Vote for McBama

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: spitfire1974 @ 06/12/2008 1:18:06 AM

    Honestly I want to vote for a person who is smart enough to know when he/she may not be the most informed about a situation and knows where to get the correct data to make the safest decision for our country. I want a person who will stay focused and won't lose sight of the fact the international community is getting smaller and more aggressive and we are losing/have lost our prominent positioning in this community. America does not take care of its own, whether it is the Katrina situation or the war catastrophe. When have not and aren't the UNITED States. The choices we've made in who we have chosen to be our primary candidates for Commander and Chief exemplify our division. America is broke, out of date, disrespected and despised and has been compromised/disgraced by this administration. Unfortunately this article seems to be correct; America probably won't have a winner with either Obama or McCain. Hillary might not have lost if she had stayed steadfast in her initial approach of having more experience and knowing/understanding what America needs. She seems to be a mixture of McCain and Obama.

    • Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/12/2008 2:55:00 PM

      Hilary is just like Joe Liberman, 1 step left of Bush and a liar.

  • Posted By: ayoss58 @ 06/12/2008 3:02:59 AM

    McBama is a piece of journalistic crap which bears no resembles to the said candidates in real life, just like the artificial "coinage-McBama"!!!.
    The central claim of this piece relies solely on the fallacy that because McCain first advocated "the surge' before Bush; that singly qualifies him to possess "good judgement" and "steadfastness". wow, what a cheap, Soviet-style propaganda for McCain!!!.
    First, the misleading claim that the "surge" has worked or been successful is far from the reality on the ground in Iraq. The "surge" was approved on key political, security and economic benchmarks which none has been met!!!!.
    Iraqi government has not engaged let alone effected any political reconciliation between sunnis and shias or Kurds.Infact, the government of Iraq is now engaged in intra-shia sectarian war inaddition to the perenial sunni-shia religious war. The security situation is perilous as before with American soldiers dying everyday and 85% of Iraqis still believe killing Americans is a national and religious duty!!!.
    Economic and financial allocation of oil revenues is still unresolved with the Iraqi government embroiled deeper in corruption than ever before!!!.
    Indeed by sin of ommission, McCain made to appear as having great judgement while the truth is McCain failed to pass that "threshold when he voted with George Bush to authorise the Iraq war. The thesis that because fewer Americans are dying in Iraq today than last year was and is not the "benchmark of success for the surge". It's a creation of McCain and his apologists in the media, like this author!!!!.

    • Posted By: emmarcee @ 06/12/2008 8:42:52 AM

      beyond the McBama.. Samuelson is trying to give you the true nature of Barack... and his drawbacks. He is just playing with MCbama to be fair and not to diss the Obamites who are the main core of Newsweek bloggers.

      • Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/12/2008 2:52:35 PM

        Actually he is giving his OPPINION of who Obama and McBush are, that's all. He boasts of McLame's 87% voting w/party record, but leaves out the fact that McNoShow was present for the vote less than 50% of the time...? whoops Kinda like when he NO SHOWED and NO VOTED for the new GI BILL supporting our sons and daughters fighting these wars and their families...McCbackstabber's reason too much "pork" attached to the bill...WTF!!!?? Was there 12billion a months attached to it? NO! so what was the problem?
        McCain HATES OUR TROOPS and he wants to keep sending them back until they die or kill themselves, it's cheaper than taking care of them medically or pyschologically, if they die, well sh!t then thier "heros" and McBush's gov does not have to help the families out AT ALL.
        What a "hero" McBush" is...

  • Posted By: DaveWells @ 06/12/2008 1:53:32 PM

    I could care less if there is a D or an R in front of the guy I vote for. I vote for the good of my family. This economy stinks, I am sick of cutting back farther each year. To add insult, this year has been the worst. ENERGY POLICY, get it McBama? A good energy policy does more than lower fuel costs, it creates good jobs, and reduces our trade deficit. .Get involved, write your Congressperson, support sites like this:

    http://www.AmericansForJobsAndEnergy.org/

    Tell your friends to do the same. Voting for president is important but the decisions made in the House Of Reps, are the ones that really hurt us.

  • Posted By: Kboogie @ 06/12/2008 10:34:25 AM

    Another happy day, guys!!!!!!!!

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

    The majority of Americans do have sense, after all!!!

