If it comes down to McCain vs. Obama who will you vote for?



What is the deciding factor in your decision?



Between McCain and Obama, who would better help reconstruct the image of America to the outside world?

If it comes down to McCain vs. Obama who will you vote for?

Obama

What is the deciding factor in your decision?

McCain would be my choice if we just have to have a Republican. He's certainly more palatable to me than Romney or Huckabee,

McCain has talked about staying in Iraq for 100 years and somewhat reverse his position on torture. I see him a "better" Bush.

Between McCain and Obama, who would better help reconstruct the image of America to the outside world?

Since McCain has tied himself to Bush Iraq policy, I think Obama. McCain would have been better off to say what Eisenhower said about Korea, "I will go to Iraq." He didn't and it will come back to haunt him.

If it comes down to McCain vs. Obama who will you vote for?

I'm an issues voter. So let's look at the issues.

Iraq: Obama made up his mind years ago that Iraq was a bad move. Has he analyzed the effect of leaving Iraq? I have seen no evidence that he has done so. Instead he has said that we can pay for all sorts of things if we leave Iraq.

The war in Iraq has cost $527 billion since 2003 to now (halfway through FY2008). Not $1.3 trillion, not $700 billion (figures I've seen elsewhere), but $527 billion. The 2008 budget has $195 billion for Iraq and related costs in FY2008--including VA expenses. About half of this has been approved by Congress.

Next year's (FY2009, which begins in 2008) has $70 billion in it for Iraq.

So let's say we can save somewhere between $70 billion and $195 billion if we left Iraq today. Will that pay for Obama's proposals of:

The government paying 10% of everyone's mortgage interest payment. Not only is this a singularly bad idea (since people will be more willing to take on debt they couldn't otherwise afford and the result will be a transfer of federal funds to the mortgage industry) it will be costly. The value of US mortgage debt is about $8 trillion. Let's say only the bottom 10% is eligible and the interest rate is 5%. That is a $40 billion cost.
Doubling or tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit. I estimate this at $50 billion a year.

OK, so that's two things that offset all of next year's war spending.

In addition we have building a levee system in NOLA to withstand a Cat 5 storm. Estimated cost: over $30 billion. Then we have "middle class tax relief". I guess since the middle class (myself included) doesn't pay much tax, this won't hurt much. $4,000 college tax credits. There are 16 million kids in college. If 10% go for this, it will cost $6.4 billion a year.

Those programs all cost a lot of money. Money which we don't have.

If it comes down to McCain vs. Obama who will you vote for?
First I'd like to say that this is very different sort of election if this comes to pass. The party establishment candidates have been thrawted and while the partisanship will be harsh, it will not be as bad as the past IMO with this election. Both candidates do well with Independents and I don't think that anyone is going to jump off of bridge if their guy loses.

It's way too early to say for sure who I'm voting for, but as of today I'm backing Johnny Mac.

What is the deciding factor in your decision?
Spending. John McCain's fiscal record is one of the best that I've ever seen. I believe in self-reliance, not in government 'serf'tidude. I believe in myself, my neighbors, my church to make our everyday lives better. Yet, I do believe that regulation and government is needed to protect the environment for our future and to protect us from forces that want to force their will upon us. I'm a free(and fair) trader. John McCain addresses all of that for me. He is a problem solver who doesn't care who he's solving problems with.

Between McCain and Obama, who would better help reconstruct the image of America to the outside world?
Don't know. I think they'd both do OK, but it depends on the actions doesn't it. How would the world perceive a withdrawal from Iraq if the result is turmoil? What other countries think of us is not as pressing of a concern to me as what is the right thing for the world.

If it comes down to McCain vs. Obama who will you vote for?

I'm not going to actually vote for either one of them, but if a gun were to my head, at this point I would pull the lever for Obama.

What is the deciding factor in your decision?

There's not much worthy difference between the two candidates in my opinion. One would pursue a greater scale of domestic government hegemony, the other international hegemony. With the consequences of blowback and the fallout from the last eight years, we need to step back from the world stage and focus on our citizens for awhile. McCain represents another four years of Bush; Obama does not. It isn't much tangible difference but it's something.

Between McCain and Obama, who would better help reconstruct the image of America to the outside world?

Without a doubt Obama. McCain has already stated that he would continue the occupation of Iraq for hundreds of years. I'm sure that really warms the hearts of the other nations across the globe.

If it comes down to McCain vs. Obama who will you vote for?

Obama, Anyone surprised?



What is the deciding factor in your decision?

To be honest, unfortunately I don;t see myself voting Republican anytime sonn, and because of this past administration, my independent voting, third party voting days are likely over too.

I like Obama, he would be the first person that I would truly like to vote for.
McCain is by far the most acceptable candidate that the Republicans have run for a while. I despise his position on Iraq, but I applaud his relative independence and his history of working in Congress the way I think it should be, in a bipartisan manner. I think in general, when the centrists of the two parties act together, the nation is on a safe course. I don't like either party have a president aim policies reaching away from the center playing to a base. And I am sick of the locking out of the minority party games that have been played.

I think Obama will be someonw who will reach across the aisle.



Between McCain and Obama, who would better help reconstruct the image of America to the outside world?

I think Obama is a dream candidate in this way. A child of immigrants from, a person of color, and a relatively youthful voice of optimism. He is the Tiger Woods of politics in this way. I do understand that this is mostly an image plus. But a child of Africa with a middle name of Hussein should play well for the international image of America and the myth of the American melting pot land of opportunity.

I've seen no evidence that McCain has analyzed the effect of staying in Iraq for 100 years, either. At an average cost of $100 billion a year, 800 troops per year, and no guarantees that anything gets better, what's that going to cost us?


Well, let's be fair here, Amlord. Yes, Iraq has cost us "only" a little over half a trillion dollars. But that doesn't include Afghanistan, it doesn't include major equipment replacement costs - things like aircraft, tanks and Hummvees, and it doesn't include long-term costs of the war, like long term medical care for returning veterans. Just adding up the supplementals so far, gives me a total of 755.4 billion, including Iraq and Afghanistan. That still doesn't address some of the other issues I mentioned.



And so does this war. Again, money we don't have, and will continue not to have, especially 10, 20, or 100 years down the road. Especially since that money is going to get us no return for the investment being spent over there.

If it comes down to McCain vs. Obama who will you vote for?
What is the deciding factor in your decision?

No surprise here, I'm sure. I'm not a conservative, so I'd go with the less conservative candidate.

Between McCain and Obama, who would better help reconstruct the image of America to the outside world?

