Barack + GOP = ‘Obamacans’

Why does Obama appeal to many in the GOP? Because he appeals to human beings!

For a long, long time Americans have been too complacent, letting a corporate elite minority run our lives by limiting our choices. Let's open up the process, and have policy debated in public, instead of behind closed doors. Let's participate, and exercise the power we have. Obama is the only candidate talking about these vital levers of democracy.

Obama also supports publicly funded political campaigns--even though he's beating the pros at their own game!

And the very conservative magazine The Economist, in its Dec. 8-14 issue, explains why his healthcare plan would actually cover more people than Hillary's unenforceable mandate.

Get real--check your W2, for starters!--and elect a real leader--BARACK OBAMA!

Let us look at McCain???s conservative credentials:

-IMMIGRATION: he wrote the bill granting amnesty to illegal immigrants
-TAXES: he voted against the Bush tax cuts multiple times (he has since flip-flopped and has campaigned as a lifelong tax-cutter)
-PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: ringleader of the infamous Keating 5 ethical scandal which cost US tax payers $160 billion (Google it)
-PERSONAL ETHICS: McCain cheated on his first wife after she had a severe accident that left her partially disabled. He then divorced her and married his multi-millionaire mistress, whose daddy bought McCain a spot in the Congress

That audacity and austerity go together is clear for people who don't distinguish between words that look alike; and those surely qualify - the easiest of mistakes.

But at $2.5 million per second, few can miss the spendthrift judgement of Obama in airing his ad during the Superbowl. That this may soon be the judgement in using the American Treasury of taxpayer money and taxpayer loans should not be missed either - for therein lies the difference in the two look-alike words.

But it isn't Obama who will do the paying for those ads, or for his spendthrift attitudes.

It's nearly enough to stop a Republican in his tracks, and contemplate his commitments.

Getting electoral votes now from your own party is small potato. The only Democrat who can get Republican votes in November is Obama. Clinton definitely can't, in fact she won't even get the votes of some Democrats. That is why Ted Kennedy now supports Obama because he has done the math.

From Pollster.com

If you pay attention to nothing else, remember this: As in New Hampshire, a lot of Democrats are having a hard time deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. According to the Pew Research Center, both candidates now receive overwhelmingly positive ratings from Democrats:
??? Clinton: 80% favorable, 15% unfavorable
??? Obama: 76% favorable, 16% unfavorable
???
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/february_5_polls_four_cautions.php

Considering how much the press and people close to Obama say that Hillary is polarizing and Obama can bring people together the fact that her favorables are higher than his and his unfavorables are higher than hers perhaps they should refer to this study a little more.

HILLARY HANDS REPUBLICANS A POTENTIALLY DEVASTATING SOUNDBITE FOR NOVEMBER ELECTION ...

IN THE 1990s, HILLARY'S POLITICAL TIN EAR AND HER SECRETIVE HEALTH CARE PLAN HELPED HAND CONTROL OF THE CONGRESS TO THE GOP.

IS THE PAST PROLOGUE?

Feb 3, 11:40 AM EST

Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages ..."

"GOING AFTER PEOPLE'S WAGES" ...

IS THAT THE WAY REAL DEMOCRATS TALK? ...

THE REPUBLICANS WILL KILL THE DEMOCRATS' CANDIDATES WITH THE KIND OF ARROGANT, CONFISCATORY PROGRAM PROPOSED BY HILLARY CLINTON ...

Newsweek's pro-Obama stand has turned it into a 24/7 Obama Marketing campaign.

I am not surprised that there are at least four pro-Obama pieces (as the following) now on Newsweek's site while there is no one article for Hillary leading to Super Tuesday.

Pro-Obama pieces:

1. Twilight of a Baby Boom
2. Barack + GOP = ???Obamacans???
3. JFK???s Heir
4. The Wrong Experience

Pro-Hillary peices:

zero

What's Newsweek's fairness in terms of news reporting?

Is Hillary not a legitimate candidate who at least should be given the equal exposure of Newsweek's coverage leading to Super Tuesday?

I was an Obama supporter until mainstream media's unfair treatment towards this primary election circle. It doesn't sit well with my sense of fairness.

I know Obama phenomenon has everything to do with 24/7 mainstream media's favorable courage. Without mainstream media???s macrophone, can Obama so quickly enlarge to god-like stature? I sense that mainstream media???s love for Obama is originated from certain anti-Clinton sentiment.

I am not surprised Obama is doing so well so quickly. As a candidate if you have 24/7 mainstream media on your side and they are eager to give you a free ride, how can you not get ahead?