    • Posted By: SPORTLOCK09 @ 06/12/2008 1:18:35 PM

      Well hey, Why waste all the time and money on an election? Your poll has already determined the winner.
      Oh yeah, If polls mean't a damn thing other then to make you feel all warm and fuzzy I guess Hilary would've been the nominee wouldn't she. According to the polls in the early primary race Hilary was her hands down favorite. Do you feel warm and fuzzy yet?

      • Posted By: Kboogie @ 06/12/2008 1:31:02 PM

        Actually, I do feel kinda warm and fuzzy. Obama was an "unknown" during the early primaries. Once he took center stage, the overwhelming support became....well, overwhelming. Even after the "scandals" surfaced, she still couldn't catch his lead. The fact that this rookie from Chicago, w/ the crazy pastor, the scandelous wife, and supposed "ties" to terrorists is leading the old, experienced, war "hero" IS oh, so lovely. I'm feeling fuzzier by the day.

        I don't put all of my stock in polls, but, for now, they are the only indicator we have the measures public sentiment. And according to EACH national poll, that sentiment favors Obama. Just qouting the numbers, kiddo.

        • Posted By: SPORTLOCK09 @ 06/12/2008 1:38:31 PM

          Thats fine and thanks for the subjective information. I just wanted to remind you of what a polll actually mirrors. Things do seem to change however when you get to squeeze into that booth and nobody see who your voting for. Guess regardless of a poll, polls, or what a poller says, fact is, an election in Nov will determine the outcome.

          • Posted By: Kboogie @ 06/12/2008 1:50:56 PM

            I agree. November will be the end all-be all. Of course the polls will change. That's what makes it exciting. But, until we have a stronger indicator of public opinion, the polls are what the country is looking at.....for now.

    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 06/12/2008 11:01:40 AM

      Well good! Thank you, KB sunshine.

  • Posted By: SPORTLOCK09 @ 06/12/2008 1:32:32 PM

    You Obama supporters sound like a bunch of racist to me. For some odd reason here I'm picking up that as long as a whitey is in office, America is in a dungeon. WHat gives? Why all the animosity towards whitey? Is the only way this country recognizes change if whitey is no longer the president? Is this the new attack on white men in America? First, Affimative Action that is mean't for everyone other then white men regardless of how poor or disadvantaged he may be. Now we have the only way this country is going to change is if we have ANY other race other then a white male in office?. Man, I hope this kill whitey mentality isn't the change everyones really hoping for. Stop the attack on whitey please....

  • Posted By: SPORTLOCK09 @ 06/12/2008 1:32:25 PM

    You Obama supporters sound like a bunch of racist to me. For some odd reason here I'm picking up that as long as a whitey is in office, America is in a dungeon. WHat gives? Why all the animosity towards whitey? Is the only way this country recognizes change if whitey is no longer the president? Is this the new attack on white men in America? First, Affimative Action that is mean't for everyone other then white men regardless of how poor or disadvantaged he may be. Now we have the only way this country is going to change is if we have ANY other race other then a white male in office?. Man, I hope this kill whitey mentality isn't the change everyones really hoping for. Stop the attack on whitey please....

  • Posted By: Richard1327 @ 06/11/2008 4:19:30 PM

    To KBOOGIE: B. S. They were just waiting for an excuse to hate the Clintons and move over to Obama. Bill said nothing that couldn't have been dropped after an hour. They made a huge deal out of Bill's comment regarding how Jesse Jackson won SC, but lost the nomination so they would feel justified in ditching the Clintons after the Clintons supported the black community for 8 years like no other president in the past including JFK.

    • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/11/2008 4:28:30 PM

      Why would anyone NEED to justify their voting preference?

      • Posted By: Richard1327 @ 06/11/2008 4:42:28 PM

        They wanted Clinton all the way until Obama was seen as black enough and he won in Iowa. The blacks were supporting Clinton before the primaries when the candidates were first starting to declare their candidacy. When Obama appeared out of nowhere and declared, Clinton's support started peeling off. When Bill made a harmless observation that Jaesse Jackson won SC but didn't win, he was simply saying that winning SC was not the end of the primaries and Hillary was in it all the way. The blacks used any mention of Jesse and his race to abandon Hillary and feel justified to reduce their guilt . Obama really wasn't the best the Dems could offer, but after that, he became godlike because the blacks had to rationalize their unfounded support somehow. Ours is a representative form of government. Everyone should vote for the person who best represents them and their best interests.

        • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/12/2008 1:02:31 PM

          Please please stop with the "What blacks did" or "What blacks thought" as I am willing to bet that you are not black so there is no way that you can know what we as a community were feeling or thinking. A lot of blacks, myself included, totally supported the Clintons during his administration. I voted for him twice. By the way, I did mention that I am black, my first choice for a candidate was Ron Paul a republican. After realizing that he didn't have a hope in hell of winning I looked at Hillary but only because of Bill.

          Then things changed. The Jesse Jackson comment offended quite a few people, and you do not have to understand that, just take it as fact. The only thing that Jackson and Obama have in common is that they are both Black Men. The reason I and others that I know supported Bill Clinton is because durieng both of his campaigns he never went negative. But during this campaign he showed a totally different face. That is when they lost my vote, as you mentioned I knew almost nothing about Obama. The Bill Clinton that we saw this time around is not the Bill Clinton that I voted for.

        • Posted By: Kboogie @ 06/11/2008 5:19:27 PM

          Everything you're spewing is based on YOUR assumption. Look at the actual numbers. Read the transcripts of the speeches. Listen to the voters' reactions to those speeches. The black community didn't even take Obama seriously until he had a platform to expound his policies and beliefs about the country. His message appealed not only to the majority of blacks, but to a LARGE portion of the WHITE population, also. That, in addition to Bill's constant race-baiting gaffes, the desertion of the black communtiy began.

          We can argue until November about Bill's intent. But the fact remains, that he offended the ENTIRE black community. Blacks loved the Clintons until they showed different colors during the primaries. You think his gaffe was harmless, the majority would disagree.

          • Posted By: Richard1327 @ 06/11/2008 5:25:43 PM

            The discussion stops here because YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT. Anyone else reading these posts should agree.

            • Posted By: Kboogie @ 06/11/2008 6:02:07 PM

              No, your point was that blacks were "LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE TO HATE CLINTON". I've proven YOUR point to be wrong. MY point is that blacks loved Clinton until the Clintons started showing their true colors.

              So, yes, the conversation stops here until you can provide a valid argument. You're dismissed!!!

    • Posted By: joe_mama @ 06/11/2008 6:02:52 PM

      Richard is absolutely right.

      The excuse "they" needed was that Obama had to prove he could run a campaign, win where he wasn't able to win, and present a set of policy goals that "they" could agree with.

      And, yes, there was plenty of race-bating on both sides. Pointing the finger at one over the other does nothing to resolve the issue.

      • Posted By: Kboogie @ 06/11/2008 7:21:45 PM

        Richard's position is that they were "waiting for an excuse". HE and YOU are totally incorrect on that position. There was no conspiracy by the balck community to elect Obama. The Clintons turned out to be a huge disappointment to the folks that supported their campaigns. Your intent is to blame the Clinton's failure on the black community. NO!!! The Clinton's arrogance, and belief they could insult a community caused them to fail. Bill and Hillary stuck their feet in their mouths, not the media.

        • Posted By: joe_mama @ 06/11/2008 8:13:28 PM

          I'm sorry to double post, but I'm wondering how you managed to quote me as referring to a "conspiracy".

          Oh, that's right....you just made it up...cuz it's NOT THERE!!!!!

        • Posted By: joe_mama @ 06/11/2008 8:11:32 PM

          Lighten up dude, I'm on your side.

          Before you lump me in with this guy, you might want to read my post.

          Blacks did not overwhelmingly flock to Obama until he proved he was legitimate.

          Call it an "excuse" call it a "justification" called "sound reasoning". It doesn't matter what you call it, the bottom line is still the same:

          Blacks did not jump on the Obama bandwagon just because he's black.

          Read down a little further and you'll see my analysis of Black candidates since 1972. Blacks didn't "rush" to the Black candidate then and they're not doing it now.

          So take a valium and read before you respond.

    • Posted By: Kboogie @ 06/11/2008 4:39:05 PM

      Who are these "they' that you speak of? "Waiting for an excuse to hate the Clintons?" I don't even know how to respond to that "logic"..... So, you're saying that everyone in the black community who voted for HRC in the primaries before S.Carolina, were waiting to hate the Clintons? That makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.

      Not even the black communtiy was taking Obama seriously before the attacks by Bill became racial. And, yes it WAS a huge deal when Bill mentioned Jesse Jackson. He offended his most loyal voters that GAVE HIM THE PRESIDENCY, TWICE. DAMN RIGHT, HE OWED THEM HIS SUPPORT FOR 8 YEARS.

