In Search of Cindy McCain

Romney - an effete French-speaking millionaire.

McCain - an aging old fart who is still reliving his Viet Nam days, still fighting the wars, but he ditched his first wife for a millionairess. Now he too is a mega-millionaire. Out of touch. Out of tune. and Running Out of Time.

Bushes - the most mysterious family in the USA. Supporters of the Hitler regime. Wall Street Scions. Mega-millionaires with close ties to Saudi Princes and the Bin Laden family. Architects of two of the worst banking crises in the history of the USA. Perpetrators of four wars, reinstitution of torture, imprisoning illegally, profiteering off national disasters like Hurricane Katrina, and of course, creating one of the world's largest humanitarian crises in the Middle East - displacing MILLIONS of people from their ancestral homes in Iraq permanently.

Do my fellow Americans really want to be represented by these *** for another four years?

Try to adapt. Try to embrace cool. Try not to blow it again. The world is watching, hoping and waiting for us to wise up and show our true colors once again: Courage, Loyalty, Decency, Intelligence, Ingenuity, Honesty.

We have lost our way with the Bushes. McSame and Romney will be like Laurel and Hardy trying so hard to appeal to the Middle Class - the majority in this country who works hard to put a roof over their heads. These effete, elitist millionaires are not only out of touch - they're out. Period.

Awwww, you mean she's NOT the red hot-NASCAR-lovin'-one-of-the-people gal as portrayed in the "Spotlight on the real Cindy McCain" story as featured on CNN American Morning???! You mean that could have been a cynical manipulation of an image for the benefit of simple country folk like me. Darnit! Tarnation! And I was feeling so good about myself there for a minute. I guess it's back to God, Gay Marriage, and Guns.

I don't really think any of the people running or their spouses are bad people this time. I think they're humans and they had the same personally humiliating embarrassing lapses in judgment everybody has had, but only the honest admit even to themselves. I'm just so sad that their consultants determine that this is the way to market a candidate to me. Instead of issues, this race is being determined like a personality demolition derby. It's mindless fun and that's it.

I don't like that McCain still can't say we were wrong to go into Iraq, even though it's been proven to be based on lies. I don't like that the formula for his economic plan will continue to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots, and leave my little son with an even greater debt to inherit when he comes of age. I don't like that Obama really isn't very experienced. But I don't think that McCain is senile. And I don't think that Obama is prejudiced against his mother's people. Who ever wins this election is going to have a hell of a mess to mop up. They ARE running to be the Next Jimmy Carter because the fix IS going to require huge sacrifices from us, the American people.

I doubt very much that there will be a landslide this election because people are so angry and polarized. Why either side would chase the votes of a few idiots that can't make up their minds based on the facts at the risk of legitimating the umbrage taken by the other side is beyond me. Even if McCain had to go into a legitimate war he would have to deal with 46% of the country that absolutely hates and distrusts him because he tainted by the "warmonger" image whether he deserves it or not. Imagine if there was truly a crisis. How long will it take for him to meet the standard of proof to prosecute a war now? And what if Obama has to raise taxes and make budget cuts necessary to save our economic future with 46% percent of the country already hating him and "knowing" this was coming because he hates "whitie"?

We are not chosing between Coke and Pepsi here. We are in the profound task of choosing our children's future. Let us demand better from our politicians, our press, and most importantly ourselves.

Thank you for reading this post. I now turn the forum back to Enoch-120 who wants to tell you that "Michelle Obama is a "crack-headed 'ho" and NarlesBerkeley who would like to discuss the finer points of John and Cindy McCains' "Secret Pact with Satan".

This article describes her as an only child, which is incorrect. She has a half-sister that she doesn't ever mention. Her father left his first wife and child for Cindy's mother. Here's the article about this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93708729 And here's another article about it: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/08/20/2008-08-20_youre_no_only_child_cindy_mccains_forgot.html

Is this woman's name REALLY Cindy Lou? OMG.

What WAS McCain's role in the S&L banking scandal??? Is there any connection to two BUSHES being in the White House at times when our country's BANKING SYSTEM is buckling??? Duh gee, I wonder. Maybe the Bushes and the McCains are at it again - finegling behind the scenes for their own private gain. Could that possibly be happening? Could these upright Republicans actually be criminals?????

I pose the question because I don't see anybody connecting the dots in the media - probably scared to death the Bushes will ruin their careers like they did Dan RAther's when he investigated BUsh Jr.'s draft dodging days during his alleged stint in the National Guard or whatever he was supposedly doing during his stoner days in the 1970s.

