stevoh

Take a look at his 2nd presidential debate, here is the text (emphasis mine). You are right, I can't think of any other democrat who has given George Bush credit for anything. But Obama specifically stated that George Bush did some smart things at the outset. So not only has he given GWB credit for doing some of the right things after 911, he also even stated that those things were smart. And that is exactly the point. Obama is not like any other democrat I have seen. He appears to give credit where it is due regardless of who the person is who did the right thing. I respect that tremendously. And it gives me hope.

I base my opinion of consensus building on his history prior to the senate, and his speeches thus far. I have never heard any other democrat give George Bush as much credit as he did, and in his acceptance speech, he is clearly reaching across party lines in informing both McCain and Palin that he is going to need their, and the rest of the republican parties, help. His assigning actual republicans to his presidential team, if that happens, would be further proof of that. I also know from his history at Harvard that he spends time to sit down and listen to the conservative point of view, even hanging out socially with the known conservative minority at the time. I have also examined his voting record, and some of his votes definitely do not match hard left leaning priniciples, including voting AGAINST a bill that would have given law enforcement authoritiy to seize weapons without justification from citizens during a natural disaster. I also like his common sense approach. When asked recently about a ban on sagging pants (of all things) that some towns in the US want to institute, his response was "a waste of time... having said that, a brother should learn to pull up his pants!". Its that kind of simple common sense answer that impresses me. I am sure you will find something else to mock in this post Alta, it is your online persona. But know that my opinion is at least informed. It took a long time and a lot of reseach before I started drinking the cool aid.

I could not be more pleased that Obama has been elected president. From what I have seen from both his history and his speeches, he attempts to find common ground and make rapid progress that way, as opposed to being blindly partisan. He may end up choosing republicans as party of his presidential team. I have long believed that you should always choose the best person for the job at hand, regardless of affiliation. I hope to see that carried forward in Obama. He has a tough task ahead of him, even with majorities in both the senate and the house. It will be interesting to see if the remaining republicans buy into any of his ideas and programs, or simply dig their heels in and attempt to block him at every juncture. When even McCain during his presidential bid is unable to sway house republicans to vote a certain way, it makes it hard to see how Obama could do better. Depends a lot on his choices for his presidential team I suppose. So yes, very happy, finally there is someone in the White House who I both respect and admire.

I certainly don't think much of the aides "dishing the dirt" on Palin. Are they trying to work themselves out of a job? I may not like Sarah Palin, but I still think its crappy when those supposedly loyal to you stab you in the back.

He can.

Good to see that Palin knows how to spread the wealth around.

Even worse, imagine if McCains career had almost been derailed by proven shady dealings in the financial sector! We might call it the keating 5 or something equally catchy, I would imagine.

Want real proof that Obama isn't a far left radical liberal? From the second presidential debate (my emphasis): What far left liberal have you ever known that admits that George Bush did some things right?

I can understand how the concept of "centrist" is foreign in the world of "with us or against us". Just as the concept of "criticism" means "hate" in the one dimensional world of some individuals. If you take a look at Obama's history prior to his senate run, you will see the same centrist based diplomacy. As much rejection of far left choices as right. In fact, when he was president of the Harvard Law Review, many of his further left liberal supporters were disapointed in the decisions he made, as he attempts to find common ground, not push through a far left agenda. All you have to do is look at Obama's voting record, as I did, to find that he supports what he believes in, whether typically associated with the left or right wing. Don't read some newspapers (or even my) interpetation of it, go to the source and look at the facts. The same thing is going to happen here. Obama is NOT going to support extreme leftist views, his history backs that up.

This is exactly the thing Palin is supposed to stand against. Wasteful spending.

Why did a "far left" radical vote FOR gun ownership rights during natural disasters? Why did a "far left" radical vote FOR extending veteran benefits? Why did a "far left" radical vote FOR funding the department of homeland security, including adding 1000 new border patrol agents? Why did a "far left" radical vote FOR a measure that prevented anti-gun groups from recieving specific government funds? Why did a "far left" radical vote FOR restricting immigration for individuals associated with various criminal activities?

