Obama''s Speech....

[swimmer]

My world view is very shaped by my dual Israeli citizenship and for this reason I can only support Senator Obama in this race. AGBF and Widget put it so well, but here is my .02 in a random list:

President Bush has done only posturing in terms of a plan for peace the Middle East. He and his oil money henchmen created more martyrs and fuel for the flames of conflict than anyone since the British fled the scene. You are correct diamondfan, his term will go down in infamy.

If you want to know what is good for Israel according to Israelis, check out Haaretz and JPost http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/826665.html I like that the comments at the end are split between people who want Senator Obama to either admit that he is a Muslim who wants an end to Israel, or to end ties to Israel''s "apartheid" state.

Senator Obama must be doing something right to enrage both the far right and left, eh?
The speech was amazing, it will not be popular with some of America because it was not filled with nice soundbites as he is asking some difficult questions that we must all seek answers for within ourselves.

Rev Wright said some things that are difficult to think about for most voters, but his call for the US to look at what we have created in the Middle East..."chickens are coming home to roost," and not just wring our hands over 9/11 is more sophisticated than any of the pablum we get from President Bush.

Fox News has been rabidly discussing Barak Hussein Obama''s speech, yeah, its a common name for Muslims and Christians in much of the world. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3495&id;=12361-4113213-TuamTL&t;=375

On an aside note for politics news junkies: (not trying to jack Widget''s post, but I too have been wondering if folks were going to comment on it, and the reason he spoke is that the press has been raking him over this Rev business. Thanks for bringing it up Widget!)

Why is no one discussing McCain''s close relationship with and endorsement by Rev. John Hagee who said:
"I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." And supports Israel in order to "hasten the second coming" which would of course necessitate the death of all Jews, read Revelation."

Why is no one discussing longtime McCain supporter and friend Jerry Fallwell who continues to preach that"AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

Hope this leads to more discussion. Not trying to upset people, but information is power and Surfgirl is so great to ask "why do you feel that way?" in so many different places.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 3/23/2008 2:56:25 PM
Author: swimmer

Why is no one discussing McCain''s close relationship with and endorsement by Rev. John Hagee who said:

''I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.'' And supports Israel in order to ''hasten the second coming'' which would of course necessitate the death of all Jews, read Revelation.''


Why is no one discussing longtime McCain supporter and friend Jerry Fallwell who continues to preach that''AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.''


Hope this leads to more discussion. Not trying to upset people, but information is power and Surfgirl is so great to ask ''why do you feel that way?'' in so many different places.

I just want to hug you! I have said this over and over. White people aren''t force to denounce the many buffoons that share their race and lend their support, yet Obama has to? Why? Also, I forget his name, so it could be the Hagee guy, but wasn''t there someone who was totally against Catholics that came out in support of McCain. Where is all the rage over that?? The double standard really pisses me off!!

 

[swimmer]

hugs back! I was just making hot chocolate and wondering if anyone was going to kick me out of PS. Yeah, not much to do on Easter.

But seriously, Hagee doesn''t technically attack Catholics, nope, he vilifies the "Church of Rome" and the Pope as the "Wh**e of Babylon." Not just offensive, but historically off. Senator McCain said that he was "DEEPLY HONORED" to be endorsed by this hate-spewing preacher to millions. Compared to Rev Wright''s one congregation, Hagee is very powerful.

This is very concerning as he claims to be so pro-Israel. Have you read Revelation with an eye towards literal interpretation? When will we in the US talk about Christian Extremism and not just Muslim Extremism?

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 3/23/2008 3:10:44 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 3/23/2008 2:56:25 PM

Author: swimmer


Why is no one discussing McCain''s close relationship with and endorsement by Rev. John Hagee who said:


''I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.'' And supports Israel in order to ''hasten the second coming'' which would of course necessitate the death of all Jews, read Revelation.''



Why is no one discussing longtime McCain supporter and friend Jerry Fallwell who continues to preach that''AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.''

Yes indeedy. I thought the same thing, but I started rambling in my other posts, and neglected to mention, but oh how I feel you on that! Thanks for mentioning that excellent point!

