Hmmm... a tad racist, aren't you?  Why not give the total quotes from these works instead of chopping the excerpts so they give a false impression.....?  These were measured and specific ideals regarding a judgement of right and wrong, not the blind acolyte following you try to suggest.  Shame on you.  And regarding your suggestion of censorship -  libraries will never try to ban these books the way Palin attempted to ban books from the library in Wasilla (until the community threatened to recall her as a result!).

Please before you post another thing on the internet get your facts straight.  And as for forwarding this email, its been done already and it didn't work because intelligent people can read and comprehend which apparently you can not or will not attempt to do.  I will exercise my right to vote and vote Obama/Biden November 4th.  Go ahead and vote for McCain/Palin they need all the help they can get. Oh yeah, Palin's smear tactics aren't working either if you haven't noticed.  She'll be back in Alaska soon to continue in her and Todd's quest to seceed from the USA.

Do you think there is any mixed race person that doesn't struggle with their identity.  I have 3 neices that are mixed and I know it is hard on them.  As far as your quotes are concerned they are worthless and empty without context.

completely agree tyler, check out luzh's other comments on his profile, he cant spell correctly with the help of spellcheck, hes prejiduce, he's racist and to be honest hes just whisky tango. It seems clear that the people on the McCain wagon are "angry" because they cant admit defeat from someone of a different color.

Different color you think that is what it's about - how pathetic. I take it you are new to voting with this ignorant statement.  I would have voted Obama a year ago but after getting to understand what his qualifications, his beliefs and his background is all about I have to say McCain looks promising. I'd hire Obama to become a motivational speaker and that is it!

promising? what has McCain promised us? more of the same. look it comes down to this, you vote McCain, you vote Republican (gee simple concept)... and if you vote Republican you vote for all the failure and disgrace that has been brought down upon this country in the last 8 years, a republican vote is a vote to forget katrina victims, a republican vote is to ignore the economic crises, because it's "fundamentally sound", a republican vote is a vote to continue the sad sacrifice of our friends and family in Iraq for nothing, a republican vote is a wasted vote. 

Obama has given us a positive outlook on the future and hope for a better tomorrow, I don't think anyone can argue with that.

What's the alternative?

McCain presented himself as what he is, a grumpy old man. His time is over, let the future and progress take over.

I'm voting for "THAT ONE" along with his VP who had non-essential "HAIR TRANSPLANTS" even though I may or may not have ever heard about Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac before!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why have McCain and Palin resorted to a storytelling style of speaking?  Are they treating us like naieve children or telling whoopers or both?

Enough is enough, it is time to punish the guilty: vote the Republicans out of office.

Do you really want your tax dollars going to foreign ad doubled like Obama and Biden plan to do? 

how exactly did this become about race. The question is who won the debate. It was clearly Barack Obama. It does not matter if he is black, white, japanese, chinese with dirty knee, or as people seem to believe....A Muslim. The fact is. Barack has better policies, better procedures for implementing the policies, better goals, and to be blut....Simply a better man than what McCain will ever be. He is doing exactly what he said he was going to do and thats become president. Get use to it people. If he is Muslim or in league will Domestic terrorist then fine!!! He still would make a better president than McCain would be. And I would most certainly support him. At the rate things is going now he has convinced me that he could pull a noshow for the next debate and would still spoon feed McCain his own ass come election day.

Yeah and the moon is made out of cheese!.

What results could anybody expect of MSNBC. Anybody read "The Hidden Persuaders" of Vance Packard or "The Politics of News Media" of Michael Parenti. These books are about the techniques used by the media to promote politicans to the electorate.  If you collapse my comment you do not believe in freedom of speech nor democracy.

McCain won the debate Look up the word Mistrust in the time line on this site and see how McCain nails Obama with no refutable response. Nobama plus Tax that’s what we will get another 4 years of Jimmy Carter I remember it was marked by high interest rate for mortgages of over 18% for a fix rate loan. Gas lines over a mile long and being able to fill your gas tank only on even or odd days remember that?

If you were going on a flight to NY from LA would you want a one year rooky at the wheel? If your mother had cancer would you want a one year rooky operating on your mom. Or would you want someone that has 23 years of experience and wisdom that only time can teach at the pilots wheel and your mom’s operating table. Obama has 1 year experience to McCain’s 23 in the senate.

This is a no brainer folks we are in tuff times we need a tuff, hardened,  wise and experienced President Like McCain would make over Obama that has done nothing, no record of accomplishment of any kind. A bunch of talk and no walk my friends. Vote McCain

Pelosi and her Dem friends in congress have the lowest rating for doing nothing in congress in history. They are the ones to blame not Bush.  Yup It was the Democrats that lowered the standards for the FANNIE and FREDDIE which caused the failure of our financial system starting with FANNIE and FREDDIE. I hear a lot of yak on this site do some research. It was the Dems that have control and over site of the FANNIE mae and FREDDIE mac. Engage the brain folks get wisdom and get understanding.

To Ed from Ca..as much as you would like to blame the dems for the currently economic situation it doesn't make it true! Anyone with a brain knows that's just another one of you idiotic repub's lies!!

I don't know where you think everyone has been for the past 8 years, but your irriresponsible republican party is everything that's wrong with America! Seems like all of you are just a bunch of lame brain idiots! All it takes to be a republican is no brains & no morals!

You poor pitiful people Mc Shame was expossed yet again last night in front of the whole country as the irratic dumb old fool that he is..he's going down in this election where he belongs..

LIAR LIR McCAIN'S DEPENDS ARE ON FIRE!!!

To Ed - I also remember the gas lines - they were in 1974 & 75 when Ford was president - who of course preceded Nixon - so sorry - that one is wrong.  Also I remember interest rates being sky high when Regan was president - I believe they were 16%.  Also - as for the surgeon to work on my mom - well - I had an excellent surgeon work on my husband who had only done the surgery about 60 times - and low and behold being fresh and new and steady - did a great job.  McCain had his chance years ago - he is too old, too mean spirited and Palin is a poor choice - she is just a talking head.  Obama/Biden 08

You really said all that needs to be said. Except in the words of one great quaterback. "Don Meridith" "Turn out the lights, the Party's over"

The next debate will even be worse than this one.

Obama/Biden 2008 and beyond  DDAAAAADDAAAAAH TTHHAAAATS Alll Fooolksssss!!!!!

John McCain refuses to support a new bipartisan energy bill "because it would take away tax breaks from oil companies like Exxon Mobil."

on Wednesday, August 6th, 2008 in a news release

McCain opposes taxes but hasn't commented on bill

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign says Sen. John McCain is a Washington insider with a special place in his heart for oil companies.

