'' I said ''I am not one to use ''IMO'' or ''IMHO'' in my posts.'' As in, I don''t use them very often or on a regular basis, as some other posters tend to do. (Not that there''s anything wrong with doing that if you feel the need to do so, but I just am not in the habit.) Thank you for taking the time and showing the interest to look this up, though. I don''t have time to look up your posts - I just looked in this thread alone.

As far as rereading your posts to find the answer to my question, I did. Here is what you said: ''Constant and daily derogation would certainly be considered verbal abuse.''

Do you really believe that someone needs to say such things to his wife on a ''constant and daily'' basis for it to qualify as abuse? Umm...no...hence the "certainly." That is a situation in which 100% of the time it would be considered verbal abuse IMO. I did not say that would be the "only" time. You are obviously very sensitive and close to this subject and you felt a need to tell me that my opinion was wrong - I get that. However, to ask me to defend my position/views on abuse in general is highly off topic to this McCain thread and I won''t make others suffer the back and forth of it all.

ETA: ''If you did mean that you are accepting of different people''s perspectives on what constitutes proof of and should be classified as ''abuse'' then just disregard all of my posts to you.'' Indy, as I have stated before, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Do I accept that opinion? No. I guess we''ll just have to agree to disagree. There''s a difference between accepting opinions and agreeing with them.

 

[decodelighted]

** sigh **

Read it and weep. Mainstream entertainment blog. Excerpt:

Joe Klein is scared of what McCain''s enabling:

Watch the tape of the guy screaming, "He''s a terrorist!" McCain seems to shudder at that, he rolls his eyes... and I thought for a moment he''d admonish the man. But he didn''t. And now he''s selling the Ayres non-story full-time. Yes, yes, it''s all he has. True enough: he no longer has his honor. But we are on the edge of some real serious craziness here and it would be nice if McCain did the right thing and told his more bloodthirsty supporters to go home and take a cold shower. But McCain hasn''t done the right thing all year. His campaign is appalling, as the New York Times editorial board said today—and more, it is a national disgrace.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 10/10/2008 4:20:14 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/10/2008 1:33:13 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl
OK, let's split hairs. I did not say 'I have never used 'IMO' or 'IMHO' in any post.' I said 'I am not one to use 'IMO' or 'IMHO' in my posts.' As in, I don't use them very often or on a regular basis, as some other posters tend to do. (Not that there's anything wrong with doing that if you feel the need to do so, but I just am not in the habit.) Thank you for taking the time and showing the interest to look this up, though. I don't have time to look up your posts - I just looked in this thread alone. - Oh, so you were being facetious. I get it. You were referring to the times I even mentioned "IMO" or "IMHO" in the context of this thread. Cute.

As far as rereading your posts to find the answer to my question, I did. Here is what you said: 'Constant and daily derogation would certainly be considered verbal abuse.'

Do you really believe that someone needs to say such things to his wife on a 'constant and daily' basis for it to qualify as abuse? Umm...no...hence the 'certainly.' That is a situation in which 100% of the time it would be considered verbal abuse IMO. I did not say that would be the 'only' time. OK, so in other words, your previous posts in this thread do not answer my question. The question was (and I'm paraphrasing here), "What, in your opinion, is the minimum that someone would have to do for their behavior to qualify as verbal abuse?" You are obviously very sensitive and close to this subject and you felt a need to tell me that my opinion was wrong - I get that. Yes, I'm very sensitive and close to this subject, because I've lived it. Which is why I was offended by what I perceived as your minimization of McCain's behavior toward his wife. (BTW, were you aware that October is national Domestic Violence Awareness Month? Just FYI.) If he DID make the statement that was alleged, I believe that it definitely qualifies as verbal abuse. However, to ask me to defend my position/views on abuse in general is highly off topic to this McCain thread and I won't make others suffer the back and forth of it all. Then why did you respond to this post, instead of ignoring it as you said you would do several posts ago? I only asked you to support your opinion. If you can't/won't do that, that's fine with me. - ETA: 'If you did mean that you are accepting of different people's perspectives on what constitutes proof of and should be classified as 'abuse' then just disregard all of my posts to you.' Indy, as I have stated before, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Do I accept that opinion? No. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. There's a difference between accepting opinions and agreeing with them. I accept that you are entitled to an opinion, as am I. I do not agree with your opinion. Clear enough?

ETA: Way to flame me on the Rep thread, Indy! I'm flattered!