It does seem out of character however. Based on McCains history (or my knowledge of it anyway) he would seem to lean towards a VP choice that is less flash and dazzle and more of a moderate with a solid long term reputation within the republican party.

McCain should have chosen someone who supports his more moderate views, rather than attempting to appeal to the base. I would rather loose on my own terms, rather than have some so called "expert" tell me that a perky alaskan woman will increase my chances.

Any investment, including a money loan, whether to an individual or a business carries risk. By making the loan, you accept that risk. If you sell that loan to someone else, they instead accept that risk. If the original loan has a high risk of default, the money should have not been loaned in the first place, or you have no-one to blame but yourself when it fails.

While I am definitely a huge supporter of the idea of consumer responsibility, only borrow what you can reasonably pay back, I think that the lenders themselves should be held equally accountable. The lenders are making an investment in the person, and taking on some risk, in the hopes that they will be paid back with profit. If the lender did not require proof of income, did not ensure that the numbers made sense, and went ahead and gave the loan anyway, then they deserve to loose that investement capital as much as any investor in the stock market does when they make a bad choice. Sure, its up to the individual to ensure that they can afford to borrow any money they do. But its also up to the lender to minimize risk and do the research on their potential investment into this person. Its just good business.

I certainly wouldn't want a tax evading non-licenced "plumber" who lies about his financial means standing tall as the type of person my party supports.

McCains already shown how he handles a crisis. He says he is postponing the campaign, and doesn't. He is unable to convince his own party members to vote one way. He takes credit for a bill passing, that doesn't. In short, impetuous, irrational and not strongly supported by his party. I can see why Colin Powell decided to endorse who he did. Obama is the rational even hand that is up to the task. McCain is a gamble.

Anyone who thinks Obama is a lightweight is going to have their mind changed very soon. If it hasn't already. Its a common mistake to think intelligence and understanding of nuance indicates weakness. Obama's resolve is iron, his path to the white house has been a fight on every level.

I would certainly hope so.

Only when its against the democrats.

I thought McCain won the first 20 minutes of the debate, his attacks were more effective and made a real impression, especially the "I am not George Bush" comment that is being played over and over today. Then McCain appeared to get tired or frustrated, and Obama's cool disposition ended up giving him the win. This is worrying to me on two levels. First off, those viewing the debate might not sit through the whole thing, so if you just tuned in for the first 20 minutes, then you might give the advantage to McCain. Secondly, the tv friendly "I am not George Bush" statement was powerful and convincing. Its the single best moment for McCain in all three political debates. Obama's team probably recognizes this, as they are releasing an "Oh yes he is, look at his voting record" ad today in an attempt to rebuff that statement. I doubt its enough to turn the tides of this election alone. But if McCain can stay away from the negative campaigning and put together an economic plan that resonates with voters, he has a chance.

I read the article (and comments after) and thought: This is the first time I have ever seen such a large collection of sore loosers wail before the game has even finished!

One of the biggest challenges McCain has had this election is not Obama, but his own base. His "maverik" ways and pro-choice stance had already made the republican base wary, while it looked for a moment that Palin was going to recommit that base, McCains recent moves on the bailout and his suggested further social spending has worked against that desire. And that is the problem. McCain has to try and appeal to two very different groups of voters, his base, and the elusive "moderate" vote that determines elections. He attempts to appeal to the moderates with a bail out package and expensive economic plan, he looses support from his base. He attempts to appeal to his base with Palin and Obama attacks, moderates feel he is not focussed enough on the economy. So real success and progress in one area ends up damaging the success and progress made in the other area.

I give McCain full credit for the following statement: Sarah Palin should follow this up to clarify, as McCain did, that the Ayers issue is related to Obama "not being entirely truthful about his association", not that Obama is in any way a terrorist.