"McCain has consistently chosen profits for the oil companies over energy relief for American families," said a recent press released issued by the campaign. McCain even refused to back a new bipartisan energy compromise in the Senate "because it would take away tax breaks from oil companies like Exxon Mobil."

Turns out the Obama campaign is off base with its charge that McCain opposes the new measure.

A bipartisan group of senators unveiled the proposal on Aug. 1, 2008. Called the New Energy Reform Act of 2008 or New ERA, the measure advocates expanded offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, incentives and research to transition cars to alternative fuels, and a number of conservation and energy efficiency proposals. To pay for the incentives, the act would roll back about $30-billion in tax deductions that oil and gas companies currently receive, among other things.

The group of senators supporting the initiative calls itself the "Gang of 10," hearkening back to the "Gang of 14," a group of senators (including McCain) that came together in 2005 to prevent filibusters of federal judicial nominees.

As proposed, the Gang of 10's measure includes things that both candidates don't like. Obama has said no to oil drilling, while McCain has opposed additional taxes.

The day the proposal was unveiled, Obama said he was willing to consider drilling if the plan included enough other measures for energy independence.

"If it is part of an overarching package then I am not going to be rigid in preventing an energy package that goes forward that is really thoughtful and is going to really solve the problem," Obama told the St. Petersburg Times . (We ruled this change of position a .)

Meanwhile, an unnamed spokesman for McCain told the Wall Street Journal that while McCain "applauds the bipartisan effort," he wouldn't support the proposal because "he cannot and will not support legislation that raises taxes."

The next week, Obama's campaign announced it would send supporters to Florida gas stations to promote Obama's energy policies and knock McCain's.

"Supporters will also highlight Sen. John McCain’s failure to do anything to address the energy crisis during his 26 years in Washington," the campaign said in a statement. "McCain has consistently chosen profits for the oil companies over energy relief for American families, including voting against fuel mileage standards, opposing renewable sources of energy, and refusing to back the bipartisan energy compromise in the Senate because it would take away tax breaks from oil companies like Exxon Mobil."

We wanted to know if McCain was opposing the bill and if it was because of rescinded tax breaks for oil companies. One unattributed statement in the Wall Street Journal seemed like not much evidence on which to hang such a charge.

For all the prepared statements the McCain campaign has put out on energy policy — we've got dozens — we couldn't find one that specifically addressed the new proposal. So we asked Brian Rogers, a campaign spokesman, about it. Rogers said McCain is opposed to tax increases, and would not support legislation that included tax increases. But he also said that the Gang of 10 has yet to present a draft of the legislation, and that McCain "would certainly look at any legislation."

"He hasn't taken a position on it, because there's no specific legislation," Rogers said. Rogers also pointed us to an Aug. 6 article from the Shreveport Times in which spokesman Tucker Bounds made similar statements that McCain was essentially uncommitted on the legislation.

The Senate is in recess as we reported this statement. But the Gang of 10 hopes to have a proposal finalized when the Senate returns in September, said a spokesman for Sen. Kent Conrad, D-S.D., a member of the group.

The other senators include Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; John Thune, R-S.D.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.; Mary Landrieu, D-La.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; Bob Corker, R-Tenn.; Mark Pryor, D-Ark.; and Ben Nelson, D-Neb.

It will be interesting to see what happens in September, but for now, the statement from the Obama campaign pushes McCain's position too far. It's true that McCain's campaign said he won't support the legislation if it includes tax increases, but technically speaking, McCain has not taken a position on the new measure and he has not "refused to support it."

McCain may well end up opposing this legislation if his antitax sentiment wins out over his desire to expand offshore drilling. But at the time the Obama campaign made its statement, it wasn't an accurate summary of McCain's position. We rule the statement False.

Obama states his so called specifics but they are generalities with no more specifics as to how to accomplish the statement.  He is very well educated lawyer and all lawyers are trained liars.  I believe Obama is a good snake oil salesman.

McCain and supporters are really starting to get sleazy--just when you thought it couldn't get worse.
These aren't 'stronger' attacks, these are simply 'worse' attacks--more deceitful, hypocritical, hateful and disgusting that most would have never believed could happen.

I swear to you that McCain was my man up to around April and then he jumped in the gutter.

This comment ("That One", see above) needs to be looked at for the slur that it was.  McCain gave us all an instantaneous peek at his values, and then quickly hoped that it would be forgotten or overlooked...   we didn't imagine this sir, we heard it, and you should be ashamed of yourself!

I was waiting for him to use the word whippersnapper.  I really was.

What McCain has said to America about Barack Obama is false. McCain is rude and impolite. He should be pointing at himself. ......."That One"....... He has no respect, and i have no respect for McCain...... blahhhhhhh

Mrs. Littleton, you are correct.  I am an Obama supporter and still see McCain's comment for what it was -- an older man's term used to try to create humor at the moment and it just missed because most people are not old enough to know what the use of this term was.  Let's get over the wanting to point fingers on this one.  He was not being rude or impolite.  It was not a slur. If he had said this whippersnapper, it probably would have been better because it would have been termed "an old person's" terminology and forgotten.  To jump on this is just silly!

Tom Brokow really disappointed a lot of people,he showed that he obviously favors John mc Cain. But even that did not help the old man.

"That one" was referring to "that senator", he was in the context of who voted for what. Obama was eloquent, but vague. He's a poser, McCain is the real deal.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. I am 67 years old and that comment ("that one") about a US Senator, the Democratic candidate for president, plus McCain's refusal to touch Obama or acknowledge him in any way, by even looking at him (he looked at the audience and pointed his thumb over his shoulder, back at Obama) came across with disdain and arrogance. I am not the only one who picked up on the contempt that McCain has for Obama. I think it also had racial overtones, and I am white. I did not think it was said with humor.

I also noticed that McCain exited quickly after the debate, that Cindy McCain acted like she would die if she touched anyone's hand, and that both of the Obamas interacted with the crowd as if they were real people, worth talking to. McCain says he puts the country first. Who does he think makes up the country? People like those in the audience. Actions speak a whole lot louder than words, and I feel his calling Obama "that one" was demeaning and totally inappropriate.

Call me ignorant, but I didn't see the term "that one" as racial, spiteful definitely, but not racial. It was clear that Obama had gotten under McCains skin at that point, punching holes in McCains argument, and let's face it, McCain is desperate right now. He is losing the election little by little while his little pit bull runs around the country doing her best to piss in everyones cereal. I don't see any from the Obama support group yelling "kill him" in regards to his opponent. Pundits say McCain has no choice but to go negative and seed doubts in voters minds about electing Obama. Personally I find this to be a cop out. Assuming McCain was the right man for the job, he could simply tell us the truth, speak out on the issues, and show us he has a real plan for dealing with teh problems that face our country. As of yet, I haven't seen McCain do that. His campaigns lash out only solidifies my opinion I am voting for the right candidate.