Either one, I suspect. There's nowhere to go but up, after all.

If Ron Paul is on the ticket- I will vote for him.

I am a REAL conservative- that means that the obvious "cost savings" is to liberate Iraq of our negative presence. That means I don't want goverment snooping in my bedroom, telling my friends who they can and can't marry, and perhaps ending if not mending NCLB, not giving evil doers in our own, giving corporation free riegn in goverment.

Obama basically REAL smaller goverment- not "free rip off zone" that the republicans have fostered.

Let's not forget that it is McCain's permissive attitude toward business interests that got him in trouble as one of the "keating 5"- his blind spot for corporate wrongdoing- I don't believe he is in on it like Bush and Cheney- well, we need a change from that too.

All in all- Obama, effective or not, means a public mandate and repudiation of 27 years of neo-con rule started by Reagan- to me, it makes me feel almost joyous that the corporate attempt at Pax Americana will end, and we will do business with anyone over seas, talk to anyone- but our military stays home unless we are attacked on our soil and then only go after the people that had anything to do with it

IN other words, I am hoping Obama is as pragmatic and competant as GH Bush or Bill Clinton- without the corruption and hand in glove with big business that McCain represents, and GW has sold us out completely too.

I would have rather that the real conservative won, Ron Paul, just as the mandate to REAL small goverment and personal responsibility and non-interference in "sin/victimless crimes" until someone actually harms another- but, I feel that most humans are really afraid of freedom, really.

But at least Obama represents a benign tumor of socialism- we can live with a benign tumor- instead of the malignancy of colon rectal cancer that has been infecting us for the last 27, almost 28 years.

You know, Amlord, I'm an "issues voter," too, as condescending and elitist as a term as that is. So here's each candidate and what I like about each. I put the highlights in bold.

McCain

Like:
Pragmatic, politically bold approach to immigration reform
Global Warming agenda.
Campaign Finance Reform
Work for a tax-free internet
Proven ability to work across aisles.
Economic strategy to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Don't Like:
Voted for wiretapping law.
Voted for waterboarding, even after spending months on the "straight talk express" opposing it...
Voted for tax cuts and Iraq war, all but ensuring a mammoth budget deficit
Chastises democrats for not recognizing the "reality on the ground," but then says idiotic things like "we may be there 1,000 years."
Has not demonstrated concern for the costs of Iraq... like the absurdity of cost-plus financing, for instance.
Shows no talent or interest in economic affairs.
Has probably not mentioned the words "new orleans" this cycle.
His across-the-board tax cut proposals seem poorly aimed. I'm all for tax cuts, provided they are precisely aimed to stimulated economic growth and improve the purchasing power of everyday americans.
His health care plan is the same we've been hearing for years -- help make the market more competitive.

Obama
Like:
Has a plan to add more troops to the US Army, including more language skills.
Will increase aid to Africa dramatically, exhibits cultural understanding of how aid should be applied, and has advisers who are resolute on changing America's slow response time to African genocides like Rwanda and Darfur.
Positive record on controlling nuclear proliferation.
Willing to update Cuba policy for the 21st century.
Demonstrates understanding of how ethnicity informs politics in less nationalized parts of the world. (Kenya, Iraq, etc.)
Bold but logical approach to the war on terror.
Willing to radically reshape American foreign policy to suit a world that is racing ahead of our unipolar paradigm.
$4000 stipend for college tuition.
Willing to reshape No Child Left Behind.
Universal Health Care
Will create a green job core
Program to give paroled convicts access to job training programs
Will index a living wage to inflation
Understands how to use government spending to increase the tax base: for instance, 1 billion in career training programs.
Will help provide public transportation to poor areas, again ,increasing productivity, boosting the tax base, and helping parents get home in time for dinner


Don't Like:
Could be more supportive off civil unions, gay marriage, etc.
Could exhibit a more impressive mastery of economic matters... one of the things I'll miss about the Clintons.
Has not been vocal enough about the reconstruction of New Orleans.
Tying the living wage to inflation could make a creative solutions to future economic problems politically difficult for the leaders of tomorrow.
I worry that the political reconciliation his Iraq withdrawal strategy is designed to encourage will not be enough to stem violence.


Add this up, and you have one heart delivered to the stoop of Barack Obama. He has proposed more solutions to a wider range of problems, and not only do I find many of them in line with my own beliefs, I find his policy, on the whole, far more creative than McCain's. But my issue with issues voters is that politicians rarely stick to their issues when the inauguration ends. That's like a pro wrestler trying to choreograph his way through a bar fight.

If it comes down to McCain vs. Obama who will you vote for?

BaracK Obama. With genuine enthusiasm.

What is the deciding factor in your decision?

After being Bushwhacked for the past eight years I am sick to death of being governed by someone I know isn't smarter than me. I want someone who really is a "uniter, not a divider." I'm tired of being embarrassed by the incompetence, malfeasance, corruption and venal stupidity of Bush and Cheney. I want them gone and I want to blank out of my mind they ever contaminated this country with their slimy and odious presence.

John McCain represents a slight variation from Bush, but not enough on significant issues to make him anything more than a continuation of a failed presidency.

As a liberal blogger put it, If "experience" gives you what we have today, I will take inexperience any day. Was it "experience" that gave us a war we are mired in? Was it "experience" that gave us a devastated economy? Was it "experience" that made the entire world hate us? If so, then what does experience really get us? I would also ask what "experience" did Ronald Reagan have in foreign affairs? Long standing Washington experience IS THE PROBLEM not an attribute.

McCain's greatest legislative accomplishment is one he won't mention on the campaign trail: The McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act. He's going to run away from that as far and as fast as he can because while it wins him points with Democrats and independents, it's hated by conservatives and Republicans.

Once upon a time McCain was part of the solution. Over time he's caved in to the GOP establishment and kissed up to Bush to make himself more "electable" to a core base of the Republican Party that never will trust him. Now he's just another Washington insider who has embraced the problem.

McCain has a ego the size of the Grand Canyon. He thinks he can chew up Obama and spit him out. The infamous McCain temper is never too far from boiling over and somewhere between now and November it's going to boil over. Just ask Texas Senator John Cornyn about what's it like to be on the receiving end of a McCain meltdown.

Between McCain and Obama, who would better help reconstruct the image of America to the outside world?

Barack Obama. Hands down. It isn't even slightly a close call.