I have so much distaste for McCain, that I can''t really start on that now...

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 3/23/2008 3:22:59 PM
Author: swimmer
When will we in the US talk about Christian Extremism and not just Muslim Extremism?

I''m not sure if we will ever. Many believe the US is a Christian nation which is so very odd to me considering how it was founded. There is a separation of church and state for a reason. The framers are rolling over in their graves.

 

[movie zombie]

don''t forget rod parsley when you''re talkinga bout mccain''s spiritual advisors:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/individuals/rod_parsley/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Parsley

http://www.pfo.org/parsley.htm [so long i didn''t complete it]

movie zombie

 

[Rank Amateur]

Date: 3/23/2008 3:30:09 PM
Author: MoonWater


I''m not sure if we will ever. Many believe the US is a Christian nation which is so very odd to me considering how it was founded. There is a separation of church and state for a reason. The framers are rolling over in their graves.

The framers were worrried about the State''s effect on the church, not the church''s effect on the State. That''s why the COTUS reads like it does.

 

[swimmer]

Movie Zombie,
Thanks for the links. Truly frightening...
I took that poll that was on here awhile back and lined up with your man Kucinich all the way. But after the 2000 election, I can''t imagine voting for an unelectable (sad but true) candidate when there is a very real chance that the Republican candidate can win the upcoming election. Yes, a third party would be great, but ever since that devastating loss, my energies are focused on getting someone electable on the Democratic ticket. Next time we are a 1996 type lock, lets go for it though.

Yep, paradoxically, working on a Democratic campaign made me more conservative.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 3/23/2008 9:19:49 PM
Author: Rank Amateur

Date: 3/23/2008 3:30:09 PM

Author: MoonWater



I''m not sure if we will ever. Many believe the US is a Christian nation which is so very odd to me considering how it was founded. There is a separation of church and state for a reason. The framers are rolling over in their graves.

The framers were worrried about the State''s effect on the church, not the church''s effect on the State. That''s why the COTUS reads like it does.

If there is a separation of church and state then one cannot and should not interfere with the other. If we are to have religious freedom in this country, than no religion should have influence on the laws of the land. If this is allowed, than those not of that religion will suffer as a result (and it''s happening now thanks to the heavy influence of the religious right). I''m pretty sure the framers wanted to prevent religious persecution.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Christian beliefs have had and will have a profound impact on the US.

It was the legacy of Martin Luther that begat the idea of Creator-endowed unalienable rights.

Just because certain Christians don''t share your views doesn''t mean that they shouldn''t have influence in government. SOMEBODY has to run the government. Who shall it be? Athiests? MoonWater Free Baptists only? The Christian influence is deep and certain and cannot be cleaved from the govermental tree.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Now, this matter of Reverend Wright and Barack Obama.

The question is: Does Obama''s ongoing relationship with Wright indicate poor judgement on BHO''s part and if so will that same poor judgement hinder him in making important decisions? Is Wright a "close" advisor and do you want your President leaning on people such as Wright for advice and counsel? Should BHO have distanced himself long ago from Wright and his crazy hateful devisive views? Did it show poor judgement to stick with this guy as a "friend"? If Obama has hung in there with Wright just to carry that portion of the electorate do you consider that good politics or slimy ethics? Tough questions, but to which none of them the answer is "race".

As far as McCain and his advisors go, he should have the same questions regarding judgement and he should (and will, I''m sure) get equal scrutiny. But that''s for a different thread.

Race of course will also play a big part in the election, but that is also for a different thread.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 3/24/2008 12:43:38 AM
Author: Rank Amateur
Christian beliefs have had and will have a profound impact on the US.


It was the legacy of Martin Luther that begat the idea of Creator-endowed unalienable rights.


Just because certain Christians don't share your views doesn't mean that they shouldn't have influence in government. SOMEBODY has to run the government. Who shall it be? Athiests? MoonWater Free Baptists only? The Christian influence is deep and certain and cannot be cleaved from the govermental tree.