The problem is that he didn't preface it by saying "Do you know which senator...?"  He said instead "Do you know who...?"  Had he used the former tense, "that one" would have fit.  But because he used the latter, the term "that one" did not fit into context and came across as offensive to many viewers.  And because his campaign has tried to portray Obama as a radical terrorist sympathizer, now even resorting to an emphasis on his middle name, it raises suspicions.  I believe that the use of his middle name and the term "muslim" in the context of this campaign is code language.  He's never been a Muslim, and do you even know John McCain's middle name?  Would he be any different if it was Vladamir?  No, I also believe that the "celebrity" ad was intended to remind reactionary voters that blacks can be athletes, rappers, actors and comedians... but they can't and shouldn't be president.  Do I think there's a deliberate attempt to ilicit racism in this campaign?  Yes.  I've been saying that for a while now.  Do I think that McCain is a racist?  Probably not any more than the "average Joe,"  Hey... todays politics are dirty!  Never has it gotten as slimmy as the Carl Rove clan has taken it ever since the day they sleezed and slimmed their way out from Texas.    

Yes, you know, last night when I heard McCain refer to Obabma as "That One", I was immediately offended. I honestly thought that McCain was trying as hard as he could to control himself, for fear of taking his jacket off and starting a fight! McCain seemed so very pissed off. John impresses me as a guy who, God Forbid, gets elected, and one of his advisers comes in with news or an opinion that may not be to John's liking, would have to worry about Johnny snapping out on him. Get a grip, John, will you please?

Chris -- I love your posts...  They are always well-thought out and very reasonable...  Thanks!!!

WesternGS -- you think OBAMA was vague???  How many times last night did I hear the phrase "reach across the aisle" from McCain with no specifics about what he would do any any issue once he HAD reached across the aisle???  Phrases and attempts at humor only get you so far, and, then, sooner or later, you really have to get down to brass tacks and come up with concrete, bipartisan, detailed plans...  If you go to TaxPolicyCenter.org, look up both candidates' tax plans...  It doesn't matter who you're for or against -- just go there and look...  When I went to look, what really struck me -- outside of the specifics -- was the amount of detail listed under Obama's plan (about 6-8 items per issue) versus the lack of details under McCain's plan (maybe 2-3 per issue)...

I think it was Howard Fineman who said it best. "The only course left for the McCain campaign is to win ugly". I paraphrased.

The use of the term 'that one' may have been a verbal misstep. I'm inclined to believe that it is yet another snapshot into what is really on John McCain's mind.  Just as his continued joking references to killing Iranians, I suspect 'that one' is a reference to anything outside the Grand ol' white guy Party's concept of 'they don't look like us; they must be bad' routine. Disclaimer: I am caucasian. 

My Grandfather used to occasionally make a racially tinged verbal gaffe. I always thought it was a forgivable offense since 1) we were from Alabama and 2) that was the way his generation thought. It's one of the reasons I no longer live there and were my Grandfather alive today, I'd take him to task for it.

And so I think it is with John McCain. It's a different generation. It has taken a long time for racism and sexism to be purged from our culture. We may get there soon. I am honestly glad that our next president is of mixed race because my seven year old Granddaughter said it best while we were watching TV; (again, paraphrasing) "Why is everybody making such a big deal out of Obama's race?"

I have never been more proud of my Daughter for giving her children such a gift as not being able to see that barrier. I hope that having Barack Obama as president will make the concept of race for the next generation as equally a non-issue.

And I didn't even mention that Barack actually has a clue about the economy, foreign affairs, etc. etc. But I'll certainly be happy to wade into those waters.

As an African American female I don't think that the comment "that one" was racist just a  disrespectful. I think that McCain and Palin's whole line of attack comes from. He's younger, inexperienced, and doesn't deserve my respect as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. The thing is when you don't respect someone as a powerful adversary and underestimate them, you will usually lose. Obama didn't make it to the top of the democratic ticket because he's just some guy off the street. He beat the Clinton machine, he strived to be exceptional in his education as well as his life. Which is more than we can say for our current President. He has been campaigning for 20 about months if not more. What don't we know about Barack Obama? What don't we know about John McCain or Joe Biden? I can't say the same of Sarah Palin but that's a different issue (and don't get me started with that one). McCain doesn't have to throw up the race issue, it is evident when you look at Obama's face. No black person can ever hide from being black. Let's not fool ourselves and say that racism doesn't exist though. Every single state in the United States has hate groups, look it up yourselves if you don't believe me but I have to hope that we are all working to get past those terrible times in our county and look to the future. However, now is not that time but bigotry and racial intolerance are dying off with the young people of our country. It is our preconceptions of people that we pass off to our children. Anyway I think we should stop all the personal attacks and get back to the issues and the economy 

These insults are perceived by ones who want to see them. "This One" was a reference McCain has made in reference to Sen. O in his speeches where (of course) Sen. O was not in attendance...it's public record that he has playfully referenced Sen O in this way in the past and this is nothing new/different/shocking.  Also, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac may have been household names, but how many Americans really knew what they did before this economic mess?  I submit to you that only those who dealt directly with them (very few) or those in the business (a few more) knew how they operated.  Most of us (myself included) found out a lot about them since this crisis came about.  Also, as a matter of history, it never does ones viewpoint any good to engage in personal attacks – “…that's what McCain looks like: a desperate, red-faced old man”, or MSNBC’s unchallenged commentary calling McCain “physically awkward” – most thinking people can look past his physical appearance knowing that it was caused by his captors torturing him.  Obsessing on personal attacks and trying to insinuate that McCain is to “physically awkward” to hold the office (as sick a position as this is) ignores the issues.  And, the issues are the most important aspect in these troubling times.

I have to correct you on your comment regarding the physical awkwardness of Senator McCain. He sustained his broken arms and leg when ejecting from his plane as it was going down. He even admitted in his book that he didn't take the time to read the jet's manual and didn't know how to properly eject. This is not to belittle what did happen to him in captivity, but you should get your facts right as well.

Did his captors give him proper medical care during his 5+ year stay in their custody?  If they had he probably would not look so "physically awkward."

J-623842

First of all by not addressing Senator Obama by his officious title is rude, ill mannered, indignant of the office of which both the Senators hold and meant to demean Senator Obama in the eyes of the audience (as if to dismiss him altogether) and Senator Obama was in attendance---calling a person names BEHIND their backs is even more childish.

  As far as people knowing what Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are I would argue there are a lot more than "very few" or "a few more" or we wouldn't be in this mess as these programs have served a HUGE number of people looking to buy a house (you would probably pick up on what the program was while you were filling out the forms and signing the papers---ya think!).