Either an Obama-McCain or Clinton-McCain race will be viewed with as much interest around the world, obviously, as it will be in the United States. McCain, honorable though he may be with his many years of service, will be viewed abroad as the candidate representing the belief that America's problems can be solved through military might. He will be viewed as the candidate who believes that America is under threat from what he himself calls "Islamists." With her own record and political history, Clinton will be viewed abroad as someone who is easily willing to resort to force, and who embodies the same foreign policy philosophies -- particularly as they apply to the Middle East -- as every recent president before her. Obama, on the other hand, will be viewed as an American presidential candidate unlike any prior one.

Obama has spoken clearly about his vision for defending American security and interests. "We can create the kind of foreign policy that will make us safe and will lead to renewed respect of America around the world," he reiterated in a speech Tuesday night, at a campaign rally in Houston, Texas. "You know, as your commander in chief, my job will be to keep you safe ... And I will not hesitate to strike against any who would do us harm. I will do whatever is required." That would include hunting down terrorists, securing loose nuclear weapons, and deploying the U.S. military wisely, he said. He further underscored his foreign policy paradigm: "I want to rediscover the power of our diplomacy. I said early in this campaign I would meet not just with our friends, but also with our enemies ... I remember what John F. Kennedy said. He said we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries, and tell them where America stands, and try to resolve differences without resort to war. And when we do that, I believe the world is waiting. I want to go before the world community and say, 'America's back, and we are ready to lead.'"

Obama has also surrounded himself with capable and respected foreign policy advisors, including seeking advice from a preeminent and forceful U.S. negotiator, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, whose reputation overseas is less sullied than it is back home. With foreign policy, there is no indication Obama will give away the store or, contrary to what his opponents might charge, that he will be a Chamberlain-like appeaser.

Rather, a President Obama will likely engage the world in the way it should be engaged -- with respect, understanding and a clear sense of purpose. He will be, at the very least, a symbol of what can restore greatness to America -- a greatness that millions of people outside America want to believe in, but have up until now had difficulty reconciling with the facts. From their perspective, if a black son-of-an-immigrant with a Muslim name can become an American president, then anything truly is possible in America. And that's a country that would be very hard to be enemies with. link

Imagine a America that is truly, "strong at home and respected abroad." What a breath of fresh air that would be.

1.) [I miss the voting cut-off date by a week or so, so I can't vote. Hence, my answer is based on who I'll support.] McCain.

2.) Experience and the fact I don't like universal healthcare or Obama's tax plan.

Although, TIME recently reported that if the general election were held today, polls indicate Obama would gain 48% of the vote to McCain's 41%.

3.) Definitely Obama would. He's young, black, idealistic, by and large, not a Washington Insider.

I don't see how you can be so sure on this point. I think that you're being overly simplistic here. Being black would appear to help on it's face in some countries(especially in Africa and Western Europe, will it help in China or Russia though?), but Obama's policies will hurt American standing with many countries. Obama is not a free trade proponent. He voted against CAFTA and wants to renegotiate NAFTA. Are protectionist policies going to help America's image with Mexico, Canada, Central America, or Asia? Pulling out of Iraq would presumably help the US image in the Middle East. If Iraq goes into civil war though, won't the US appear irresponsible in the eyes of the world? Certainly our standing in Iraq would drop. Even if turmoil does not happen in Iraq with an early pull out, Obama's social policies would be looked down upon heavily in the Middle East. America will be an even more immoral society in their eyes.

PS - DToM, Has the 50+ years in Germany and South Korea been bad for the US? Do you think that we should have risked Communist expansion and pulled out after 10 years there? McCain is simply saying that as long as US lives are not being lost, no is going to take serious issue with a US presence to keep Iraq stable for as long as needed. Now you can disagree with that position, but please don't try and misrepresent it.

How am I misrepresenting McCain? Are you saying that you at peace with the idea of perpetual global military hegemony? That you foresee no negative outcome from unending unilateral interventionism? That appears to be McCain stance by his very words.

Iraq and the Cold War are two very different fruits, simply not comprable. Iraq is a deeply religious country whose people were never going to
accept being garrisoned by the military of a Western imperial power. Nor should they accept it. At least Obama realizes that.

It's also time we pull our forces from most of the nations that we currently garrison.

Between McCain and Obama, who would better help reconstruct the image of America to the outside world?

FROM my perspective, the most important front in the international community in the coming future is Africa. I think it's hard for westerners to understand how instable a society becomes when it is rattled by 50 years of rapid urbanization alone, to say nothing of stagnating wages, ethnicized politics, and humanitarian emergencies. The recent uproar in Kenya shows how even the most progressive, stable, and portentous societies can be upturned overnight when centuries-old colonial wounds are re-opened. There are many more countries in Africa like Kenya that could face the same fate: several years back, 1,000 people in the northern part of Ghana died in a brawl over the succession of a largely symbolic cheiftancy. 10 years ago, Cote D'Ivoire was a model African nation defined by moderate, rather than extreme poverty: an important ally to French econoimic interests in the region. Then the president tried to strip the country's muslim population of their citizenship, and the resulting civil war has put Cote D'Ivoire on a downward spiral that could threaten the stability of Sahelian West Africa.

Sadly, America will never be pure enough for those who want to chuck a society into violence to acheive their own personal political aims. Despots from Idi Amin to Charles Taylor to Milosovich to Saddam Hussein will always justify their crimes against humanity by pointing to America's shortcomings. But the thing is, when McCain votes for waterboarding as a legitimate interrogation technique -- a technique invented during the spanish inquisition -- he doesn't make it any easier on us or our peace efforts. When America puts their eggs in a basket like Musharaf, or ignore's a nations human rights record to further our own strategic efforts, we create intractable long-term problems that have come to slap us in the cheeck again and again: the shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Manuel Noriega, were all directly supported by American policy. We need to break from that policy. Eventually, history shows us, the chickens come home to roost. This week, Serbians burnts down the US embassy in Kosovo. In 1979 it was the embassy in Iran. In 1997, it was the US embassy in Kenya. It doesn't take a strategic genius to say that, unless we modify our policy, embassies in The Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Niger Delta, and Indonesia could make future headlines.

So, with all that in mind, here's a look at what one Nigerian writer wants to see from the next president. He's naturally intrigued by the prospect of a Kenyan-American president, but takes issue with the mythic comparison between JFK and Obama.



I bring this up to point out that a Black president alone will not cure the deep divide between America and Africa. On some level, Africa's political class will never forgive America for sponsoring the overthrow of Patrice Lumumba, a leader who was the singular hope for bringing stability and unification to the troubled and impovershed Congo Basin. The 40 years of violence in the Congo Basin is very much a skeleton that America and Belguim have yet to acknowledge. For every good thing America has done for African states, there is a stain on that record. Our history of fighting pan-african unity and african industrialization in the name of fighting communism has left scars that, unless improved, will fuel the geopolitical migration of African states away from American ideals towards China, and radical Islam.