 

[HollyS]

Date: 10/10/2008 4:29:05 PM
Author: decodelighted
** sigh **

Read it and weep. Mainstream entertainment blog. Excerpt:

Joe Klein is scared of what McCain''s enabling:

Watch the tape of the guy screaming, ''He''s a terrorist!'' McCain seems to shudder at that, he rolls his eyes... and I thought for a moment he''d admonish the man. But he didn''t. And now he''s selling the Ayres non-story full-time. Yes, yes, it''s all he has. True enough: he no longer has his honor. But we are on the edge of some real serious craziness here and it would be nice if McCain did the right thing and told his more bloodthirsty supporters to go home and take a cold shower. But McCain hasn''t done the right thing all year. His campaign is appalling, as the New York Times editorial board said today—and more, it is a national disgrace.

A national disgrace? I find Mr. Obama, his cronies, his associates, his groupies, his campaign to be a national disgrace. The other side doesn''t get to call it a disgrace; they don''t get to appropriate those words and adopt that attitude like they''re the purveyors of the truth. The truth is relative to whomever is dispensing it or receiving it. A thought that leaves one''s lips or fingertips does not become THE TRUTH. It''s just an opinion. No matter how cleverly it is put; no matter the rapier sarcasm or wit; no matter how many facts, factoids, or lies are used in the telling. It''s just an opinion. By someone who''s opinion doesn''t matter to a non-supporter.

My reaction: more inflammatory nonsense masquerading as the Gospel according to pundits.

 

[E B]

Date: 10/10/2008 6:49:45 PM
Author: HollyS

A national disgrace? I find Mr. Obama, his cronies, his associates, his groupies, his campaign to be a national disgrace.

Say what you want about his "cronies," associates, and groupies (?), but can you really call his campaign a national disgrace when your candidate started slinging mud from the very beginning? I read that nearly every recent televised McCain ad has been negative, compared to Obama's ~30 percent.

Every national poll shows Obama with a steady lead, so the Republicans have decided to play even uglier than usual with finger-pointing that isn't fooling anyone with half a brain. They're losing valuable minutes on the clock, so they're furiously fouling, hoping to regain the ball.

Obama's campaign a national disgrace? Hardly.

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 10/10/2008 7:06:24 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 10/10/2008 6:49:45 PM

Author: HollyS


A national disgrace? I find Mr. Obama, his cronies, his associates, his groupies, his campaign to be a national disgrace.

Say what you want about his ''cronies,'' associates, and groupies (?), but can you really call his campaign a national disgrace when your candidate started slinging mud from the very beginning? I read that nearly every recent televised McCain ad has been negative, compared to Obama''s ~30 percent.


Every national poll shows Obama with a steady lead, so the Republicans have decided to play even uglier than usual with finger-pointing that isn''t fooling anyone with half a brain. They''re losing valuable minutes on the clock, so they''re furiously fouling, hoping to regain the ball.


Obama''s campaign a national disgrace? Hardly.

I wholeheartedly agree!

 

[HollyS]

Date: 10/10/2008 7:06:24 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 10/10/2008 6:49:45 PM
Author: HollyS

A national disgrace? I find Mr. Obama, his cronies, his associates, his groupies, his campaign to be a national disgrace.

Say what you want about his ''cronies,'' associates, and groupies (?), but can you really call his campaign a national disgrace when your candidate started slinging mud from the very beginning? I read that nearly every recent televised McCain ad has been negative, compared to Obama''s ~30 percent.

Every national poll shows Obama with a steady lead, so the Republicans have decided to play even uglier than usual with finger-pointing that isn''t fooling anyone with half a brain. They''re losing valuable minutes on the clock, so they''re furiously fouling, hoping to regain the ball.

Obama''s campaign a national disgrace? Hardly.

You say potato, I say po-tot-o.

You just dotted my eyes and crossed my tees for me. It is all a matter of perception; Obamaites believe their guy and all the corresponding op/ed pieces, blogs by fans, and YouTube flicks they see. McCainers will do the same. The truth is in there somewhere, but you don''t own it. And neither does he.

 

[purrfectpear]

Holly I''m sure you''re correct that there are mega-supporters on both sides who think their candidates walk on water

But, there are more than a few of us I suspect who don''t really "like" either of the candidates. I know I''m one of them. I''ll vote for Obama simply because I feel I must cast a vote, and I''ll be choosing the lesser of evils (I''m hoping here).

I''m not an Obama supporter by any means. I just think McCain is 1. too old, 2. too testy, 3. the thought of Sarah being a step away is too much, and 4. I puke a little each time I hear "Maverick".

I hate negative campaigning from any candidate, and almost ALL politicians are slimy IMO.