  The personal attacks we agree upon as non beneficial and hateful----------too bad McCain and Palin and their entire campaign practice and yell them out with such fervent frequency----and though all in the US are grateful for the sacrifices those in the armed forces have made and continue to make I find no room for sympathy in this contest and neither should Senator McCain (it would seem over the last 30 years the US and her people have more than given back to Senator McCain for what he thinks we have owed him--I mean he is not in jail for the Keating 5 mess and he did not lose his job as Senator did he?.....as Gov. Palin has used the sympathy card all up.

  And lastly you are also right that the issues are the most important items to discuss and I find it discomforting that Senator McCain is so vague on most of them and does not seem to be putting the middle class as a priority.

  You seem to have some good thoughts, but they are overshadowed with the same fog that Senator McCain seems to be plagued with----------the need to win being  most important.  President Bush had the same foggy thinking and lack of vision and childish demeanor and look where that has gotten us.  And please do not continue to blame everything that has happened in the last eight years on the Democrats.................just let the Republicans take responsibility, finally, for what they have done.

And lastly, making jokes in these desparate times is neither entertaining nor endearing...it just takes the suffering that Americans are struggling with and throws it back in their faces.  Just because Senator McCain has never known such conditions under his own roof is no excuse to minimized the desparation so many are feeling.  Eight years of listening to George Bush laughing and joking about tragedies is enough.

Senator McCain's desparation seems to be rubbing off on all Republicans.  But it will be OK..............the Democrats see all Americans as equal and will fix this mess for everyone just like we did before.  Unlike the hateful and nasty sentiments so many who claim to be Republican eminate toward Democrats  the Democrats will not hold a grudge, we just want to fix the situation for everyone...you will see, it will be better...I promise.

What I find to be so transparent is the fact that McCain has to reference everyone as "My Friends" at the start of every sentence. I am of the firm belief that if you have to say it that much, then its probably not true. You aren't really "My Friend". In addition to that McCain seemed to come across as almost begging to be believed. As if he knows that Obama sounds more believable but please vote for me anyway. It has been a long time coming but I, for one, will be glad to have someone in the White house who is actually smart and takes time to use his mind as well as the U.S. muscles.    

J,

McCain didn't look physically awkward because of any disabilities.  He looked physically akward because he moved around when he was making a point and made eye contact when he wasn't.  He moved like a ship without a rutter. 

You would think that someone who had their arms broken and improperly reattached to the point that he can't move them well now, would think that medical care is a right and not a responsibility.  Who's responsibility should it be?  The patient, the government, the doctor, the community.  He never said. 

Also, in case people are confused about rather it is a right or not, it defiantly is a right.  If you are sick and go to the emergency room, the doctor cannot refuse you and say 'hey it’s not my responsibility".  That's against the law and against the physicians’ Hippocratic Oath.  That doctor will go to jail and that hospital will get fined.  Why, because the government and society has long since deemed you have a right to healthcare. 

J623842 -

You may very well be right about Senator McCain and his reasons for referring to Senator Obama as "That One", but, perception is everything.  And when I was watching the debate, I perceived his reference as no less than condescending.  If you were in a position of importance and I believe being a senator is, being referred to as "That One" diminishes its importance.  My Mom always said, before you speak, put yourself in the other persons shoes.  You obviously did not.  If you were the boss, or owner of a company, how would you like your employees to refer to you as "That One"?  It would sound disprespectful wouldn't it ? 

About Senator McCain looking "physically awkward".  You have it all wrong chastising those who would take you to task.  Those who are writing about him being "physically awkward" were not referring to his wounds received in Vietnam.  Senator McCain just looked tired and worn out and totally uncomfortable even being in the same room as Senator Obama.  No doubt he is embarrassed about the references Governor Palin is making about Senator Obama.  Yet he doesn't have the decency to correct her or rein in his campaign.  Govenor Palin in the last four days has almost incited a riot at her campaign stops in her reference to Senator Obama supposedly cohorting with a "domestic terrorist".  She needs to look closer to home (her husband and his successionist group) before she starts pointing a finger.  Remember, when you point a finger at someone there are three fingers pointing back at you.

ohiogal: It is a common misconception that all emergency rooms must treat people who have no insurance or ability to pay. The reality is that only publicly funded hospitals are under any obligation to do more than just stablize a patient and then they can put her or him out in the streets UNTREATED!! Many private institutions do have programs available to help those who are unable to pay, but they are NOT obligated to do so by law.

Now, now, now.... we're not going to bring "color" into this race.  Don't be saying he is red-faced... some of the ignorant voters may perceive that as not being fit to be the President.    Good thing there wasn't television around when FDR ran for office... hmmmm......

Debbie,

     On the first point of rudeness, you are correct; rudeness is on the rise in politics.  I saw all of the seventies and every election since - this is the worst I've seen it.  It started (to my recollection) with the 1992 campaign when fmr. President Bush called fmr. President Clinton a "bozo" and has gone downhill ever since.  By now, it seems, most people expect candidates for our most high office to behave in this manner - and we SHOULD NOT.  We should not expect, or tolerate, this behavior - period!  However, if we hold these candidates for our highest office to professional standards we would have NO CANDIDATES for the office.  Unfortunate, but true. 

     Does that mean we stop voting? NO! What we do is REQUIRE those we vote for (in ANY election: local, state, federal) to BE professionals in every regard and IGNORE the personally negative campaigning that we, as a country, have been falling for for years. Stick to the issues, and the candidates, we agree with and we'll collectively make the best choice.

     As for this instance (the debate) being a rudeness issue, again, if you expect it you’ll find it – anywhere, even in the tiniest of places.

     Thank you for making my next point.  Potential homeowners don't sign Fannie/Freddie documents, these companies work in the secondary loan market.

source:

source:

     Also, the mortgage crisis, if you look back far enough, seems to begin when the President signed into policy the requirement that Fannie and Freddie begin buying up a much larger ratio of high-risk home loans, thus stimulating lenders to lend to many more people who could not afford to own a home.  Since the ratio was so much larger than previously established it stimulated a great deal of high-risk loans since the lenders knew that Fannie and Freddie would ultimately buy these loans, thus insulating the lender from homeowner default.  It got so bad that many loans were authorized by lenders WITHOUT INCOME VERIFICATION.  Insane, but true.  Incidentally, it takes a long time for these financial chickens to come home to roost – that policy change was signed in 1995! 

     Many politicians and financial policy consultants tried to correct the problem and sound the alarm in 2001, 2003, and 2005 but the policy in the House and Senate was to provide as many people as they could a house…this should scare Americans at this point.  Since when is it the governments’ job to make sure the individual owns a home? 