The bottom line is whether you are an "Obamacan" or a "McCainocrat", a "Clintonite" or a "Romulac" - on your state's designated date - Vote. You can't have a voice if you don't use it. No vote is a wasted vote. Exercise your greatest privilege and responsibility and participate. Every vote counts!

Are you kidding?

The media should be asking why Obama says that the nuclear bill in the US Senate that the NY Times discusses was his biggest accomplishment even though it was gutted so bad by the nuclear companies and GOP that Illinois anti-nuclear people complained about it and Obama's so-called biggest accomplishment never even passed in the US Senate.

It is interesting to note that three of the candidates that are running for the presidency of the U.S. are all members of the same religion that has beem bashing The Church of Jesus of Latterday-Saints for years. In addition The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day-Saints does indorse any candidate, or will allow its pulpit s to be used by and candidate giving polical speeches.

It is interesting that Obama, McCain, and Huckabee are all members of the church that has been bashing The Church of Jesus Crist of Latter-day-Saints for years. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day-Saints does not endorse any one candidate, neither does the church allow any speakers or speeches from its pulpits.

Just yesterday I noted that people had very limited information on Sen. Barack Obama as we go into millions of people voting on the two candidates.

And then in the last two days we see three stories that illustrate the point very clearly about what Sen. Obama says about his views and record and what journalists find when they dig into the facts:

1) The New York Times on its front page explains how Sen. Barack Obama told voters he stood up to the nuclear power industry and how he passed a bill to require reports of any radioactive leaks after hearing from his constituents. But The Times discovers, after a lengthy examination, that the bill was watered down after meeting with Exelon, the company whose plants created the issue and whose key executives are big contributors and bundlers to his campaign. Answering written questions for the NY Times, the campaign, in the words of the paper, never "directly" explains why Sen. Obama would tell voters he passed a bill that in fact was not passed and did not become law.

2) The Chicago Tribune features a similar story on a different topic. While Sen. Obama on the stump tells people about the plight of Maytag workers who lost their jobs, ("Obama's fundraising collides with his rhetoric") the Tribune documents that the union covering those workers believes they got no help from the Senator, who was again taking significant contributions and bundling from one of the company's directors and biggest investors.

3) And yesterday there was an AP story where Senator Obama told the voters of Idaho: ''And then there are people who say, 'Well, he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment,' even though I come from a state -- we've got a lot of hunters in downstate Illinois. And I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.'' But he didn't disclose to those voters, as the AP said that "he does support gun control and has a record of voting for it in the Illinois Senate. He backed limiting handgun purchases to one a month, but he made no attempts to ban them." When he originally ran for the state legislature 12 years ago, he filled out a questionnaire saying he ''supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.'' He gave the voters of Idaho no indication whatsoever of either his record in the State Senate or his prior views on the questionnaire.

Folks, this is just a sample of Obama's record which the media refuses to cover. IFwyou critisize him we know what happens.

Just yesterday I noted that people had very limited information on Sen. Barack Obama as we go into millions of people voting on the two candidates.

And then in the last two days we see three stories that illustrate the point very clearly about what Sen. Obama says about his views and record and what journalists find when they dig into the facts:

1) The New York Times on its front page explains how Sen. Barack Obama told voters he stood up to the nuclear power industry and how he passed a bill to require reports of any radioactive leaks after hearing from his constituents. But The Times discovers, after a lengthy examination, that the bill was watered down after meeting with Exelon, the company whose plants created the issue and whose key executives are big contributors and bundlers to his campaign. Answering written questions for the NY Times, the campaign, in the words of the paper, never "directly" explains why Sen. Obama would tell voters he passed a bill that in fact was not passed and did not become law.

2) The Chicago Tribune features a similar story on a different topic. While Sen. Obama on the stump tells people about the plight of Maytag workers who lost their jobs, ("Obama's fundraising collides with his rhetoric") the Tribune documents that the union covering those workers believes they got no help from the Senator, who was again taking significant contributions and bundling from one of the company's directors and biggest investors.

3) And yesterday there was an AP story where Senator Obama told the voters of Idaho: ''And then there are people who say, 'Well, he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment,' even though I come from a state -- we've got a lot of hunters in downstate Illinois. And I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.'' But he didn't disclose to those voters, as the AP said that "he does support gun control and has a record of voting for it in the Illinois Senate. He backed limiting handgun purchases to one a month, but he made no attempts to ban them." When he originally ran for the state legislature 12 years ago, he filled out a questionnaire saying he ''supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.'' He gave the voters of Idaho no indication whatsoever of either his record in the State Senate or his prior views on the questionnaire.