stevoh

Good article, presented the information clearly. We need to remember three things: 1. Obama was 8 when the acts were being committed (so in no way could condone or participate). 2. Obama met Ayers under the following circumstances: I can see how meeting this person in these circumstances, and who was pursuing a noble cause (school reform) would lead you to believe he was above board.3. It wasn't until 2001 when his memoir was published that the true extent of Ayers crimes was revealed. It wasn't just that Obama didn't know exactly what Ayers was and wasn't responsible for at the time, and so couldn't pass judgement, its that NO-ONE did. He was never convicted, and until his memoirs were published, no-one knew the details. And there are verified reports of conservatives working just as closely with Ayers on these worthy community projects as Obama did. Are they terrorists too?

As a desperate McCain increasingly tries to stir up anger within his base against the Obama campaign, his words and insinuations may lead to violence. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mcc...ref=mpstoryview This "Maverik" is supposed to be a man who reaches across party lines to make good decisions in a bi-partisan manner. Instead, he incites hatred against the other side with accusations that I have to believe, he himself, knows is false. However, his rabid supporters actually believe that Obama is a terrorist, and feel appropriate action should be taken. Heaven forbid that one of his supporters takes his accusations to heart and attempts to carry out some form of retribution. If they do, the blood is firmly on his and Palins hands. They should either publicly state that any form of actual violence is totally unacceptable, "use your vote to voice your opinion", or they should be held responsible for any of their followers actions.

Nope, many subprime mortgage lenders were only too happy to cash in on the latest gold mine of these new asset backed securities. No pressure necessary. The subprime mortgage meltdown is due to: Housing values falling rather than continuing to rise. The SEC changing the required asset/debt balance for certain lending institutions. The practices of subprime lenders and the lack of effective government oversight. Mortgage brokers steering borrowers to unaffordable loans. Appraisers inflating housing values. Wall Street investors backing subprime mortgage securities without verifying the strength of the underlying loans. Borrowers entering into loan agreements they could not meet. Some of these can be blamed on government, some on walstreet, some on individuals looking to cash in on the housing market as fast as possible, and some on people signing up for loans they couldn't afford. Anyone blaming this on one area, whether its government, wall street, or an individual organization does not understand the whole picture, and immediately reveals their bias by doing so.

As opposed to Sarah Palin. You betcha. *wink*

Coming from a single mother who had to use food stamps to the likely next president of the United States is pretty darn inspirational. To the kids it shows that, regardless of the adversity you may face, you can succeed. I am sure the kids find inspiration from multiple sources, no need to think that finding Obama inspirational means you think your parents are dead wood.

Both campaigns have suspicious donors and are being investigated: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail...ml?hpid=topnews Neither campaign has been immune to this issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/hou...lout/index.html Is anyone else as disgusted as me that this version is the one that passed? All the various political representatives from both sides of the aisle pissed me off. All this high talk of priniciples, fighting creeping socialism, "listening to the voters" was utter crap. All you have to do is say "here is 200 000 dollars for a wooden arrow factory in your constuency" and you get the vote. Barf. Washington as usual. If either candidate represents change from this system, they certainly didn't demonstrate it in the last two weeks.

Palin seemed like a great lady to run into in the supermarket and have a chat about whats happening around town. Unlike during an interview, she was able to answer the questions she liked, rather than the moderators questions. This "dodge" meant no embarassing incidents like interviews with reporters. It seemed like she couldn't get past the climate change cause question fast enough. Joe Biden seemed like a reasonably likeable politician with extensive experience and fairly typical boring political answers. To me, it feels like most of Sarah's answers are scripted, and do not come from knowledge or understanding. When she talks from the heart, its believable. Otherwise, its like reading a teleprompter. Joe seemed to know what he was talking about, although I still can't figure out his point about McCains health care tax break. So, all in all, not a game changer. Both did what they were supposed to do, played it safe, and as a result, probably not much effect on the election overall.

Moved to appropirate thread.

Ah, ok. And I also read that those same house republicans are now saying that the phone calls to their various offices are now more in favour of the bailout than against. It might work out well for them, they look like they stood up for their electorate on the first bill, and now are reflecting changing attitudes on their second, so they have probably achieved their personal goal, increasing the odds of re-election (for themselves, not McCain). And that is the problem. It seems like those same house republicans voted against this bill to save their own skins, where as a vote FOR the bill would have potentially saved McCain from his current poll slide. They chose their own political careers over that of the republican party, as a whole. McCain took a huge chance with his campaign cancellation and vocal support of the last bill. It actually had me worried, if it had passed, then his main flaw (in voters minds), the economy, would have seemed like more of a strength. However, his name is now associated with a failed bill, and even if this one passes, and McCain takes credit for it (which is more than likely), the effect of the bill passing will now have a muted effect on his polling results, and his apparent command of the economy. And further damage to his campaign effort comes from being associated with George Bush on this decision, but against his own party. It makes it seem like he is no more of an effective or respected leader within the republican party than Bush. When both the sitting president and the presidential nominee for the same party fail to convince the majority of their OWN party to vote a certain way, there is a major problem with leadership.