     In a socialist society where the government provides everyone everything they need, that’s where.  And, why, you may ask, would I care if America becomes a socialist country?  Because without firing a shot a much smaller, much less resourceful country took down a socialist country within a relatively short period of time (USSR committed 80-100% of it’s economy toward winning the Cold War, the US 3-4%).  That could be our fate should we decide to move further toward socialism. 

     This should ring alarm bells with regard to the debate.  Sen. McCain said the government should buy up all the defaulting home loans!  What???!!  The government should own our homes?  And they should provide us health care, and they should provide us with all our insurances, and they should provide us with…a lobotomy!  That’s what it will seem like to me should the government ever give me those things I am PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for.  If I am not responsible for anything I have no motivation to DO anything, I should live off the government and abuse drugs (with my gov’t paycheck) to dull the pain of my meager existence.

     Taking our personal responsibilities seriously will turn the country around, not a particular candidate making it to the White House.  Focusing on anything other than our personal responsibility and the plans of each candidate (and how they relate to America’s  - or my - values) to restore the economy will allow the candidates to pull the wool over our collective eyes.

     In all fairness this information was broadcast on national cable last Saturday in the special report “Saving Our Economy: What's Next?” on Fox News Channel.  A rebuttal is posted on Media Matters: - in which they run down many of the issues presented in the special report.  If one listens to only one side of this presentation, then they come away with a skewed perception of reality. 

     The Media Matters piece stated certain objections to the Fox News report (airtimes available at: ) without explaining how we got into this mess.  With all the big money behind Media Matters I found that strange – they should tell us how they think this all happened.  Yet, the only implication I saw was that it wasn’t like Fox reported.  Silence is deafening (for all their links to source material they acknowledge an explosion of mortgages at the end of the 1990’s, but that’s all – if the 1995 policy change didn’t start this crisis, what did?).

     One of my favorite sources for money matters, Suze Orman, laid it out the same way Fox News did – greedy lenders, backed by the secondary lending market, mislead consumers into thinking they could afford more house than reality dictated.  The Fox report adds many details, all of which are traceable from public records on the Internet (our job as voters is to research those details, as well as any others that matter to us) as well as dated video clips of our representatives and what they said at the time.

     If you wade through all that information on both sides you can’t help but feel that they can’t both be right, can they?  They seem contradictory – but are they?  Carefully inspect their arguments and you’ll find that each is telling you only what they want you to know.  The onus is on each of us.

     The fact is that both major parties stretch the truth to the n^th degree for political gain and, therefore, it is our duty as voters to double-check every “fact” that is important to each of us.  Research the issues that are important to you and vote accordingly.  Win or lose, whoever is voted into office this year will be my president – I won’t let the media or anyone else fan embers of hate in me that divide the country and threaten to tear us apart from the inside with slogans like “not my president.” 

Gerald, Macon Ga.,

     Don’t take your eye off the ball…not everyone is a master debater.  Obama is much better at public speaking than most politicians I’ve seen, period.  But, don’t mistake that demeanor for anything more than it is – great public speaking ability.  I wouldn’t vote for anyone based on that. That doesn’t mean that he has the right ideas to restore the economy and our prominence in the world.  That’s a tall order for one who has only been on the job for 2 years (and that’s disregarding his 1 year of campaigning).

     I ignored a litany of evidence from women in the past who said a certain candidate for president was a womanizer who committed sexual assault.  I didn’t want to believe that such an elegant speaker could be this terrible person.  He betrayed the trust I put in him and embarrassed my nation.  From history I learn to dig deep into the allegations (see: EverybodysACritic below, para. 3).

Chris in Austin,

     Same as above – and,  I’ll look past your spelling if you look past McCain’s public speaking ability. J

ohiogal-479871,

     Medical care is a right…of the captor to the captive.  If you want to be a captive, Russia might be looking for more people to oppress, and I’ll help you pack – and be there to welcome you back when you’ve had enough of “Mother Russia.” 

     On your other point: yes, the Hippocratic Oath, in general, requires doctors to do no harm and treat the ill.  Ask anyone without insurance what happened when they went to the hospital, I am sure they were treated.  Ask any border state (that borders Mexico) how many hospitals went bankrupt from the steady flow of illegal aliens flooding their emergency rooms, they were treated as well and we all paid – in more ways than one. 

     Personally, I prefer to pay my insurance company, and would prefer that all of us do, so when I need the community medical services they are there for me with the latest technology and treatments.

     Incidentally, the Hippocratic Oath has this to say about abortion: “…I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.” () – I guess they’re kinda breakin’ that one!

EverybodysACritic,

     Fortunately, Sen. McCain doesn’t work for Sen. Obama, so they can call each other anything they have a desire to (refer to the remarks above about professionalism).

     As for his awkwardness, that’s a personal judgment – again, nothing to determine a president on, but you have the right to judge (“…lest ye be judged…” or something like that).

     Last point: I get the impression that Gov. Palin speaks her mind regardless of her circumstances.  No one’s going to “reign” her in while she’s still breathing.  You are correct, though, any ties either candidate has to secessionist groups, domestic terrorists, hate speech pundits (be they reverends, or what have you), needs to be fully researched by each of us to our own satisfaction.  No candidate, in my opinion, is eligible for office if they have these proven ties to anti-American entities (where does that leave us if the assertions on BOTH candidates are true?).  The news agencies, if you listen to all of them, have done their job of informing us of these issues.  Now it’s up to us to read, research, and vote accordingly (not repeat the same thing that all 3 main media outlets say, or even what Fox News says, i.e.: we need to think for ourselves).  The only way to make this important a decision is to put aside those parts of the candidates’ personalities that irritate us and look objectively at their qualifications and their likelihood to carry out the main mandates of the office:

1.       To protect our people (and, by default, our sovereignty)

2.       To fix our economy (not treat the symptoms, treat the illness)

3.       To promote (champion, or otherwise advance) our values domestically and worldwide (this assumes we actually agree on what those values are, of course! – Dan Quayle’s “family values” remark got him laughed out of candidacy, as I recall.  We sure could use some good “old fashioned” family values and the ethical behavior that goes along with it in our government and business world today.  With the economic state of the nation and the lack of values that got us here, we can’t afford the valueless people we’ve elected to continue unchecked.  It’s high time we took our civic duty to heart and held our representatives to our values.  There are plenty of good people who will step in should we fire some of these worthless ones in order to promote decency, honor, trust, respect, fiscal responsibility, etc., but I digress…)

     These are general principles, there are, of course, many more that need addressed.  Also, protection of our citizens is above the economy since our economy won’t matter too much if they sleep on the job while we are invaded…

Kari-398894,

     FDR: 32nd President of the United States, In office: March 4, 1933 – April 12, 1945  ( . 