Newsweek's article should have been bylined by Cindy McCain. Is there any investigative reporting left? This story reads like a press release. The NPR story noted below is indeed amazing, as is the fact that none of the media has picked up on it. Mrs. McCain seems to deny the existance of other family - and her half sister's son has to call in to uncover this? Generosity doesn't appear to start at home

Why do all the free trips on the posh airplane Mrs. McCain owns not considered contributions to the McCain campaign? When he was out of money this summer - he, unlike the rest of us was still traveling around in style.

Maybe it is no wonder Mrs. McCain's parents welcomed philanderer John - Mr. Hensley had no issue - he knew the ropes on adultery.

Newsweek's article should be entitled Cindy McCain glam report. Clearly Newsweek bought into Mrs. McCain's story hook line and sinker! Does anyone do investigative reporting

Barack Obama is funded by some of the most powerful groups in the world.

If anyone does their research here, they will see that Barack Obama is funded by some of the most powerful groups in the world. Google, for example, was ranked as the 6th most powerful company in the U.S. The Goldman Sachs families like various other donors here are directly linked to the Rothschild Family, the most powerful family in the world. They created and own along with other foreign investors the Federal Reserve System. The Rothschilds were pivotal in the creation of the EU. Obama has the corporate interests backing him and this is undeniable. Here is a list of some of his highest donors. Cross reference these donors and you will see that it is irrefutable that Obama is backed by the most powerful and influential and has their interests in mind.

Goldman Sachs $627,730
University of California $523,120
JPMorgan Chase & Co $398,021
Citigroup Inc $393,899
UBS AG $378,400
Google Inc $373,212
Harvard University $369,802
Lehman Brothers $353,922
National Amusements Inc $352,603
Moveon.org $347,463
Sidley Austin LLP $326,845
Skadden, Arps et al $304,050
Time Warner $298,972
Morgan Stanley $291,388
Microsoft Corp $276,925
Jones Day $266,705
Latham & Watkins $252,845
University of Chicago $250,685
Wilmerhale Llp $249,282
Exelon Corp $239,061

capitol, not capital------amazed your editors did not catch this very obvious error. Poor writing skills among the paid professionals, not just my students!

Here is a link to some insight into who the real John McCain is:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
Tell me this is who you want to be president.

We could wait a lifetime for a skeleton key presidential nominee to come along who flawlessly interfaces with each of our pet issues, and, consequently, we'd probably die a politically disappointed and overly cynical death.

What attracted me to Senator Obama's candidacy wasn't that he was going to evolve into some kind of liberal messiah who I would agree with all the time. He never really made any promises of that sort, and it was clear -- especially to Kucinich and Edwards supporters -- that Senator Obama wasn't entirely in line with what are generally considered to be netroots or progressive causes. Rather, he's always been the pragmatic liberal whose every slogan and statement -- often employing the collective pronoun "we" -- seeks common ground between deep blue and blood red. He's the liberal who this week, while simultaneously reaching out to evangelical voters, issued an unequivocal statement of opposition against any constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. That's textbook Obama.

After I read the letter of support he sent to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, I remembered why I chose to support the senator's campaign -- and why it evolved into an enthusiasm for a politician that I've never quite experienced in my adult life. So why then...? In the simplest terms possible, choosing to support Senator Obama has never been about issues, but rather, it's always been about, 1) electing a thoughtful, smart president we can reference with pride -- a president who won't flatly embarrass us every damn day, and 2) electing a president who can inspire and negotiate the necessary support he'll need to roll back the darkness of the Bush years.

Continued below:

Continued From Above:

To that effect, and even though there are many who come close, I can't name another presidential-quality politician who's shown himself to be better suited to achieve these broad goals. Despite how we feel about individual issues like FISA or NAFTA, I think most of us with liberal or progressive tendencies can agree that we have a candidate here who is going to succeed on these challenges, while potentially forming a long-range coalition of support that could one day result in a purely progressive netroots candidate.

Those of us who have been strapped into this dark ride -- arms and legs locked into the tram, following these crimes and scandals and unconstitutional measures for too long... we've been damaged a little. We've been round-house kicked in the throat once too often. Sometimes by members of our own party. So it makes sense when some of us express shock or disillusionment at the actions of a politician regardless of their party affiliation. Besides, there's nothing wrong with criticizing the friendlies (though we're told that, politically, it might be wiser to keep our powder dry until after Senator McBush is soundly defeated). But what has served to keep me sane during these last weeks -- or saner -- has been the broad-stroke recollection of why, irrespective of the finer points, I decided to back this guy named Barack Obama for president in the first place.

If we're able to deliver the mandate he'll require in November -- which means a solid electoral college victory and expectations-defying down-ballot victories -- Senator Obama will help to vindicate our long-suffering, dark ride generation and, thusly, our time in American history -- a time that seems to be so perfectly summarized in thumbnail-form by this current Summer of Awful. If we can keep our attention focused on the big ideas that attracted us to the senator in the first place, he will make us proud.

FROM THE GALLUP POLLING:

80% OF AMERICANS SEE MCCAIN AS CAPABLE OF HANDLING THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMANDER IN CHIEF:


July 3, 2008
Nearly All Americans Consider Military Service PATRIOTIC

Symbolic gestures valued more highly by older Americans and the less educated

by Lymari Morales

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nearly two-thirds of Americans (62%) say serving in the U.S. military reveals "a great deal" about one's patriotism, ranking it second only to voting in elections among six items rated in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll. More than half of Americans (53%) say the same about reciting the pledge of allegiance, and far fewer about wearing an American flag pin.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama spent much of this Independence Day week trying to assure voters of his patriotism, having been faulted during the Democratic primary season for at times not wearing an American flag pin, and for not placing his hand over his heart during the national anthem on at least one occasion. Obama's speech on Monday, entitled "The America We Love," included praise for Republican rival John McCain's service to his country in Vietnam, in response to retired Gen. Wesley Clark's statement that McCain's experience as a Navy pilot and prisoner of war does not necessarily qualify him to be commander in chief.

McCain's service in Vietnam is generally considered an advantage in this wartime election against Obama, who has never served in the military, and a key reason why:

80% OF AMERICANS SEE MCCAIN AS CAPABLE OF HANDLING THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMANDER IN CHIEF:

The Gallup data reveal that Americans do in fact consider military service in general to be a sign of patriotism. While Republicans are among the most likely of all groups to say serving in the military reveals a great deal about one's patriotism, more than half of both Democrats and independents agree. Republicans also tend to place more value on saying the pledge of allegiance and wearing an American flag pin, while independents align more closely with Democrats, who are generally less likely to place a high value on each action.

source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/108646/Nearly-All-Americans-Consider-Military-Service-Patriotic.aspx

How does Cindy address the first Mrs McCain? Does she start her letters with, "Gee, I'm sorry I started dating our husband before you two were divorced." How about, "Come over some time, bring the kids." Obama on the other hand, has almost exactly 1/2 of 1 term experience in the senate. That is perhaps his "best" attribute. Where is Ross Perot when you need him?

So now it is pick and chose your Veteran? Because one or another is a paid pundit of Corporate Media they are the only ones who have the right to voice an opinion? The rest of the veterans are unheard words and should be silenced because they are not on the right side of the political debate. Good luck with your endeavor to twist the fact that neither one of the generals disputed the facts that General Clark so Boldly and Heroically stated nor would they.

From an interview in 1991 with David Frost:

Mr. Frost refers to Iraq's display of captured American pilots, saying that "obviously most of them had been brutalized." General Schwarzkopf:...."That is not necessarily true. Their visible bruises, as was later pointed out by even the military, could have been suffered in being ejected from their planes". But General Schwarzkopf says he "didn't like the idea that I was seeing it on CNN".

I am not sure which "Vets" are supporting Wesley Clark, but you need to factor in the comments made by Generals Schwarzkopf and Shelton when you weigh Clark's worth as a candidate. They both publicly stated that Clark has integrity and character problems. Clark was at odds with the Pentgon during the time he was Cdr of Nato and had SECDEF Cohen steaming "to get his (expletive deleted) off the televison!". In June 1999, Clark ordered the British Army contingent to attack a train carrying Russian troops who were headed to the Airfield in Pristina in order the seize it. The Brit Commander rightfully told Clark that would not do it and said that they were not there to start WWIII. So Clark ordered the US troops to do it. They could not react fast enough and it never happened. Clark was relieved and came home early to retire. He is generally viewed as a hothead and definitely likes to look at himself in the mirror quite a bit. General Shelton said that he is the type of person who will tell you one thing and then 5 minutes later tell someone else the opposite. Good luck with selling Clark to the American public because the military who have served under him or beside him have a completely different view.