If we on AD care about America's future enough to break with our own entrenched ideas on foreign policy, then we need to change the electoral map beyond the office of the presidency. We need a senate, and a congress that is committed to a new foriegn policy; we on this board, and in this country need to break from both liberal and conservative pre-conceptions on what makes a solid foreign policy, and move towards a foreign policy that anticpates and subsumes the greivances of citizens in failing states, including Pakistan, Lebanon, DRC, C'ote D'Ivoire, Indonesia, Kurdish Turkey, Sudan, Burma, and elsewhere.

I'm delighted that Ron Paul has helped America re-examine our foreign policy. From reading books by Obama's foreign policy advisers, namely Samantha Powers, I hold out hope that Obama will help us re-examine that policy as well. I would love to see McCain incorporate a dialogue about human rights and foreign policy into his stump speech.

But in the meantime, I challenge the members of this board to think about the broader picture of American foreign policy. We need to temporarily shelve our stone-set notions on Iraq and Afghanistan and consider what America is currently doing or not doing in parts of the world that aren't yet making headlines, but one day will.

It doesn't matter ! Either way America is screwed !
They both have promised to bankrupt America !!
One with War the other with handouts!!!!

REPS&DEMS = BLOODS&CRIPPS

Different……….
Yet the same …..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://vermonsta.com/
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...k/print/us.html

The Math:

$9,319,703,159,873 (Debt) / 301,139,947 (People in US) = (Your share) $30,984.00
Do you think every person in America can pay off an extra $30K ?
We only have the REPS&DEMS to thank !!!!!!!

"GO McBama"

Just because it's a short list, it doesn't lessen the importance of the things propping it up.

America's demons largely revolve around the issue of race. The oppressive treatment, despite less than ten percent of all slaves being sold from Africa coming to the American colonies, this nation used against blacks is something a lot of people are looking to make amends for. Installing the first black president doesn't seem like a horrible accomplishment for what fifty years ago was considered a second-class citizen.

So, sure, this isn't Africa, but my mother remembers the Civil Rights Movement. There are still CRM leaders walking around. It helps Obama to be black.

Well, let's also understand that the rest of the world doesn't neccesarily hate the US, but they do hate bush, of course, who wouldn't?

Bush stands for the worst in America, globally. the incompetant, arrogant, evil, lying cowboy. A tool of corporate America. A tool for oppression and death and invasion and rape and murder.

It is not totally US that stands for this in most non-Americans eyes- it is Bush that represents everything that is bad with America

And Obama represents everything that is the BEST in America- the ability to assimilate any person into our society- and even allow them to lead our country, that diversity doesn't harm us, it strengthens us.

he is anti-corporate America. he has lived in other countries. he is not a cowboy from Texas, bent on world dominiation, to the point that he has a website describing the need for world dominiation (PNAC)

I don't think it is race or ethnicity or religion as to why Obama will get more respect globally than GW- other than Obama is OBVIOUSLY smarter than GW- of course- my four year old is obviously smarter and more learned and well read than GW- - it is that Obama represents everything that GW IS NOT.

Quite frankly- most politicians in my life, on the national scale, I find repugnent, and have always let me down- and it is quite possible for Obama to do the same.

But regardless, he does represent a turn around of US policies and behaviors, and that GW was a "pretender' president that most Americans hated or didn't want in the first place- he was selected, not elected, and then used dirty tricks and smears to win a second term.

Obama changes all of that- he is the good guy, GW the bad guy- it is that simple.

This is misrepresentation. Here are the facts on this 100 years statement that seems to be getting consistently distorted.


His statement doesn't say that we definitely will stay in Iraq nor does it state that we'll be there for 'hundreds of years'. Do you actually think that former POW and Veteran John McCain wants to have his son or any other Americans in Iraq for any longer than necessary?


I'm not saying any of those things. Maybe you've seen different words from John McCain than I have (I could always use more information), but I don't see the war-monger in John McCain that you apparently do.


Hey, I'm not trying to attack what you've said. I'm just looking for a little more discourse on what an Obama presidency is really going to accomplish. Do you not see the same problems that I do concerning his trade policies and the potential pitfalls in the Middle East? What you've listed here seems to pertain to your perception on America's view of itself more than the world's view on America.

No, I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm not quibbling over the finer points of his statement, I'm talking about the larger picture; you're not seeing my issue with what he said, you believe I'm making the same argument that others are. McCain would leave US forces in Iraq ala Korea for 100 years, or however long.
Not only do I not believe that we need to station forces around the globe as some sort of world traffic cop, but especially in Iraq. One of OBL's points against the US was our forces stationed on Muslim holy land. Iraq is also Muslim holy land, for the Shia. We went to war against the Ba'athist Sunni regime of Saddam and gained ourselves ten times that number of Shia enemies. Stationing infidel western forces on Islamic holy land will not engender peace in the region, but continue the conflict. Is he planning on sending US forces to Indonesia, the Philippines and Somalia where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day also?

McCain hasn't learned that global interventionism hasn't and likely won't yield peace, that is my main point of contention with him.

McCain. But only because that's all the thread allows. I plan on voting for myself. Seriously.

I have read Obama's 50 page blueprint and it scared the Hell out of me. There's a lot of DailyKos wet dream socialized this and that in there which is icky enough but then there's the whole "let's take America down a notch" our "arrogance" and the general "it's not fair we're number one" whine. Essentially he's talking about weakening America for fairness. Screw that. Let "them" catch up to us. The DailyKos crowd thinks we suck anyway and we're heading for cataclysm so it shouldn't be hard for someone to catch up to the US. I see no reason to for America to be intentionally weakened.

I can't stress enough the following: We're number one; who cares what "they" think? "They" actually like us about as much as we like ourselves which is to say about 50-50. I deal with people all over the world. When we discuss geopolitics (and it does come up in my field quite a bit) they mostly like America and what America is trying to do. Even in countries where we've dropped bombs recently you have a fair amount of people who love and respect America. In other words, don't believe the hype. The world is a better place for having America.

However, between the two? Tough to say. Lotta racism outside these borders, and a fair amount of weariness with hawkish leaders. Tough call. in the end though I suspect this question is irrelevant.