     I recognize that you were being flippant and I can appreciate that, so please, enjoy the content of the links!  (I guess America wasn’t all that primitive in 1933! – then again... J)

Since these sources were stripped I'll try again:

()

Same ones, different format:
()

And again:
(#BM4_)
()
()
()
(#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Hippocratic%20oath%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia)
()
()
()
()

Same ones, different format:
(#BM4_)
()
()
()
(#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Hippocratic%20oath%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia)
()
()
()
()

And again!

(#BM4_)

()

()

()

(#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Hippocratic%20oath%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia)

()

()

()

()

Same ones, different format:

(#BM4_)

()

()

()

(#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Hippocratic%20oath%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia)

()

()

()

()

If you're interested email me and I'll send you the full text with links.

What debate were you watching?  Obama could barely answer a question when he couldn't rely on his scripted talking points. Some of his answers were barely intelligible.  McCain clearly won this debate and is far more qualified to be President.  

McCain was clearly 'stiff' for the first 30 to 40 minutes of the debate.  Thought the 'town hall' was his comfort zone... Guess that is not true when the attendees were 'middle class America'.  He and his wife were so snobbish to the audience after the debate - why?  No rich friends invited to participate?  Obama clearly articulated his responses so that all Americans could understand him.  McCain was stammering to find the right words, and in most cases, was unsuccessful in his attempts.   

DL, what debate were you watching? What talking points? Answers intelligible? Did Obama constantly repeat the same things over and over again like McCain did as if we did not hear him the first time? Did Obama act mean, condescending, offensive, or insulting like McCain was? McCain kept on syaing - as he has for weeks - "I have a plan." Okay, tell us what it is. Why make this country suffer? Put "country first," John.

McCain showed himself to be desperate, even dishonorable. When I heard that he snubbed Obama on the floor of the Senate (is verified by people who were there) for the vote on the "rescue bill," it just confirmed to me what a little man McCain really is. Referring to Obama as "that one" last night was totally rude and uncalled for - does not have the temperament, class, and character to be president.

He's too old. He's out of touch. He cannot relate to the majority of voters - just his ideological, conservative base.

I didn't see McCain as a bigot or anything remotely like that, but I did note that he seemed very tired and he also lost his footing with answering some questions.  And I do agree, Tom Brokaw was clearly pro-McCain, which is his perrogative, but it didn't have to show so much.  I wish Tim Russert wasn't in heaven, just yet.

Apparently some of you Obama supporters are forgeting that Obama was interrupting and rude and even talked over the moderator.  I thought McCain handled himself very well and didn't interrupt and waited his turn.  I also never heard a direct answer to the question of would he stand by Israel side by side if they were attacked or would he wait for UN approval.  I saw a man side step this question.  I still want an answer.  McCain answered it clearly.  The question was not how but if Israel was attacked-still waiting Obama for you to answer it.

Sandie C and Rosie, you prove my point by harping on mattes of style and personality rather than substance.  That's because Obama has no substance to speak of, only flash and "charm".  In fact, Rosie, it is Obama who constantly promises change and says he has a "plan", but never gives any specifics.  And, while he makes many promises, he fails to explain how he will deliver on those promises. It's easy to make campaign promises, but he's proven as Senator that he will make no effort to keep those promises.  As McCain said (and Obama failed to refute), Obama made numerous campaign promises when he ran for the Senate, but he did not propose a single bill to fulfill those promises.

Excuse me. We can expect Obama to keep his promises. We are putting him in office and he actually "owes" us for putting him there. And he has no problem with that - he expects to serve the people, not corporate America. He's going to behave the way Americans expect a leader to behave, the same way he's been behaving. I couldn't imagine McCain as president.

yes,  they repeated it on CNN after the debate. When my husband and I first heard it, we said to each other, "He didn't say that did he? He did!" We thought it was rude and belittling. It was very disrespectful but you have to consider the source. McCain is an bitter and angry.

Why didn't he and Cindy stay around longer after talk with voters? Obama and Michelle seemed to shake everyone's hand's and smile for pictures. It was great. It's a nice impression to leave with voters. However, John McCain probably was tired and needed to take his Geritol.

"that one" is a racist term, often used when the N word is not acceptable with current company, which in this day and age would be outside a KKK meeting (or maybe outside the McCain compound).

I used to hear my uncle (a drunken idiot and a racist) say it a lot growing up and I didn't know what he meant til my mom explained it to me.

I noticed that too.  McCain went to great efforts to pat that man on the back who was a navy guy, (which was awkward, most people put their hand on your shoulder not pat you like a dog) which was an obvious photo op.  But when they thought the cameras weren't rolling, he and cindy quickly exited stage left.  Obama on the other hand, took the time to take pictures with everyone and talk to them.  In one shot it showed him speaking and joking with the same navy guy who seemed more at ease. They even took a picture together.  

Now this is my opinion and others will disagree, but i do think this is why mccain is out of touch.  I don't think he realized the importance of staying around and speaking with the people of that town hall meeting.  These people traveled from across the country leaving their lives, their jobs, and their homes to get a slim chance of expressing their hopes and concerns with the candidates.  The majority of the people didn't get their questions asked due to time constraints. 

It wouldn't have hurt mccain to acknowledge them, to take a photo with them, to hear them out.  But he didn't.  I don't think it was any malice in his actions, i just don't think he thought about how much it would have meant for an average American to have their picture taken with a candidate. 

 believe that Obama actually has spent time talking to people across the country that’s why it was effortless for him to spend time at the town hall meeting trying to talk with each individual on that stage. 

Mccain was uncomfortable during the debate.  He didn't know how to act with people who weren’t in his base. People who didn’t feed off of his negative attacks.  He doesn’t understand that there are other views different from his, because he never takes the time to hear them.   He has a social ineptitude that has only magnified due to his limited interaction with average american citizens.

I don't know maybe i'm over-anaylzing it, but that is just what i felt when i observed the debate.  

The biggest thing I noticed after the debate is how Cindy McCain did not shake one person's hand other than Tom Brokaw's. She also kept her hands behind her back at all times. This is a posture of someone who is very uncomfortable with their surroundings and think they are above those around them. It is scary to think where this country will go if the McCain's end up in the White House. Michelle and Barack Obama on the other hand were very gracious and interested in al the people in the room. I believe they shook everyone's hands and took pictures with most. I also noticed Barack signed autographs as well. If you want more of the same vote for McCain but please don't whine and moan and groan in two years when your house, job, retirement, and health insurance are no more. I am an ex-Republican (voted Republican from 1980 to 2000) and I am looking forward to Obama being president of the United States.

Obama was answering the questions!  McCAin sounded like an old man who was repeating himself!

If McCain went second, he was simply repeating what Obama had just said.  If Obama went second, he had fresh new ideas.

I agree- and they also should have displayed in the same space a timer that and kept 

a running "score card" kind of like they do in football, showing how many minutes they each ran per particular question along with an ultimate " who was over" the most. Niot that it wasn't apparent to most every one watching- but Brokaw was biased and rude and very misleading about who wasn't playing by the rules.

If you have a chance, watch the re-run on CSPAN, they did run the question as a sub-title while the candidates answered.

you are so right keep up the good work

If Obama wins- God help the country- A spending liberal with no money to spend- When taxes are raised and unemployment is 12% because businesses will still maintain the same bottom line for net income with less employees- then all you who voted for him- do not complain-  

Ed-418630
Your (and many others, from the looks of some comments) closet bigotry/prejudice is the only thing that will need help come Nov. 5th; so, start praying or whatever you need to rationalize.
I don't wanna even get into your low-ball attempt to label a Presidential nominee (spending liberal--as if the government(or John McCain) shouldn't/wont spend money on infrastructure, defense, health care, social programs, etc.). But your claim of "taxes being raised" is a Fixed News talking-point that's been debunked countless times. Get new material.
From the Tax Policy Center: http:// www. taxpolicycenter. org/ taxtopics/ presidential_candidates. cfm
And to your inflated estimate (although I do think there is a higher number of uncounted unemployed) your doubling what the Department of Labor has listed as of September 2008 (6.1% ). Check your Resources.
DoL: http:// www. dol. gov/
Least you forget who has been the president for 8 years, and what party controlled congress for 6 of them. Not to say the Dems haven't been slouching on the job, or that I don't think half the folks in the Senate or House need to grow a pair---but the situation is what it is and no amount of FUD or misdirection will remove fault from the current President and his Gov't. Time for a Change.
Afterall, I have been biting my lip for 8 years--and I didn't vote for this guy anyway. Nearly half the nation can say the same.. So, I should just say: You had your chance.

PS: Remove spaces in the links above. Curtesy of New User restrictions.

Tom Brokaw had to ask Obama to keep to his alotted time many times!  Where are you coming up with this stuff?  Did you watch the same debate?  I also saw Obama interrupt and talk over Tom Brokaw.  I also saw him deflect the questions.  Obama in my book is a dangerous man.  Still waiting for Obama to answer some questions.  The ones that he finally answered were all about forcing people to pay for socialized health care.   Imposing a fine on a family for not having health care-insane!  Did you not hear this last night?  Are you only hearing what you want?  What about whether Israel was attacked?  Obama side stepped that too.  Violating Pakistan's border's-insane behavior.  Isn't that the same behavior he's been blasting the current administration for?  For the good of America-I don't think so.  You just keep giving away the freedoms that we cherish.  That's dangerous.

Diane -- you are obviously only hearing what YOU want to hear (or repeating the Pubs talking points)...  NOWHERE last night did Obama say a family would be "fined" for not having health care...  I don't know about anybody else, but I certainly didn't hear that...  What I DID hear him say (twice) was the if you already HAVE health insurance, you can keep it...  He's going to help your employer pay for it -- resulting in a savings...  If you DON'T have health insurance and you have CHILDREN -- then the CHILDREN must be insured, and there will be coverage available for them...  What is it about insuring children you don't like???  He's absolutely right -- too many children go to hospital ER's for non-emergencies that could be treated in a doctor's office IF they had a doctor to go to...  Treat illnesses BEFORE they become an emergency or life-threatening issue and the health care costs in this country will go DOWN...

Gracie you do not have to explain anything to Diane,who has some issues to overcome, one of them being she is in denial.Just let these red necked republicans and their groupies have their say, because in less than a month from now all of those hopeless republicans will get just what they deserve....kicked to the curb! 8 years of these assbackwards people and their poisonous policies that have only benefited the wealthy,its time for them to go!!!!!

Yeah, they were liberated and then we fired them all.....

People haven't necessarily forgotten Sadam's genocidal spree but what they remember more clearly is Osama Bin Laden is still uncaptured, Iraq had very little, if anything,  to do with Al Qaeda, and we are now bankrupt trying to fight the wrong war, the wrong way.

sorry you and luzH should start your own rumor mill. Oh you heard it from Sarah, oops sorry.  You both are true bigots and ignoramouses!!

 Sadam didn't attack us on 9/11 and there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was a great infrastructure and historical reliquary until we bombed it to kingdom come.

Obama is an American born in the USA and not in Iran, unless you were and you know otherwise. He is a devout Christian but as a true American obeys the Laws and Constitution of this great country by granting all of us the rights and privileges we proudly acclaim.  That includes non discrimination of color, creed, ethnicity, marital status etc.

Sorry if this is above your compreshension! Your writing skills are probably on par with your reading skills.

Amp-472251 No they have not forgotten, but we are still waiting for all the flouwers Bush prommised our soldiers ones they got in Bagdad,that's what we remember. Let's face it the people don't want us there ,it's that simple,besides it was the wrong war by  Bush to start and he and Mc Cain still don't want to admitt this.

Actually, most Iraqis are awaiting liberation.  They want us out and the Bush Administration seems to have agreed. 

The military commanders on the ground have said, this week, that although the surge has made some gains, they can be quickly lost at any time. It seems that McCain is the last holdout.

As for the fact that Saddam was a very bloody man indeed (he was).  Do you think Iraqis care whether their loved ones died under his rule or during our occupation. 

BTW, Saddam ruled for 20+ year.  Isn't it amazing that the death toll has been higher since our invasion than during the entire Saddam period?

I guess it's all in the vantage point of the observer.

Sadam was put into power by the US under Republican rule.............is that guilt by association?

  His genocide was horrible (and so is that which takes place in Africa---notice no oil there so no interest) and stopping it, you would think, was the right thing to do but you are moving closer and closer to trading the freedoms you were born with here in the US (which Americans fought and died for) for liberating Iraqi's from Sadam.............we freed ourselves so why have, over the many years of his dictatorship,  the Iraqi's not  fought for this freedom you seem to think they cherish so much?

  We have had our civil liberties taken from us, we have been thrown into such debt that we may NEVER overcome it, we have lost thousands and thousands of American lives to this war, the goverment of the last eight years has tried to keep the US in a constant state of fear (so we can feel what the Iraqi's feel?) and yet I do not feel we are helping much at all as the civil war within the borders of Iraq rage.

   It is difficult to watch bad things happen around the world but we must measure our own needs against the needs of others............what good will it be if we destroy ourselves in order to help another---is it selfish to want to save ourselves?   To survive  as others seek to?  Is it unpatriotic to put our country first?  How much is enough sacrifice on the part of the US before it is enough?   What about the UN........why must we shoulder these costs so heavily-----do others not care as well?   Helping another country in need is one thing....but sacrificing my children and their futures for an uncertain outcome is another----I wish our government thought enough of us Americans, who are working and paying the taxes that seem to help everyone but us, would turn that empathetic and caring eye toward us here at home.  I miss feeling like we mattered.

Oh and there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and Iraq was not linked to 911....if these things had been true would we have been liberators or destroyers?

so that's what we did with the 1 million Iraquis we killed, liberated them!  good spin, you should work for McCain

The constant reminder by McCain that Obama did not support the surge and therefore hasn't the foresight to be Commander in Chief has always befuddled me. McCain supported and continues to support the war from its origin - which has proven inarguably to have been a monumental mistake. All of the viable reasons for an invasion - WMDs, a connection to 9/11 - were proven to be false. In fact, Bin Laden and Saddam hated each other. So, the only real contention remaining is the "Saddam was a tyrant argument." True. But, so are many others like N. Korea and Iran's leaders and they actually pose(d) a greater direct threat to the US. So, my question is, if the war had been presented truthfully from the beginning; we want to lose thoudands of US lives and spend a trillion-plus US taxpayer dollars on a war to "liberate" Iraqis; who - especially right wingers - would have supported it? I know it is rhetorical, but I have a very hard time believing that "Joe Six-Pack" would have had such sympathy for a country of Muslims that they would have supported such costs on their behalf.

And yet, McCain simply points at the surge as his shining moment of clarity? It reminds me of a guy who is driving in the country with his buddies and decides for fun to drive his car off the road causing it to break down. They walk 10 miles in the rain until the driver says, "Hey, I have an idea, let's call for a cab." They do and get an expensive cab ride home. On the way, the guy tells his angry friends what a hero he is for deciding to call a cab. This doesn't explain that he is the reason they needed the cab in the first place; or that the cab ride cost them more money; or that the car is still broken with no plan on how to retrieve it, and will cost more money to ultimately fix; and that it may never be completely fixed at all. No, the guy just keeps saying, "Thank God you had me here to call a cab."

Probably not a great analogy but I hope it makes my point.

Deep thinker?  Obama is all flash and style with no substantive ideas at all.  It's sad that so many people are taken in by his charm and can't see that he's unqualified to be President.

Just how much do you know about Obama, and his friends?  Are you ready for just any kind of change?  Study-up before it's too late for all of us.

I agree.  Obama is a deep thinker.   The country would benefit greatly from a President who actually does some deep thinking of his own.  McCain is too old and stubborn to do any deep thinking.  McSame is stuck in the past along with the Bush/Cheney policies.  Wake up America - OBAMA/BIDEN 2008.

As opposed to McCain's friends like Phil Gramm (the king of deregulation) and the lobbyists who run his campaign???  Look -- we can play this "friend" game all night long...  The point is it doesn't get us anywhere...  If you haven't read up on Obama's OR McCain's plans, shame on all of us...  As Americans, we owe it to our CHILDREN to put somebody into office who is going to do more than say, "I know how to get it done" or "I'm known for reaching across the aisle."  We've had eight years of a president trying to bully the world and where has it gotten us???  Don't forget, when Bush was first elected, people were saying the same things -- "He's not from Washington" -- "He's an outsider."

I agree with you.  But I must say, it just makes me sad to see that so many young americans are so enamored by Obama's "cool" "brilliant" and charismatic ways. I don't believe that many people look beyond his image. He may as well be a famous actor, or movie star. He stands one way today (while providing excellent examples on his position) and then turns to say a contradictory statement the next. This is why people like listening to him speak. He always has something NEW to bring to the table. At least McCain stands firm on his beliefs. He states the same position day after day, holding his ground. Lastly, McCain's loyalties and heart DO lie within the American nation, unlike that of  Barack Obama.

let's see, the economic foundations iare strong, no wait I'll go to Washington and work on the bailout plan, no wait I'll go to the debate, yes I'll vote for the first plan, wait, I'll vote for the second plan, wait it is a good plan - now wait, I have a new idea let's throw another 300 billion and we can buy back the mortgages I thought they were going to buy back in the first, now wait, the second plan.....yep - the same position everyday!

as for bringing something new to the table - thank goodness - how has the last eight years worked out for you? And I find nothing wrong with someone reevaluating their position - look whats happened over the last two weeks - one would only hope they would reflect and make some changes...

As one of those young voters you speak of  I take  offense when it is suggested that somehow we are enamored by Obama's style rather than his substance.  The reason so many young voters identify with Obama is because he took the time to actually appeal to us.  Education, healthcare and the economic crisis are things we will deal with in our generation.  As far as your assertion that McCain stands firmly on his beliefs i completely disagree.  Over the last three weeks we've seen McCain change from straight talk, to bipartisanship, to Obama's a mystery all in a vain attempt to sway voters his way.  The real reason why so many people respect and admire Obama is because he speaks to all Americans and reaches across the cultural divide and not just party lines.  The republicans have made no real attempt to diversify their campaign and at this point it's too late.  In this election young Americans will speak and be heard, and it's time for our generation to change America and not rely on a last ditch effort of a "maverick" to get to the white house no matter how he has to do it.

What?  Did you forget to turn the sound up?  While neither answered all of the questions, both answered most.  You have to pay attention.  McCain said Obama has a better idea so I'm stealing it - "bail out home owners".   This was the only "new" idea and a major policy shift from McCain that is actually in opposition to the Republican ideals.  (Unfortunately, Sen Obama proposed it last week).

Both fully explained their stance on taxes, Sen Obama wants to discontinue the Bush cuts for to 2% earners, McCain wants to give them bigger cuts.  It's in there, watch the re-runs an listen.

i don't see it.  I don't see why people mccain has more substance.  Just because he is old? Just because he says he can do all these things that has never been proven that he can?  he knows how to win wars, he knows how to fix SSI, he knows how to fix the economy, he knows . . . blah blah blah.  He sounds like a know it all! Very dangerous.  I don't think anybody gave that much substance. but come one give them both a break! no one can get through a complex detailed plan in a 2 minute answer!  I think they both did okay for the time frame they had. 

mccain problems comes from being out of touch.  he doesn’t know there is an america outside of the military, the banking industry, or wall street.  He doesn’t know how to appeal to mainstream america.  Think about it, how many rally's have mccain or palin did in the inner city?  how many rally's have obama done in rural areas?  I think 'that one' has the 'old one' beat when it comes to attending to all of america.  Mccain only attends to the views of a small minority of our American population and you can see that by looking at his rallys.

minmn No you are not correct.  Obama wants to increase taxes on the top 5% of earners who currently pay most of the taxes.  What you are not grasping is that he wants to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, so those paying taxes on more than $42,000 will see a huge percentage of tax increase.  Obama has some great ideas, however, they change daily depending on who he is speaking to and he has promised you the moon.  Unfortunately there is not enough cheese to pay for it.  Unless we become a totally socialist country, which is his goal