      And, if HRC didn't compound the damage w/ her claims that "whites won't elect Obama", she might have been able to salvage some of it.

      • Posted By: News and Notes @ 06/11/2008 4:52:58 PM

        Once Hillary won Iowa the black vote turned. The mildest racial inference by Hillary or any of her supporters or surrogates was exploited to the point of exhaustion

        • Posted By: Kboogie @ 06/11/2008 5:08:13 PM

          Actually, Obama won Iowa. Your entire point is lost. You're dismissed!!

          • Posted By: Richard1327 @ 06/11/2008 5:12:30 PM

            The entire point is not lost; it's accurate and you don't have a counterpoint.

            • Posted By: Kboogie @ 06/11/2008 5:31:24 PM

              I've posted several counterpoints, in addition to the correction that Obama WON Iowa. Check your lenses.

              • Posted By: Richard1327 @ 06/11/2008 5:52:42 PM

                We all know Obama won Iowa -OBAMA WON IOWA- He typed the wrong name and we corrected it. That's not the HOT issue here - why do you insist on DWELLING on a non issue. Do you not know how to read and comprehend the main issue? We're talking about the black community mindset -please focus. We have already established that OBAMA WON IOWA - MOVE ON

                • Posted By: Kboogie @ 06/11/2008 7:24:49 PM

                  Idiot, you're head is in STILL in your azz, and you haven't wiped your lenses. Carefully read through the thread of posts. And, you might be able to understand a 5th grade discussion. I can't "dumb-it down" any more for ya. Get it together MORON. Geeezzzz. You're dismissed.

        • Posted By: Richard1327 @ 06/11/2008 4:57:14 PM

          However, Obama won Iowa and once that happened......

        • Posted By: Richard1327 @ 06/11/2008 4:55:33 PM

          THANK YOU - NOW SOMEBODY GETS IT!!!

      • Posted By: Richard1327 @ 06/11/2008 4:48:22 PM

        I'm talking about blacks and I'm talking about before the primaries before everyone declared their candidacy. The blacks overwhelmingly supported Clinton when she was considering running. The blacks were supporting her over all the other possible candidates. That's one reason everyone thought she would get the nomination so easily.

        • Posted By: Kboogie @ 06/11/2008 5:10:06 PM

          You're proving my point. Keep going..........

          • Posted By: Richard1327 @ 06/11/2008 5:16:21 PM

            I'm not proving your point. You're so caught up in your own head that you are not comprehending what two people are telling you. If you can not take someone esle's perspective or choose not to believe it, that's fine, but just because your head is in the sand doesn't mean it's not true. You do not dissmiss anyone - if you can't counterpoint then stop posting.

            • Posted By: Kboogie @ 06/11/2008 5:34:05 PM

              Again, I've proven my counterpoint in numerous posts. Check the numbers before SCarolina, and after SCarolina. If you take your head outta your ass, and wipe your lenses, you'll comprehend a little better.

              Now, you're dismissed!!

  • Posted By: Rametyn @ 06/11/2008 5:21:54 PM

    I have an honest question Sport. Or, anyone who may want to chime in because I never have understood.

    If you are born to one parent that is white, and another that is black--how does that automatically make you black? And if you have a choice between two sides--and being black is so hard in America--why do most choose the road most diffulcult to travel, ie. not saying you are white, when you are?

    • Posted By: Richard1327 @ 06/11/2008 5:44:17 PM

      It may also have something to do with the socioeconomic status of the family that a mixed race person is born into. When a wealthy mixed race couple has a child it is seen as more socially acceptable. Not to stereotype, but studies have shown that race is less of a factor for wealthy mixed race families and their children. Racial issues are not as problematic for bii-racial children being raised in wealthy communities. There is less of a need to classify or notice race for two parent households with substantial income. There is culture which binds wealthy people beyond race just as there is a culture of poverty. Race is more often just ignored when a bi-racial child lives in a wealthy well educated neighbood where parents can afford the best private schools. However, humans are genetically programmed to notice the differences not similarities in each other for evolutionary survival reasons, so the issue of race may never go away as long as we are programmed to notice differences and to make instant pre-judgements for our survival. To blacks, they may see the whiteness of bi-racial children and whites may just see the blackness. It's how we conduct ourselves after that which makes us civilized.

      • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/12/2008 12:51:42 PM

        there was a discussion about this subject earlier this week on MSNBC or CNN, I forget, but it included about 6 bi-racial young adults. They were all fair skin with straight hair, mostly light tan in complextion. They were all asked which race did they identify with more and why. I will not say all, because I did not see the entire segment, but most replied that they, those of black and white heritage, identified with black. When asked why they replied that personally they thought of themselves as both but more often than not white americans saw them as black and responded to them as such.

        I am not being racist, I am just stating that in this country there has always been the "One Drop or 2%" rule, meaning that any black blood for some reason takes presedence over any other racial mix. This is a throw back from slavery.

      • Posted By: Rametyn @ 06/11/2008 5:48:44 PM

        Very informative Richard.

        Thanks for taking the time.

  • Posted By: SPORTLOCK09 @ 06/11/2008 6:05:18 PM

    'I ceased to advertise my
    mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to
    suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to
    whites.'

    From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in
    nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity
    against my mothers race.'

    From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about
    him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself,
    maybe. And white.'

    From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to
    prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to
    the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

    From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men
    and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It
    was into my father's image, the black man, son of
    Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought
    in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm,
    DuBois and Mandela.'


    Will the Obama damage control bots please explain how any of these statements would be acceptable in ANY context? Furthermore, has anyone yet to ask dear ole Michelle if she's ever used the word WHITEY before?
    Please keep comments relavant to my question.....

    • Posted By: Stlmovoter @ 06/11/2008 6:11:22 PM

      You are slick! you keep moving these further north after I address them. Here is a repeat again of what I said below:

      I have not read the book, so I can't say difinitively. However, the first quote probably means he had been saying his mother was white just so whites would think better of him, but then realized that was insulting his black heritage.

      The second quote is in the past tense, saying it is something he used to do.

      The third: Again, it is in the past tense, saying how he felt at a particular time. Does not give context to know whether he continued to feel that way, and also the quote snippet doesn???t let me know WHO he is talking about. If it is about David Duke it is a lot different than if it is about Tom Dooley.

      Fourth: again it is in past tense. Also it says he was in an environment where this was expected. Doesn???t say how he feels now.

      Fifth: he wants to see good things in his own race, that he can look to Martin Luther King, Malcom X, WEB DuBois and Nelson Mandela to see someone with dark skin succeeding and contributing to society. I know both Malcom X and Mandela had shifts in their thinking which saw beyond race. This would fit in with what I have read of Barack Obama.

      • Posted By: SPORTLOCK09 @ 06/11/2008 6:26:13 PM

        You claim all this white hate by Obama is PAST TENSE and yet he attends Trinity church who seems to share the EXACT same views as the above mentioned for 20, I repeat 20 yrs???? If you follow your past tense timeline it appears everything leads right up to the present until somebody decided to run for president. Make sense? If not, let me know and I'll break it down for you as if I were speaking to a 4 yr old.

        • Posted By: joe_mama @ 06/11/2008 6:53:51 PM

          I'm Black (as our my parents) They agree with Reverend Wright. I don't.

          And they've been in my life for 38 years.

          Care to explain that?

          I know you can't, so I'll do it for you:

          My parents were in their 20s before they could use a drinking fountain, went to too many funerals where lynching victims were too brutalized for an open casket and have been spat upon while walking down the street.

          Do I need to mention the time they burned a cross on my front lawn in 1975 in California (the bastion of liberalism).

          I respect their views because I know they've been through a lot. I disagree with them because I know things are changing (kinda).

          Yet, they'll cling to comments like yours -- you know, guilt by association, condemnation without understanding -- as proof that they were right all along.

          So just keep on talking trash and keep wondering why (older) Black Americans simply don't trust white people.

          • Posted By: SPORTLOCK09 @ 06/11/2008 7:11:11 PM

            Guess they werent interested in all the white people who lost their lives fighting for the rights of blacks in the 60's were they? The first step is admitting they too are racist. Maybe you should point out all of the whites walking with Dr. King in the 60's. In Cincinnati we had riots against the Cincy police department for shooting an unarmed black man.That for god knows why quickly turned into a race riot pulling white women out of their cars and proceeding to beat them to a pulp in mobs of 30. Not the 60s or 70s. 2000's So I guess these whites who were beaten so badly have an excuse to hate blacks for 50 yrs? Ok got it......