Ok, so they are presenting a "slightly modified" bailout plan today that many are anticipating will pass. However, I don't see that the reasons for denying its passage have changed, ie, the voters are still mostly against this bill, and that was the reason many of the house republicans say they voted against the bill. Why will this one pass when the voters opinion of the bailout hasn't changed?

The first thing that is going to be effected is available credit. Getting a building loan, whether commercial or residential, is now going to be much harder. The bill may be reworked and revoted on again. So, the fallout may be somewhat mitigated if that happens. But really, from what I have read from so called "experts" is that no-one is quite sure WHAT the longer term effects are going to be. But they do agree on one thing, none of it is good.

I thought the debate went well and that both candidates did the most important job, showing clearly the differences between them and their approaches to the economy and the war in Iraq. While I don't appreciate the Spain comment, or any of the other digs, I do appreciate that Obama showed McCain respect, looked at him during talking, said "McCain is right" a few times, generally showed McCain the respect a presidential candidate deserves. He is the diplomacist he claims to be. McCain on the other hand wouldn't even look at Obama. Like his very presence offended him. Its pretty obvious who is the real bi-partisan here. Bi-partisans can look at the person they disagree with, because even people you disagree with deserve respect and have good ideas. McCain appears to me to be an excellent "no compromise" war general. I dont' think thats what America needs right now. While I think that sometimes the no-compromise approach can work, you have to carefully balance that approach and diplomacy. I don't have faith that McCain could pull that off. He seems more like a "here are the terms, like it or leave it" kind of person. The best route to solving major issues with other countries is not always the military route. I dont' think McCain gets that.

If McCain wins you mean? Would I still pity him? Well, if he wins, I am assuming he becomes instrumental in sorting out this latest mess in washington. If he does that, I can forgive his maverik nature as it was successful. Basically, if I can see purpose and true results in his approach, then I will respect him again.

The same way I support all those I agree with. By agreeing with them.

The man lied. What can I say? It wasn't an important lie? Sure. But was it a lie? Yes. I have been disapointed with McCain this week, he seems disorganized and fuddled. Sure, I am biased, and support Obama. I know that. But I at least respected McCain until this week, now I am just starting to feel sorry for him.

Deleted for double post.

I hardly think that a senator who chooses eye candy and ideology over substance for a VP, says one day he will postpone his participation in the debates, changes his mind the next day, cancels letterman saying he has to go to washington immediatly then doesn't actually leave until the next day in favour of other TV appearances, says he is temporarily stopping his campaign, but by all other indicators doesn't... This isn't even close to level headed.

Palin is in the big time now. You should no more expect "left wingers" to hold back on this than "right wingers" to hold back on their contempt for Hillary Clinton. Becoming VP isn't a nice walk in the park, its tough questions, its intense scrutiny, its high level American Politics. You are responsible for the most powerful nation on earth. It's time for her to step up.

Wouldn't understanding why they continue to fight against the vote despite the dire consequences lead to a potential solution? I imagine that is part of McCains current approach. On another note, McCain has supposedly suspended his campaign, but Palin answered reporters questions yesterday in her first Q and A: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/25/pal...edia/index.html What does suspending a campaign to focus on economic issues mean when a QandA with reporters on other issues can still happen with Palin? Sounds like campaigning to me.

So, the problem he is solving is putting unconvinced republicans in line. Why does he have to convince anyone of anything when the alternative to the bail out is the collapse of the economy? Are free market thinkers so blinded by ideology that they would rather see the majority of americans suffer? Why isn't the republican party putting "country first" ?

Your the one who said no woman has the right to kill. Yes she does. As all people do. When their own lives are in danger.

Weren't the senate and house of representatives both republican majorities at this time (2003)?

Thats' not the perception the American public has, many are blaming the republicans for the current economic crisis, as poll numbers are indicating. 7000 dollars from each and every American for this bail out package. A bail out package, that, like it or not, is now firmly associated with John McCain.

Sure there is, self defence. If a womans life is in danger, she has the right to defend herself. If a pregnancy puts the womans life in danger, she has the right to defend herself.