I'm all for him running the American gauntlet before running the international gauntlet. It's the good old America he'll ultimately be responsible for rather than oh, I don't know: Italy. I'd rather judge him by our standards than anybody Elise's. Internationally, I'm sure he'd be a lovely breath of fresh air from the past. He has some interesting ideas and has pledged not to act unilaterally. That alone is a huge point of contrast with the current leadership style most leaders have had to swallow for seven years.

Your position is much clearer now and you have every right to it. We all want you and the rest of the troops home, it's just a question of the way that we get you home. You and I differ primarily in your last sentence. Interventionism has yielded peace in the past on numerous occations. Neither of us know if it will here, but while you feel that it likely won't, I am optomistic that with the right leadership that it will.

That is the Iraq portion, to answer your question on chasing Al Qaeda in other countries...I can't say for sure. I doubt anything other than CIA ops would be considered with the deficit we're running (which definitely matters to McCain). All that I have on that subject is McCain's own plan.

Not that substanitive, but I find it interesting that he chooses to brag about the creation of the 9/11 Commission. Words like patience, maintaining US freedoms, and the stress on winning the ideas war are reassuring as well.


OK.

1) McCain--I have some issues with him (preferred Romney) but, the American Conservative Union rates him a 65 out of 100 in 2006 voting record; Obama (and Hilllary) are rated 8 for the same period. End of debate.

2) See above.

3) This is a red herring, in my opinion. If we could walk out of Iraq tomorrow without any adverse consequences to anyone, we'd still be hated. The reality is, of course, if we walk out of Iraq tomorrow, there will be a bloodbath, and that will be laid at our doorstep, too.

We are hated in great part because we are viewed as the big dog, l' Objet de haine. Someone decided to call us the "world's only superpower". We were given credit for all bad in the world, even before the Iraq war, as soon as the USSR fell and China quit being "Red China". When we could point to other points of gravitas, like the USSR and China, we could step down from the stage to which the tomatoes are thrown. Also, as the "world's only Superpower", everyone expects a handout from us. We are both the sugar daddy and the evil twin.

Frankly, the best thing the next administration could do is to reduce news flow from Iraq and engage in a big PR campaign to demonize China and the newly unpleasant "Soviet" Russia. And never, ever again use the word "superpower." That term should be reserved for the last generation of U.S. steam locomotives with steam superheaters.

We desperately need to get below the radar screen for a while.

Finally, not being hated is not much of a goal. Only Americans worry about this. I suspect most other nations are not so worried about being liked or hated, but they are concerned about being respected, maybe even feared. I'll settle for that over being liked, any day.

Apparently, it's never too early for McCain to start pandering to the Religious Right. Even the rabidly anti-Catholic ones.

HOUSTON -- The president of the Catholic League today blasted Sen. John McCain for accepting the endorsement of Texas evangelicalist John Hagee, calling the controversial pastor a bigot who has "waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church."

Hagee, who is known for his crusading support of Israel, backed McCain's presidential bid Wednesday, standing next to the senator at a hotel in San Antonio and calling McCain "a man of principle."

But Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement today that Hagee has written extensively in negative ways about the Catholic Church, "calling it 'The Great Whore,' an 'apostate church,' the 'anti-Christ,' and a 'false cult system.'"

"Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot. McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee," Donohue said.

Catholics United, a national online group, also blasted McCain over the endorsement. "By receiving the endorsement of an outspoken critic of the Catholic Church, McCain once again demonstrates that he is willing to sell out his principles for a chance to win the Presidency," said Chris Korzen, Executive Director of Catholics United in a statement. "We hope Senator McCain will take the principled position of publicly and unequivocally distancing himself from Pastor Hagee's anti-Catholic comments. Intolerance and bigotry do not belong in American politics."

The McCain campaign had no immediate comment on the statements. link

Among Hagee's remarks in his book, Jerusalem Countdown:

"Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews."�

"Adolf Hitler attended a Catholic school as a child and heard all the fiery anti-Semitic rantings from Chrysostom to Martin Luther. When Hitler became a global demonic monster, the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII never, ever slightly criticized him. Pope Pius XII, called by historians 'Hitler's Pope,' joined Hitler in the infamous Concordat of Collaboration, which turned the youth of Germany over to Nazism, and the churches became the stage background for the bloodthirsty cry, 'Pereat Judea'. In all of his [Hitler's] years of absolute brutality, he was never denounced or even scolded by Pope Pius XII or any Catholic leader in the world. To those Christians who believe that Jewish hearts will be warmed by the sight of the cross, please be informed--to them it's an electric chair."

Dear me, did I play The Hitler Card? Oh well, what's sauce for the goose...

Well, well, isn't that sweet? Not but a few days after Barack Obama rejected and denounced the support of the anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan, Sid McCain chases after and embraces the support of a hellfire and brimstone, apocalyptic, anti-Catholic right-wingnut.

Wonder if Sidney will "reject" and "denounce" the bigotry of Hagee the way Obama did Farrakhan? What's a straight talker to do?

If it comes down to McCain vs. Obama who will you vote for?
What is the deciding factor in your decision?

Obama, right now. I like his outlook, and I think he can communicate well with those on both sides of the aisle.

Between McCain and Obama, who would better help reconstruct the image of America to the outside world?

Now that's a good question. I think both of them would do a good job there, so I'm stuck on that one.

Purrs,
Pookie

Yes. And Obama does this by taxing everyone to death.



Source

My parents make over the one hundred thousand it takes to qualify for this tax plan. My mother is and has been stay at home for over thirty years. Granted, I'm almost out of their hair, but my sister still lives with us. They have to worry about my college all the way through a doctorate, my sister all the way through a doctorate, retirement, etc. etc. His tax plan is perhaps the one part of Barack Obama that makes me fly into the waiting arms of John McCain.

NT, why don't you and Nebraska just start a thread called the daily hit piece on McCain so we know what to avoid? I find it fascinating that the supporters of BHO, the candidate that is going to unite America, post divisive drivel such as this. Why don't we all take a queue from the candidates, instead of the gutter media trying to generate 'buzz'?

Hands down, Obama.

What is the deciding factor in your decision?

• McCain is a foreign policy hawk. It's a fact, even his supporters won't deny that. I feel very strongly that United States' foreign policy has been on the wrong track for quite some time (going back to Clinton's administration), so another politician in the mold of McCain/Lieberman would be a disaster for US, in my opinion. "Bomb-bomb-bom, bomb-bomb-Iran", anyone?
• Universal Health Care. I am a realist and I realize that passing UHC legislation would be hard as hell, however, if there's a person who'd be able to do it, Obama has a better chance that Hillary (even though I like her plan better). And yes, if my taxes go up for it, so be it.