            • Posted By: joe_mama @ 06/11/2008 8:01:25 PM

              Clearly, reading isn't your strong point....

              If those White women hated Blacks for 50 years, I would tell them the same thing I tell my parents....

              "I know you're hurt. I know you're scared, but try not to blame an entire community for the actions of a few knucklheads"

              But I guess that's too mature for you to handle.

              • Posted By: SPORTLOCK09 @ 06/12/2008 11:41:03 AM

                Hey thank you for making my point. How many whites actually owned slaves? Not even 1%. Thank you for explaining that all whites arent slave owners because of a few knuckleheads 400 yrs ago.
                Thanks again

            • Posted By: joe_mama @ 06/11/2008 8:06:32 PM

              You also missed the point about disagreeing with people around you...

              I wouldn't assume that all White women (or even all the people in these White women's families) hate Blacks simply becuase they did.

              That's called "guilt by association" and it's wrong. Regardless of your skin color. It's just plain wrong.

          • Posted By: NO OOOOOOOOO @ 06/12/2008 4:09:57 AM

            I respectfully must reject your analogy here...you did not CHOOSE your parents...Obama did CHOOSE his pastor/friend/mentor/father figure.

        • Posted By: Stlmovoter @ 06/11/2008 6:40:11 PM

          You asked if there could be any explanation. I gave one. Proving someone's motivation is not one thingbut rather another is attempting to prove a negative. Neither of us can prove Obama's motives. If you want to think they are sinister, fine. I think we are all safer sticking with policies. I don't like swiftboating of Kerry, I don't like slandering of McCain as a traitor, I don't like aspersions on Obama's patriotism. It is all of a piece.

          • Posted By: SPORTLOCK09 @ 06/11/2008 6:53:47 PM

            Well 1st of all. Past, present, or future those comments are not acceptable. So that you can understand, reverse the role. Say McCain said these things about the blacks race. Then proceeded to attend a white church (for 20yrs) whom liked to blame blacky for all the problems in the white community. Does your excuse for Obama hold water?

      • Posted By: Stlmovoter @ 06/11/2008 6:14:32 PM

        Again, amending my comment as I did before, it was wanting to see good in the Black side of his biracial heritage.

    • Posted By: Stlmovoter @ 06/12/2008 9:17:50 AM

      You have been spouting more lies, many of the quotes aren't even real or are ripped out of context.

      http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/therealquote

    • Posted By: Kboogie @ 06/11/2008 6:33:26 PM

      "MCCAIN IS A TRAITOR"

      CNN did a piece on McCain where he admitted giving the N. Vietnamese strategic points of U.S. soldiers. In return, he received favorable treatment from his captors. He revealed military positions, and aided in anti-US propaganda during his capture. That's called "RATTING OUT YOUR BUDDIES".

      Google- "POWs against John McCain" or,
      -http://www.vvof.org/mccain_hides.htm or,
      -http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.htm or,
      - http://educate-yourself.org/cn/earlhopperinterview08feb08.shtml, or
      -Keating 5

      It's a fact that McCain's daddy and grandaddy helped conceal by using their Naval status to classify the transcripts of his capture. Most POWS documents were declassified, while McCain's were still being protected.

      Will McCain damage control please tell me how these documented facts have been hidden for so long? And, at the same time, PLEASE tell me why anyone would vote for this TRAITOR, WOMANIZER, FRAUD, CROOK?!?!

      I'd take a crazy pastor over a TRAITOR any day!!

      • Posted By: SPORTLOCK09 @ 06/11/2008 6:47:57 PM

        Whats that got to do with my question again? Scared? Just say your scared... It's cool

  • Posted By: roadgypsygranny @ 06/12/2008 10:16:21 AM

    We have been Democrats for many generations, but as of now all of my family will be voting Republician.

  • Posted By: krotten1 @ 06/12/2008 9:27:29 AM

    You have mistated many of Obama's positons here. Your segment of this blog shoudl be called "Lack of Judgement Call". Sheesh.

  • Posted By: Stlmovoter @ 06/12/2008 9:18:58 AM

    Regarding the lies and misquotes SPORTLOCK was posting, supposedly from Obama's books, here is the truth.

    http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/therealquote

  • Posted By: Stlmovoter @ 06/11/2008 6:20:25 PM

    Since SPORTLOCK has been using quotes of Barack Obama's books out of context, I am going to read both of them to see what is actually in them. I suggest everyone does that, as well as reading what McCain has written. Will give us a good insight into both people.