It's a little more than obvious that religion will have some type of influence as our elected officials tend to have some sort of faith (though I suspect many more are atheist that will not and cannot admit it). However, I stated that there is separation of church and state for a reason. You countered with the fact that the 1st Amendment is to protect religion from the State, not the other way I around. I simply said, this isn't possible if any religion is allowed to have a significant influence over the state because all other religions would suffer as a consequence. No matter who's running the government, or what their faith may be, it is their duty to uphold the laws of the land without allowing their God or their faith to dominate. That is why there is no mention of religion or God in the Constitution. How you read anything else into that is beyond me. I thought I stated what was common knowledge.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 3/24/2008 12:56:49 AM
Author: Rank Amateur
Now, this matter of Reverend Wright and Barack Obama.


The question is: Does Obama's ongoing relationship with Wright indicate poor judgement on BHO's part and if so will that same poor judgement hinder him in making important decisions? Is Wright a 'close' advisor and do you want your President leaning on people such as Wright for advice and counsel? Should BHO have distanced himself long ago from Wright and his crazy hateful devisive views? Did it show poor judgement to stick with this guy as a 'friend'? If Obama has hung in there with Wright just to carry that portion of the electorate do you consider that good politics or slimy ethics? Tough questions, but to which none of them the answer is 'race'.


As far as McCain and his advisors go, he should have the same questions regarding judgement and he should (and will, I'm sure) get equal scrutiny. But that's for a different thread.


Race of course will also play a big part in the election, but that is also for a different thread.

I thought the Tim Wise essay movie zombie referenced covered all the above well.

 

[movie zombie]

and from a conservative republican who is working for Obama:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/this-good-friday-let-us-_b_92645.html

movie zombie

 

[musey]

Date: 3/23/2008 3:30:09 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 3/23/2008 3:22:59 PM
Author: swimmer

When will we in the US talk about Christian Extremism and not just Muslim Extremism?

I''m not sure if we will ever. Many believe the US is a Christian nation which is so very odd to me considering how it was founded. There is a separation of church and state for a reason. The framers are rolling over in their graves.

ACK! THANK YOU!! Yes yes yes.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 3/23/2008 2:56:25 PM
Author: swimmer


Why is no one discussing longtime McCain supporter and friend Jerry Fallwell who continues to preach that''AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.''

Sorry if someone already mentioned it, and I missed it, and not trying to be rude, but Falwell is dead.

 

[surfgirl]

Date: 3/24/2008 11:11:57 PM
Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 3/23/2008 2:56:25 PM

Author: swimmer



Why is no one discussing longtime McCain supporter and friend Jerry Fallwell who continues to preach that''AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.''

Sorry if someone already mentioned it, and I missed it, and not trying to be rude, but Falwell is dead.

It doesn''t have anything to do with him being dead or not, it''s about a candidate who supported such hateful, bigoted thinking.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 3/25/2008 12:05:31 AM
Author: surfgirl

Date: 3/24/2008 11:11:57 PM

Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 3/23/2008 2:56:25 PM


Author: swimmer




Why is no one discussing longtime McCain supporter and friend Jerry Fallwell who continues to preach that'AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.'

Sorry if someone already mentioned it, and I missed it, and not trying to be rude, but Falwell is dead.

It doesn't have anything to do with him being dead or not, it's about a candidate who supported such hateful, bigoted thinking.

I was just noting that he is dead, so he is not continuing to say anything.

ETA: I think a lot of people don't even know he is dead.

 

[movie zombie]

and another interesting article re Obama''s speech:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/03/obamas_race_speech_the_baldwin.html

movie zombie

 

[movie zombie]

i read too much!

a secular white man''s take in support of the Rev. Wright:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/5337

movie zombie

 

[MoonWater]

Let me join you in reading too much lol. A great article pointing out the double standard with white preachers v. black preachers:

Different Standards for Black and White Preachers

 

[movie zombie]

wow, Moon, that guy really nailed it!!!!!

movie zombie

 

[movie zombie]

and another person telling it like it is: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/5402

movie zombie

 

[swimmer]

Great links, thank you for providing informative reading material for when I should be doing work

Obama''s speech was fantastic in that it is comparable to so many early American statements about the role of religion in political decision-making. My students will be reading it in conjunction with a speech by Washington, another by JFK, and two by Jefferson next week. Should be some spicy conversation.

