A Reality Check On ‘Change’

Obama's temperament is immaterial. It is his profound lack of experience that is striking. And then there tare he people that he has chosen for his friends, and there is his contempt for the American people, and there is his hatred for this country, and one must not forget his arrogance and condescension. Most important, one cannot overlook his Marxist views. It is criminal that a political party should trot out such an individual for the office of the Presidency. Jonathan Alter is nothing more than a water-boy for the socialist machine that would destroy the United States; pox on you, Jonathan and pox on your sorry candidate.

Alan Mark - What version were you reading? Jonathon Alter lists "McCain Feingold" in paragraph 5. "Of the top of your head??" If you say so.
I would only agree that the 'earmarks' argument is lame - for both sides. That's how most Congressmen and Senators get elected more than once: part of their job is to bring back at least some of what their constituents have donated to Washington D.C., and then some if they are suffering from some sort of calamity (for example, Natural Disasters or terrorist attacks).

Like most democ-RATS you miss the message within the message (on purpose). The point is that the media and Obama himself attempt to sell us a "regular guy" image of this millionaire who has taken more money from lobbyists than any other candidate.
Amazing that Barry's wife tripled her salary the same year he requested $1million earmark for her company. Oh, that right the Messiah doesn't believe in earmarks, even though he requested $860,000,000 in his first three years as senator!

Let's see, Jonathan Alter, a supposed political expert, could find only two old examples of McCain doing anything bipartisan. How about McCain-Feingold -- I don't like the bill, but I have to admit it was bipartisan. And what about the Gang of 14 that unlocked partisan gridlock on Supreme Court appointees -- something Obama refused to join? And that's only off the top of my head. Alter chose to ignore these, because it would not support his effort to help his candidate, Obama.

Why dpes Obama have to go against his party's principles? Isn't that what being the Democratic candidate is supposed to do? Do you want him to vote for Creationism in schools or something? I'm going out on a limb, but I think Obama means Change from Bush-McCain to Obama. That would be Change right? Just because McTool thinks being a maverick is the same as change doesn't make that the new definition. Palin/McCain 2008 - Nuclear Apocolypse 2009!

Alter you are so in the tank for Obama that it isn't even funny. Would you care to enlighten your readers on any great changes "Mr.Change" himself has brought about in his career? You could try naming a time where Obama stood up to his party on a critical issue or took on an entrenched liberal interest group, but good luck finding anything (and by stood up I mean deeds, not words - talk is cheap).

Why would someone become a community "organizer"? Maybe b/c he wanted to run for office and create a political base?

McCain has bucked his party for bipartisan reform countless times, from "the Gang of 14" to immigration, from campaign finance (misguided as it was) to the constitional amendment on gay marriage. When has Obama ever done anything like that?

Obama and Biden make a great team and will stand up for all of the true values that we all hold as important. The economy, foreign affairs, education and etc. We all need to stand up for them and make sure our vote counts for change.

Obama will win with the expertise of Biden. they are both awesome and stand for what America needs,

McCain's temperament is critical,but nobody wants to talk about it. He is acting dishonourably by letting his campaign air lies thet he defends, but the media(see Matthews ,Carville) find it hard to believe that he would act in this way. His relationships with media-types get him a pass. If he is elected, the media will be partly to blame, but they won't admit it. A full piece on his temperament and ability to lead is what we need , but the cowards in the Congress and the Press will not let it happen. Eight years of Bush stubbornness to be followed by 4 years of a combination of bad temper and unblinking ignorance.

your premise is ridiculous. how about campaign finance reform -- the McCain/Feingold bill, which put limits on soft money contributions. For their work, both McCain and Feingold received Profiles in Courage awards from the JFK foundation? or, " McCain introduced the McCain Detainee Amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill for 2005, and the Senate voted 90???9 to support the amendment.[168] It prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, by confining military interrogations to the techniques in the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation. Although Bush had threatened to veto the bill if McCain's amendment was included,[169] the President announced in December 2005 that he accepted McCain's terms and would "make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad".[170] This stance, among others, led to McCain being named by Time magazine in 2006 as one of America's 10 Best Senators."

the most terrible result of this election cycle is the lack of honest reporting by so many in the media, who are failing to live up to their obligation under the First Amendment.

Here at the figures Obama earned as a CO per year. 1st: Training Salary. 2nd: Starting Salary 3rd: Final Salary
$12,000 (1985): $22,836.51 (2007)
$20,000 (1985): $38,060.85 (2007)
$35,000 (1988): $60,608.27 (2007)

"Why else take a job for a fraction of what he could have made elsewhere? "
Wrong. Too many members of the MSM keep saying this. They forget that Obama went to Harvard AFTER he was a CO. To be accurate, they should run the number with what he would have made with a Columbia undergrad degree. Adjusted for inflation, it's pretty comparable to what undergrads expect from a non profit.

"Why else take a job for a fraction of what he could have made elsewhere? "
Wrong. Too many members of the MSM keep saying this. They forget that Obama went to Harvard AFTER he was a CO. To be accurate, they should run the number with what he would have made with a Columbia undergrad degree. Adjusted for inflation, it's pretty comparable to what undergrads expect from a non profit.