    • Posted By: SPORTLOCK09 @ 06/11/2008 6:44:46 PM

      So you admit you never read either book but defend the comments as taken out of context? You sir, are scary stupid. You just gave me a list of reasons for each comment and have not read the book? Oh , now I see why anybody would listen to you..... BTW I wouldnt go believing everything someone writes of himself in a Bio. His publicist and editor already admitted that all the facts are not completely true.

      • Posted By: Stlmovoter @ 06/12/2008 9:17:03 AM

        http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/therealquote

        You have been spouting more lies. The quotes aren't even real.

      • Posted By: Stlmovoter @ 06/11/2008 6:53:22 PM

        No. I stated from the beginning in each of my answers to your postings of the quotes that these were possible interpretations, just like your speculative negative interpretation of such small quotes taken out of books comprising many pages. I gave possible alternate meanings. I will read the books, which you have still never directly say you have done either. And no, I don't believe everything written by him, just as I have no reason to believe everything written by you.

  • Posted By: ClaraM @ 06/11/2008 11:10:15 PM

    VOTE MCCAIN IN NOV 2008

    • Posted By: chindognyc @ 06/11/2008 11:47:26 PM

      Clara, I hope you see that McCain economic adviser helped HP layoff more then 10,000 people. Also said jobs are not Americans god given right. I hope you don't have children or grandchildren who would like a job or want health care. Vote for McCain. If you have any girls, count your rights as they hit the minus. Roe v Wade. Thats one.

      • Posted By: emmarcee @ 06/12/2008 8:48:08 AM

        do you know that Kerry's company moved a big chunk of their operation to Mexico? Did you have a problem with that? I get it it. Thinnest resume is the best.

      • Posted By: citron16 @ 06/11/2008 11:51:04 PM

        I don't believe that in this day and age that Roe Vs. Wade will ever be overturned. The preisident does not have the only say or vote in who gets into the Supreme Court!

  • Posted By: emmarcee @ 06/12/2008 8:39:27 AM

    Dah... we always said OBama will be a good VP.. let him comeback in 4 0r 8 years.. with some substantial experience under his belt. Thanks Samuelson.

  • Posted By: mfenwick @ 06/12/2008 8:02:02 AM

    How am I going to get through people's damn, thick heads that as long as the Democrats and Republicans run the country nothing is going to get any better? It seems the more I rant and rave against both parties the more people support those parties even when they know full well voting for either of the candidates will not make any difference. Have people given up and are just going through the motions? Americans remind me of passengers aboard the Titanic who just stood around with their fingers up their posteriors mumbling that the ship wasn't going to sink. These folks, according to eyewitnesses, were in the water drowning and still believed that the ship wasn't going to sink. They had completely blocked out reality. I suspect that explains the stupidity of the dumb American voter who keeps replacing Democrats and Republicans with more Democrats and Republicans and then stands around with his thumb up his posterior wandering why nothing ever gets better.

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 06/12/2008 3:36:59 AM

    This is my favorite line from this piece by far:

    McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers: It doesn't bode well for Senator Obama's pledges to run a campaign of hope and change when on the first day of the general election he's launching the same tired negative attacks that the American people are so sick and tired of.

    What the American people truly are sick and tired of is politicians lying through their teeth even when faced with cold hard fact and truth. The Republicans certainly weren't complaining about "negative attacks" when people who were speaking out against the Iraq invasion early on were lambasted by the media and they had the public feeding on whatever line they chose to give out. But when the truth about the war and the patent falsehoods that were propagated by the administration started coming to light, suddenly it was "the liberal media attacking" them.

    An administration that can't stand straight in the light of day and stand tall in the face of truth is not one that I would choose to be led by. Our Constitution, our very government was created in defiance of tyranny and once stood as a beacon that several other nations the world over chose to follow. How far this government has fallen from that ideal. You don't create democracy by invading another country and installing your own puppet government, for that is the path of the despot and the tyrant. You don't lead with the whip, you lead by example.

    McCain has shown time and again that rather than stand straight and face truth, he would instead twist and distort it to make him appear something he is not. Values he once spoke out for and stood by he has readily abandoned in order to curry favor from his own party. Even if he chose to break away from Bush and his plans, it would still be a third term of an administration rife with dishonesty and double dealing with the American public.