Just to clarify something about our founders:
Benjamin Franklin: Deist, believed in one overarching reasonable power, not Jesus.
John Adams: Unitarian, believed that all religions were equal paths to salvation, disbelief of trinity.
Thomas Jefferson: Wrote his own "Bible" called himself a Diest and didn''t believe in the divinity of Christ though admired Christ''s admonition to serve the poor and reject excess.
George Washington: Deist, believed in a non-interventionistic higher power.
Thomas Paine: Rejected the entire Bible -Old and New Testament.

Hard to find a "good Christian" in the bunch.

And I knew poor old Jerry Falwell was dead, just blocked it...but as Surf pointed out, he, McCain, our current President and of course GHW were friends for decades despite Falwell''s homophobic, anti-Semitic (Muslim and Jews), racist, sexist, and anti-scientific screeds. But yes, that is for another thread.

 

[fisherofmengirly]

Fully describing this "change" he promises would have been good. I mean, he is a very modivational speaker. No doubt. However, to miss the point of actually providing vital information on how he plans to implement this "change" would be nice for one to know prior to voting for him.

I don''t plan to vote for him. I have very strong feelings regarding his plans for this country, and none of them are postiive. This is probably why he doesn''t explain the "change" he talks of so fervently.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 3/27/2008 5:22:54 PM
Author: swimmer

Just to clarify something about our founders:
Benjamin Franklin: Deist, believed in one overarching reasonable power, not Jesus.
John Adams: Unitarian, believed that all religions were equal paths to salvation, disbelief of trinity.
Thomas Jefferson: Wrote his own ''Bible'' called himself a Diest and didn''t believe in the divinity of Christ though admired Christ''s admonition to serve the poor and reject excess.
George Washington: Deist, believed in a non-interventionistic higher power.
Thomas Paine: Rejected the entire Bible -Old and New Testament.

Hard to find a ''good Christian'' in the bunch.

And I knew poor old Jerry Falwell was dead, just blocked it...but as Surf pointed out, he, McCain, our current President and of course GHW were friends for decades despite Falwell''s homophobic, anti-Semitic (Muslim and Jews), racist, sexist, and anti-scientific screeds. But yes, that is for another thread.

You are the best!

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 3/27/2008 5:23:32 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly
Fully describing this 'change' he promises would have been good. I mean, he is a very modivational speaker. No doubt. However, to miss the point of actually providing vital information on how he plans to implement this 'change' would be nice for one to know prior to voting for him.

I don't plan to vote for him. I have very strong feelings regarding his plans for this country, and none of them are postiive. This is probably why he doesn't explain the 'change' he talks of so fervently.

Wait, I'm confused. You don't understand the change he is referring to but say you don't plan to vote for him due to your strong feelings regarding his plans for the country. How do you develop feelings against plans that you say have not been explained?

Also, many people assert this claim that he is not specific enough when his policy has been laid out on his website for well over a year. Perhaps you've read this already and still think this is not specific enough, fair enough. Hillary whines that it's "just words" over and over but had no problem support Obama and co-signing many of his bills. In fact, he appears to be a much more aggressive legislator than she is, but she's suppose to be the tough one, odd.

The key things that I completely and utterly agree with Obama on:

*A more transparent government that we can better hold accountable: Coburn-Obama Transparency Act and For the Act itself
*Restoring Habeas Corpus: Floor Statement on the Habeas Corpus Amendment
*Minimizing the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups in Washington, something I think he's proven to be committed to based on how he has financed his campaign.

Additional info can be found here: Obama on the Issues and here: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

Which of his plans do you disagree with? I'm curious.

 

[fisherofmengirly]

Date: 3/27/2008 6:18:15 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 3/27/2008 5:23:32 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly
Fully describing this ''change'' he promises would have been good. I mean, he is a very modivational speaker. No doubt. However, to miss the point of actually providing vital information on how he plans to implement this ''change'' would be nice for one to know prior to voting for him.

I don''t plan to vote for him. I have very strong feelings regarding his plans for this country, and none of them are postiive. This is probably why he doesn''t explain the ''change'' he talks of so fervently.

Wait, I''m confused. You don''t understand the change he is referring to but say you don''t plan to vote for him due to your strong feelings regarding his plans for the country. How do you develop feelings against plans that you say have not been explained?

Also, many people assert this claim that he is not specific enough when his policy has been laid out on his website for well over a year. Perhaps you''ve read this already and still think this is not specific enough, fair enough. Hillary whines that it''s ''just words'' over and over but had no problem support Obama and co-signing many of his bills. In fact, he appears to be a much more aggressive legislator than she is, but she''s suppose to be the tough one, odd.

The key things that I completely and utterly agree with Obama on:

*A more transparent government that we can better hold accountable: Coburn-Obama Transparency Act and For the Act itself
*Restoring Habeas Corpus: Floor Statement on the Habeas Corpus Amendment
*Minimizing the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups in Washington, something I think he''s proven to be committed to based on how he has financed his campaign.

Additional info can be found here: Obama on the Issues and here: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

Which of his plans do you disagree with? I''m curious.

The very fact that he has not disclosed any said plans (and not contradicted those plans for "change" within a month or so) tells in and of itself that there is lack of planning and more of the mob mentality of pushing out key phrases during speeches going on than anything else.

What don''t I agree with what Obama is supporting (at least for today)? Let''s see. He''s all for allowing partial birth abortion, therefore allowing CHILDREN, not fetuses, to die because of a "woman''s right." He wants to provide unemployed people with a piece of the ridiculous "economy stimulus" pan in place (which is an idiotic concept in itself, let alone thinking that $300 is going to help anyone without a job begin the process of feeding the economy). He flops around on what he stands for regarding immigration (do we want to control the borders or do we want to coddle those who are here illegally, or do both? I''m not sure, he changes his mind on that, too). He has relatively LITTLE governmental/political history (which granted, is better than years of horrible history, but concerns me none-the-less). But mostly I just don''t approve of a man or woman who thinks that our nation is so stupid and watered down intellectually at this point that at any televised debate, the only required answer is interject "change" three or four times, all the while, stating nothing more than mere visions of what this "change" could mean, in foggy terms. I mean, dig a little deeper, give some real answers to just where you plan to take this country, if given the opportuntiy to lead it. And then, if you change your mind about what you said last week, own up to it. (That should be said of any political figure.) He has also been linked (VERY recently) to affiliates that are not pro-the America that I love, so that is more than scary.

In a nutshell, that''s the core of what I don''t think our country needs.

 

[surfgirl]

Date: 3/27/2008 8:05:17 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly
He has also been linked (VERY recently) to affiliates that are not pro-the America that I love, so that is more than scary.

In a nutshell, that''s the core of what I don''t think our country needs.

You mean to tell me that Obama got to know someone who''s views he couldn''t control and agree with 100%?! I just refer you to Shimmer''s most excellent post above for the Republican/conservative side of that coin, and their sins in associating with known hate mongers run way deeper than Obama''s defunct association with a preacher whose views he said he didn''t support...

So, I''m just curious...Would you mind explaining exactly what "America" you do support? Is it the type of "America" where our own president and administration send thousands of innocent American and Iraqi''s to their deaths based on a lie? Is it the kind of "America" where our own president and his administration happily whore out the national security of our ports to the very part of the world that they allege is trying so very hard to terrorize us? And allow overseas entities to manage the most delicate of records - our passport system? Or perhaps it''s the type of "America" where the majority of people seem to be self-absorbed "real Americans" who don''t give a damn about the environment, civility, good manners...You know, the plethora of "Americans" who drive around in their gas guzzling Hummers, who TALK LOUDLY ALL THE TIME on their cell phones in public places, ignoring the waitress/salesperson/whomever as they''re trying to assist such people? Or wait, maybe it''s the "America" where we allow criminals to run our natural/financial/human resources into the crapper so that when they all retire from office, they have nice family compounds to live out the remainder of their corrupt lives? Or maybe it''s the "America" where we let a small group of fanatical people to take what our Founding Fathers created - a nation that respects the separation of church and state for a very good reason - and just ignores that little fact and tries to brainwash part of the country into thinking that somehow, bizarrely, this really is a "Christian" country, and to hell with the other religions and ethnicities that live here in what was a melting pot for a reason (I believe the inscription on Ellis Island reads something akin to: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” yet in your "America" we try to marginalize anyone who doesn''t conform to Christian beliefs...So much for "freedom" huh? Is that your "America"? I''m really curious. Because it''s unfathomable to me that anyone with an ounce of sanity could think that this country is collectively healthy, or headed in the right direction, or a country that others should look up to...I could go on but you get the idea...

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 3/27/2008 8:05:17 PM
Author: fisherofmengirly

The very fact that he has not disclosed any said plans (and not contradicted those plans for 'change' within a month or so) tells in and of itself that there is lack of planning and more of the mob mentality of pushing out key phrases during speeches going on than anything else.

Ok, so have you viewed his website or senate site? One journalist attended a lecture Obama gave on tax policy and talked about how utterly boring it was. He's an Obama supporter, but he made this point because he never thought he'd be bored by the man. He ended the story by saying Obama is very verse on the details and that its simply a misconception perpetuated by Hillary. The funny thing is, I'm all for the details, but I never thought a speech which is to rally voters was an appropriate time to discuss it. Sure, in a debate, and Obama was certainly lacking for a while there in the beginning. But ultimately, none of the candidates were all that detailed because it's not much time to discuss anything. I would think that a voter that really cared, would simply seek this information out themselves.

What don't I agree with what Obama is supporting (at least for today)? Let's see. He's all for allowing partial birth abortion, therefore allowing CHILDREN, not fetuses, to die because of a 'woman's right.'

Er, I thought Obama voted "present" on that bill, something he discussed and coordinated with Planned Parenthood. I believe part of the reasoning is that they believed this was a small step toward banning abortion in general (i.e. like the frog in the pot, let it slowly heat). Obviously if you are against abortion all together, this is still a problem. But it hardly proves that he's "all for allowing partial birth abortion." I could dig up the link which explains the use of the "present" votes, but I'm about to go cook dinner.

He wants to provide unemployed people with a piece of the ridiculous 'economy stimulus' pan in place (which is an idiotic concept in itself, let alone thinking that $300 is going to help anyone without a job begin the process of feeding the economy). He flops around on what he stands for regarding immigration (do we want to control the borders or do we want to coddle those who are here illegally, or do both? I'm not sure, he changes his mind on that, too).

Do you have links supporting all of this? I'd be interested in reading it.

He has relatively LITTLE governmental/political history (which granted, is better than years of horrible history, but concerns me none-the-less).

Well, you have to start some place. McCain has more governmental/political history than anyone yet he doesn't know the difference between the Sunni and the Shiite. Frankly I think one of the biggest problems is the fact that we are only able to choose people with way too much history in Washington. Of course, lots of people liked Bill Clinton (yuk) and he had less gov/pol history than his opponent. And of course we have Hillary who definitely has the history, too bad its a horrid one.

But mostly I just don't approve of a man or woman who thinks that our nation is so stupid and watered down intellectually at this point that at any televised debate, the only required answer is interject 'change' three or four times, all the while, stating nothing more than mere visions of what this 'change' could mean, in foggy terms. I mean, dig a little deeper, give some real answers to just where you plan to take this country, if given the opportuntiy to lead it. And then, if you change your mind about what you said last week, own up to it. (That should be said of any political figure.)

It's funny you say that since many people believe Obama is one of the first political figures we've had in a long time that has treated the American public as if it weren't stupid. And again I say if Americans aren't stupid, they won't rely on a few televised debates, they will dig deeper themselves, read where each candidate stands, read their policy and then critique them accordingly.

He has also been linked (VERY recently) to affiliates that are not pro-the America that I love, so that is more than scary.

Oh really? I hope you aren't referring to Rev. Wright since he certainly isn't anti-American. He was an ex-marine who received, I believe, three presidential commendations from Lyndon Johnson. Or are you talking about his connection to something else? Fill me in.