Well, I wish that was true. In what aspect are we number one? In military might? Sure, if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, so be it. In parameters that actually matter - life expectancy, health, education, etc. - are we number one?

Gee, you must have missed my discussion with Aquilla where I complimented McCain for repudiating right-wing schlock jock Bill Cunningham. It's lying around here somewhere...

Funny thing about "divisive drivel," Just Leave Me Alone, McCain accepting the support of a viciously anti-Catholic bigot like Hagee does nothing to enhance his image as a maverick who doesn't kowtow to the Religious Right.

If McCain doesn't disavow the endorsement by this extremist crank this will come back to bite him. Obama publicly and forcefully rebuked the support of Louis Farrakhan. McCain should do the responsible thing and do likewise.

Call it "gutter media" if you like, but try and find the silver lining in Hagee's endorsement. It's not there.

If it comes down to McCain vs. Obama who will you vote for?

At this stage? Neither. I might vote for whoever the Libertarian Party runs. Or I might write in Ron Paul - or maybe BaphometsAvocate. I can't vote for John McCain and if the Democratic Party is stupid enough to allow Barack Obama to be nominated by Republicans, they don't deserve my vote either.

What is the deciding factor in your decision?

If my "options" are John McCain and Barack Obama, I'm going to vote for someone who is at least capable of occasional honesty and who seriously wants to change this country. And it sure as hell ain't either of those guys. For a while, I thought I'd vote for anyone but the GOP candidate (unless it had been Ron Paul). But the closer one looks at Barack Obama, the less there is to see - and what there is, is increasingly unpleasant. This campaign may be drawing me back to religion (yeah, it's that desperate). I am praying - please God - that it doesn't come down to McCain vs. Obama.

Between McCain and Obama, who would better help reconstruct the image of America to the outside world?

Neither. Both would be disastrous. Who needs yet another pandering hypocrite put into the Oval Office by a nation of dupes? Not me - and not the outside world. When it comes to foreign policy, which I expect is what might interest the "outside world", McCain is a doddering hawk who would continue too many of our current policies and Obama is a clueless amateur with all the curiosity of George W. Bush who would be totally dependent on people who have yet to be identified.

I may change my mind over the coming months, but right now I am disgusted with the Democratic Party, Obama's mindless supporters, and our fifth column fourth estate (Obama's handful of thoughtful supporters are okay - just deluded) - and Obama himself makes me want to puke my guts up for days on end. He's not just an empty suit, he's a lying, hypocritical empty suit who will pander to anyone for anything in order to further his self-serving political ambitions.

The way I feel right now, I wouldn't just have to hold my nose to vote for him, I'd have to have my brain scooped out. It may yet come to self-lobotomization - if it looks like the race will be close. But I suspect that, should the Democratic Party be so rankly idiotic as to give Obama the nomination, McCain will win in a landslide of Biblical proportions and my vote won't make much difference anyway.

BA, McCain is only down 7 in NY. It's a long shot, but something to consider. Although it appears that you are the candidate for the disenfranchised.


That is amazing. I've been praying that it would be McCain vs Obama. You've tossed out some pretty harsh words here Wertz and take some issue with a few of them. I'm not sure of the policy specific issues that you have with these two, but I'd love to hear it and discuss post Tuesday.

You might be right that McCain will beat Obama in a landslide/tsunami/plague of locusts/herd of cows/flock of seagulls of Biblical proportions. And if the American people decide they like their sons coming home in flag-draped caskets from Iraq and the health care system is fine and dandy as is, they should definitely vote for McCain as his campaign is built upon him being the candidate of "Everything's fine. Don't change a thing."

I take exception though with your description of Obama supporters as "mindless" and "deluded." I am neither.

If you feel a vote for Obama would be a vote for a do-it-yourself lobotomy, by all means, don't put yourself through that. We got Ralph Nader for all you spiritless progressives looking for someone who meets your standards of ideological purity.

I'm sorry--(really, I am)---that the prospect, the possibility of Barack Obama becoming the nominee of the Democratic Party and the next POTUS is one that sends you into spasms of projectile vomiting, Wertz. We've been colleagues on so many issues over the years on as I, the uppity Black guy and you, the uppity Gay guy, so it comes to me as a complete shock that it's on the issue of electing a Black liberal where we should part company.

I don't have a problem with Democrats/liberals/progressives or even committed conservatives and reliable Republicans being opposed to Obama. What I don't get is the viciousness of some of these attacks. Some of them go far beyond simple differences of political opinion. It reaches levels of vitriol on such a personal level that it makes me wonder does Obama owe you money or what?

Oh well, as Nina Simone once sang, "It be's that way sometimes." There are limits even to the tolerance of liberals because what you just wrote about Obama was over-the-top intolerance of not Biblical, but lord helmet proportions.

Before logging onto the board tonight, I had a long talk on the phone with a former reporter I hired for the paper we worked at. He's young, Black, hip-hop and he hates Barack Obama like God hates sin. He'd probably vote for McCain before he would consider voting for Obama. Things got a little heated, so I decided to send him these remarks another Obama supporter had sent to a friend of hers that was exulting the entry of Nader into the race:

Let me be clear, I am not trying to pressure you to vote for Obama. In a democratic system, voting your conscience is a sacred responsibility. If your conscience demands that you oppose a progressive, young black candidate, then I certainly won't try to stop you.


Let's also be clear that Obama is not the "lesser of two evils."� He is a terrific, although admittedly flawed, candidate. He has a personal and political record that indicates deep commitment to responsible international policy, racial equality, women's reproductive choice, urban issues,veterans concerns, democratic fairness, government accountability and bi-partisan coalitions. Barack Obama does represent the world I really want!


Ralph Nader, on the other hand, has some evil lying on his doorstep. The arrogant, destructive, self-aggrandizing hubris that marks both Nader and his supporters is directly responsible for President Bush's occupation of the White House. For you to choose Nader is to cast a vote for McCain and you know it. It is irresponsible to hide behind some kind of intellectual justification for casting a vote for a candidate that is guaranteed to lose, and thereby increase the vote share for a potentially dangerous war-monger.


Citizens of many nations are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans are holding onto their homes by their teeth and fingernails. Our wetlands are eroding under the strain of unchecked development. This is the world that Ralph Nader helped to give us.


Why are folks like you so afraid to be in the actual game? I know that real power is frightening compared to self-righteous but ineffective posturing. I know that if you back a candidate with a real shot of winning then you have to deal with the shortcomings of the administration. Nader can always be pristine because he never has to get into the muck of governing.


This may be George W. Bush's last laugh. After eight years of incompetence, sowing division, war and death, exploiting fear of foreigners coming to kill us, fear of Mexicans coming to take our jobs, fear of gays trying to marry and fear of Black people not wanting to drown like rats, the Democrats and progressives and liberals are eating their own because nobody is good enough, nobody is pure enough and nobody reflects the kind of America we want.

The sad and sorry truth of the matter is. if Hillary were up and winning, instead of down and losing, SHE wouldn't be enough either.

Of course, I'd say she still stands a far better chance than Ron Paul and definitely more than BaphometsAdvocate.

Personally, I'm a little too old and a lot too experienced at the consequences of throwing away your vote on meaningless protests. Nobody notices them and nobody cares about them besides the person making the gesture. It also gives someone the convenient excuse of opting out of the political process while retaining the right to whine, carp, moan and bitch about it for the next four years.

You're right about this much, Wertz: Your vote won't make much difference. However, I'm choosing to vote for Obama because I find it both positive and empowering. You chose to make your vote meaningless. You are only affirming the status quo, not challenging it.

Cheer up though. You'll still have the comfort of knowing you remained ideologically chaste. The downside is, just as you have been for the last eight years, you'll also be politically impotent.

Well, in response to Senator Clinton's recent ad, Obama claims to be the most capable of answering a phone at three a.m. That's an improvement from our current state of affairs.

And I don't think prayers are going to work this time. Clinton's losing a lot of momentum and the tears aren't working.

Out of curiousness, NT. Did your reporter friend tell you any reasons why he was so opposed to Obama?


Aquilla

"If it comes down to McCain vs. Obama who will you vote for?"

Well, I don't vote, but if I did, it would probably be for McCain.

"What is the deciding factor in your decision?"

Obama is a real darling for the far left, and that really turns me off.

"Between McCain and Obama, who would better help reconstruct the image of America to the outside world?"

Obama, with the whole "Change" thing, would definately reconstruct Americas image, but I fear this reconstruction may come at the cost of damaging Americas substance.

Ron Paul or myself [stay out of the race BA, America's Debate needs one candidate, stop trying to split the AD vote; it's just selfish]. I will be very unhappy on Inauguration day '09 regardless of the election's outcome. McCain is an authoritarian media whore with very little credibility left. Obama is a very liberal Democrat [based on his voting record] and his fiscal policy [with the exception of his proposed re-inception of PAY-GO] makes me cringe. I could not possibly care less about his lack of experience; the way I see it, almost no one in Congress has any experience doing anything good.


McCain's views on most domestic policy and his entire foreign policy philosophy are closed to being the mirror image of mine. Barrack Obama's fiscal policy is an abomination and it would be the most penal to the most productive members of society.

?
I don't know, and I don't really care. We need to get back to Constitutional government and re-institute a humble foreign policy, period. We should do this because it is in our own self-interest, not because it may or may not make foreign governments happy.

CP

Perhaps it is the fact that although Obama portrays himself as a new kind of public servant, he is just a pandering politician like everybody else.

Why else would he stump for the scrapping of NAFTA while assuring the Canadians that this is just political speech and will not affect policy decisions.

Oh Canada, I will not cancel NAFTA


Either Obama is blatantly lying to his electorate or his campaign has badly bungled the diplomatic message to Canada. Neither is the most thrilling revelation for our soon to be sainted candidate...

If it comes down to McCain vs. Obama who will you vote for?
Obama although I like McCain's independence and some of his positions.


What is the deciding factor in your decision?
Not any single thing. Military policy, environment, youth, temperament, and connectedness to the broader world.



Between McCain and Obama, who would better help reconstruct the image of America to the outside world?
Obama would come in more as a cooperator than an enforcer. Who would you rather share a world with?

Sure did, Aquilla.


Its funny that you think I despise Obama any more than you appear to despise Clinton. What I'm tired of is political campaigns being boiled down to American Idol - whoever looks good and sounds good gets to win. The best candidates aren't likable enough, the best candidate calls a Black man "articulate," and he can't show his face anymore. Can we get the best candidate? Leave personalities, and personal vendettas aside, and just get the person who will do the best job. I'm tired of being sold Snake Oil. The country is so messed up because everything is a popularity contest.

How is a half-term senator, with NO international experience the best person to lead the country? Hillary wasn't even the best candidate of the group; the best candidates drop out early, or get tired of the nonsense it takes to get elected. So we continually get stuck with lack-luster leaders.

The image we keep getting fed about Obama is a fraud. He doesn't have new ideas, his ideas are the same as Hillary's; he has shady dealings, Revko may end up being another Whitewater; he uses double-talk and Washington speak - he's everything in reality that his handlers are portraying him not to be. Where have we seen that before? Hmm, possibly our current passionate-conservative president?

Its not about Obama, or Clinton - it's about being forced to watch election after election NOT be won by the person who would do the best job.

As you said before, and I hope you meant, I am an intelligent person. Why can't I have looked at both candidates, and believe that Clinton will be better than Obama? Why does my conscious, or my consciousness, have to be put in question because I don't automatically support the Black candidate? Its a false argument to say that being pro-Clinton is synonymous with being anti-Obama? I shouldn't have to defend my conscience, or consciousness anymore than Obama should have had to defend his Blackness.

Yes I compared Obama to Bush in terms of not being what he is presented to be. You can take that how you want to, but don't exaggerate what I said. Bush was presented as a passionate-conservative who wasn't too far different from Gore in some issues - and turned out to be the town idiot. Obama is being presented as a new kind of politician, but we don't yet know what other skeletons are in his closet - but he's gone negative, which he said he wouldn't do when he announced; he has unscrupulous people in his past, just like Clinton; and he relied on the people around him for information who were wrong or lied, showing the lack of judgment he blasts Clinton over.

If nothing else, Clinton is proving herself to be a fighter. She's showing more testicular fortitude than Obama. If he thinks she went negative, he ain't ready for McCain - period. If I can't have the best president, at least give me the one who will fight for the same thing I believe in.

We're still friends, but it's better right now if we restrict our discussions to the NCAA tournament instead of politics.



A new kind of public servant is a bit different from a perfect kind of public servant, Amlord. If you ever find a candidate who spends at least two years running for president and never screws up once, you be sure to get his name and let me know what is is.

More than likely it'll be Jesus Christ. He'll be the one running as a liberal Democrat.

Thanks for the response, NT. Most interesting and insightful comments from your friend. He sounds like he makes a good friend, but it is probably best that you two stick with the NCAA for now. Me, I'm going with UCLA all the way out of force of habit. I've been hanging with them since the days of John Wooden - the greatest coach of all time in any sport. His magic still floats around Westwood.


Aquilla

1. Although I cannot vote for either of them I must say that my preference definately goes out to Barak Obama.

2. Charisma, eloquency, youthfullness, positivity, looks .... Obama has it all. Although radical political changes will not occur if he gets chosen, I believe that he certainly can have a positive influence on the country after eight years of mismanagement done by the Bush administration. McCain lacks many of the qualities Obama has, he is more of the same old, same old.

3. Nobody can tell for sure of course, but if I had to choose I would place my bets on Obama. He represents a fresh new start.

1) McCain

2) Taxes

3) I am not so concerned about our image; I am much more concerned about our substance. There are a number of things I dislike about McCain, but he is now on the right tack with taxes and he has no misconceptions about how quickly we are going to run from Iraq, where we are going to have to stay for some time, regardless....

(Only my second post here, so please, let me know if I screw anything up.)


If it comes down to McCain vs. Obama who will you vote for?

Obama, without a doubt.


What is the deciding factor in your decision?

To answer this, I hope you don't mind if I use an allegory in story form...(I am a Communications major after all )

Once there was a man named Erik. Erik was a simple man with simple tastes which was fortunate. The town that he lived in was very small, quite near the middle of nowhere, and so there were only two small restaurants in the entire town. On the left side there was a McDonalds™, and on the right side there was a KFC™.

Since this was such a small town, with no pizza places or the like the man had little choice but to eat at either the right side of town, or the left side of town. There were some years that he preferred Chicken, and some years that he preferred Beef. The man, acquiesing(sp?) to this fact, kept a stiff upper lip and didn't complain about the state of affairs because he had little choice.

One day though, the man saw that construction was going on at the left side of town. Curious, as it had been a very long time since anything had been built in the sleepy village, the man wondered over to investigate. Erik talked to a construction worker and found out that a Red Lobster(also TM'd) was going up. Then passed several torturous months for the man as he waited for the store to open. Knowing that there would soon be another option the juiciest Burger tasted like ash in his mouth and the most tender of Chicken felt like sand.

Now the man had never tried lobster, or in fact, any sort of seafood at all. He had no idea if he would enjoy it, if he was only setting himself up for a horrible let down...but come the day of the store's grand opening he was first in line with a smile on his face and his cash in his hand.

The End.

To make clear my point, if it was anyone but Obama that Mccain was running against, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. I truly believe that if McCain had been on the ballot in 2000 instead of George "Dubya" Bush, this country would not be in the mess that it's in. Alas, for him however, he's against Obama. As Erik in the story, I have no idea whether I'll like Obama or not. He could be an absolutely horrible president. But...he's something that I've never seen before in my(admittedly short) lifetime. My grandparent's are comparing him to JFK. I've read up alot on JFK (always been a big history buff) and I know that those are some incredibly large shoes to fill, but IF, here's hoping.... IF he can, then this country is in for a spectactular future.

Getting back to the question(aplogize, got caught up) the deciding factor for me is hope. Trite, I know,. but Obama offers something I have never seen before and I can't wait to see where he takes us.


Between McCain and Obama, who would better help reconstruct the image of America to the outside world?

Whew, don't even have to think about this one...Obama.

The image that we've been trying to portray to the world is that of the "Great Melting Pot."
I'm sure that quite a few people find our supposed acceptance of everyone regardless of religion, gender, race to be a bit laughable when a short glimpse at our list of President's makes a mockery out of it.

Though I detest having to bring race into it, as I believe it's a failure on our part to have to consider race at all, our President's have all been rich, white, men.
Doesn't it make us seem that much more accepting of everyone if we elect the Black son of immigrant to the highest post in the Nation? If that isn't a declaration to the end of Jim Crowe like politics, I don't know what is.

This was also reaffirmed for me by the recent talk about a photo supposedly released by the Clinton campaign trying to impugne him. I apologize, but I cannot for the life me find the photo on Google. If anyone can find a link I would be most grateful. Anyway the picture showed Obama in traditional Muslim garb while attending a conference in the middle east.

Truthfully, I would be ecstatic to have a president willing to to come to possible ally nations on their terms. It shows that he is willing to compromise, to talk with them, not to distance himself like they are diseased.

That's a good story. Stylistically Obama is the Red Lobster in the town. I look at it more from an issues standpoint. To me Obama is more of a new Burger King being put up on the left side of town. Still serves hamburgers (read, the basic Democratic platform), but they're flame broiled now. He's spicier, sexier, but still a hamburger. Also, I would add that the KFC had expanded a year earlier to become one of those combo KFC/Taco Bells on the right side of the road. You still get some chicken with your combo, but it comes with a grilled stuft burrito now. McCain is certainly a different kind of Republican, both on issues and style. Not as different as Obama (McCain is still a white guy after all), but not just the same old chicken. In my case, Erik has tried the tacos and really likes them. He never really liked hamburgers to begin with and is glad to see the Burger King coming in, but isn't as excited to send his business there when it could force the KFC/Taco Bell to go back to being just a KFC.

If there were a Republican Congress, I would definitely like the idea of Obama as a reasonable person in the White House to compromise and add balance. A Democratic Congress and Obama though frighten me. I know that I won't like the way that massive increases in government is going to taste. McCain on the other hand will have to compromise with the left. It's a better road for the country to take.

Obama. I'll be sprinting to the voting booth.



I liked McCain back in 2000. He sounded good on The Daily Show, seemed like a sensible guy - pretty good for a Republican. I think he would have been an OK president. So instead of voting Democrat in the primaries, I voted for McCain, because it was obvious to me even back then that Bush was a dangerous retard (how did so many people miss that?), and the most important thing in 2000 was to keep him out of the White House. Once the primaries were over, it would be safe to vote for Gore. That was the plan, anyway.

Then, in 2004, Mr. Straight Talk Express held his nose and endorsed Bush. That flushed every claim of "maverick" right down the pooper, as far as I was concerned. He could have done the country a world of good by using his considerable clout to keep Bush from getting re-elected, but he did what the Republican Party told him to do. He could have just stayed silent, trying not to do any damage, but he endorsed Bush. Now, in 2008, he's trying to snuggle up to the Bushies and hope he still appeals to independents. But I suspect those "independents" he appeals to are just people who don't want to vote for a black or a woman.



Obama.

Think about this: how would it look to the rest of the world if America elects another Bushy Republican after this disastrous presidency? It would say, "We want more Bush, but our laws don't allow it, so here's another guy from the same party who will do basically the same stuff."