    I am an independent myself, and as a Texan, I honestly had some hope for Bush making a positive change. Those hopes were shattered his first year in office, though, before even 9/11. Watching and reading about Obama, however, I find myself hoping again. He has endured countless attacks on his person and integrity, and has weathered them all with greater poise and honesty than most I have seen in a long time. He says that he is for a more transparent government and greater communication with the people of this nation. Unlike his adversary McCain, his voting history and his policies bear that out. There is a world of difference between a "negative attack" and "setting the record straight," and it's time the American public became more active and started learning about that. I do believe that Obama is this nation's best chance at this juncture in history to rise once more and stand on its own in the light of day. When choosing your leader, be sure it is one that listens to you and speaks for you, not one that speaks to you and would have you listen.

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 06/12/2008 3:33:48 AM

    This is my favorite line from this piece by far:

    McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers: It doesn't bode well for Senator Obama's pledges to run a campaign of hope and change when on the first day of the general election he's launching the same tired negative attacks that the American people are so sick and tired of.

    What the American people truly are sick and tired of is politicians lying through their teeth even when faced with cold hard fact and truth. The Republicans certainly weren't complaining about "negative attacks" when people who were speaking out against the Iraq invasion early on were lambasted by the media and they had the public feeding on whatever line they chose to give out. But when the truth about the war and the patent falsehoods that were propagated by the administration started coming to light, suddenly it was "the liberal media attacking" them.

    An administration that can't stand straight in the light of day and stand tall in the face of truth is not one that I would choose to be led by. Our Constitution, our very government was created in defiance of tyranny and once stood as a beacon that several other nations the world over chose to follow. How far this government has fallen from that ideal. You don't create democracy by invading another country and installing your own puppet government, for that is the path of the despot and the tyrant. You don't lead with the whip, you lead by example.

    McCain has shown time and again that rather than stand straight and face truth, he would instead twist and distort it to make him appear something he is not. Values he once spoke out for and stood by he has readily abandoned in order to curry favor from his own party. Even if he chose to break away from Bush and his plans, it would still be a third term of an administration rife with dishonesty and double dealing with the American public.

    I am an independent myself, and as a Texan, I honestly had some hope for Bush making a positive change. Those hopes were shattered his first year in office, though, before even 9/11. Watching and reading about Obama, however, I find myself hoping again. He has endured countless attacks on his person and integrity, and has weathered them all with greater poise and honesty than most I have seen in a long time. He says that he is for a more transparent government and greater communication with the people of this nation. Unlike his adversary McCain, his voting history and his policies bear that out. There is a world of difference between a "negative attack" and "setting the record straight," and it's time the American public became more active and started learning about that. I do believe that Obama is this nation's best chance at this juncture in history to rise once more and stand on its own in the light of day. When choosing your leader, be sure it is one that listens to you and speaks for you, not one that speaks to you and would have you listen.

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 06/12/2008 3:21:02 AM

    JOHN McTemper TYPICAL WHITE LIES.

    Reporter: Senator, Maya Rodriguez at the CBS station out of New Orleans. My understanding is you have voted twice against the creation of a commission to investigate the levee failures in New Orleans. And my question is, why have you voted against that?

    McCain: I've supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy. I've been here to New Orleans. I've met with people on the ground. I've met with the governor. I'm not familiar with exactly what you said, but I've been as active as anybody in efforts to restore the city.

  • Posted By: collegevoter @ 06/12/2008 2:54:57 AM

    You are aware this is what we have now right?

    A Republican president and a Democratic Congress. The president has proven steadfast (a quality you praise) in his stubborness and complete wrongheadedness. The Congress has proven fickle, weak and unable to stop him.

    So why, Mr. Samuelson, are you proposing we do AGAIN exactly the SAME thing we've been doing for the past 8 years? Which has proven so disasterous. Please answer me that question. Otherwise it seems like you wrote one of the least thought out pieces I've ever seen at Newsweek.

    No in this country, I'm afraid you have to choose. Between the Democrat or the Republican. If you want to vote for McCain, Samuelson, do so. But do not delude yourself into thinking he will be counteracted by a Congress that has already proven itself weak and indecisive. No, sir. If you vote for McCain you're voting for a war with Iran and a continuation of the disasterous policies we've seen for the past 8 years. Period.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse