McCaskill thinks Obama will lose PA by double digits

(To be fair, Clinton also saw a drop from February to March going from $35 million to $20 million but while her haul was smaller so was her drop).

My math may be a bit fuzzy, but I get 55mil-40mil = 15mil, and 35mil-20mil = 15mil. If both of their campaigns saw a $15 million drop, how is hers smaller?

15/35 is just over 40%.

15/50 is 30%.

Obama saw a 30% decline in contributions; Clinton saw over a 40% decline.

Clinton was already behind and has debts that aren't being paid.

These numbers are very good for the Democratic Party as a whole, but not good for Clinton vs. Obama.

I don't know how Obama could possibly win the general election now with the Wright controversy. Two things are in the minds of voters:
1)Obama has been going to a church for 20 years where the pastor is openly supportive of the Nation of Islam and Farrakhan, who hates white people and jews and will not do an interview with white reporters. Does Obama dislike white people?
2) Obama doesn't really like his country that much. The youtube photos of him not saluting and his wife saying she has never been proud of the U.S. and Wright saying God Damn America all stack up against him. Does Obama dislike the U.S. of KKA as Wright says?
I believe he can beat Clinton but, sadly enough, I don't believe he can beat McCain now. Why didn't he just tell that crazy racist pastor to take a hike?

I had been contributing to Obama's campaign, but after the Jeremiah Wright Anti-American remarks, I began to contribute online to Hillary.

I strongly question the judgment of a man who'd subject himself to those comments for 20 years and allow his children to be subjected to those same comments.

I think the drop in both candidates fundraising can be almost completely attributed to exhaustion. We were all paying close attention, but now it's just getting old and only the die-hard supporters of both candidates, the press, and the people actually committed to politics care anymore. The shine is off the apple with all the negative campaigning and endless cries of "not-fair" resonating from the "this-can't-be-happening-that-job-was-supposed-to-be-mine" camp. People are turning away. Wake us when the Democrats quit being idiots so we can go on damage control. If we can do that, the numbers will go back up again.

I see the anti-Obama smear jobs are back up in force. It says a lot that the only attack they can mount on the guy is based on a few wacky statements uttered by another person.

Pictures are worth a thousand words -- Obama is a real person, one with both white and non-white family members, who plays hoops and had an embarassing high-school yearbook picture.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/128668

How much money is raised? Or more importantly how well it's spent.
Obama outspend Hillary 3-1 (6-1?) and still not over take Hillary in PA or other states. I say, put him in office and we will continue to be in further debt.
God help us!

Hillary is the best for the job. I just remember that during the Clinton years, weren't we enjoying our surplus budget?

If these two can't work it out and be on the same ticket.

Seriously, they would be able to raise over a 100 million in the first month alone together. Maybe more.

And they would win in Nov. in a landslide.

It would be such a shame they they both don't seize this opportunity, these things don't come around too often (a black man and woman in the White House...that's change...Oh lordy that's change).

Didn't a wise man once say "Isn't it also tradition that change do and must come"

(OK not a wise man. It wasPrince Akeem in Coming to America :)

Politics has nothing on economic probability:

Hip-hoppers maxed out their credit cards and their parents cards, too.

The parents are so POed that they are the reason for the shift in polling to McCain.

It would be a pity to have to remind our good friend Jeetz that the drop in fund raising that Clinton and Obama saw in March was still more than McCain collected the entire month.

I wonder why Republicans aren't support the "experienced" one.

If the comments and actions of other people who one stays with were the sole criteria we used to judge someone, why shouldn't we judge Hillary for staying with Bill, who even his supporters will admit is a lying, cheating philanderer?

Or better yet, since Hillary was a board member of Walmart for 6 years (which she includes in her "35 years" of experience but strangely doesn't list on her website), why don't we judge her by the comments of her fellow Walmart board of directors member John Tate, who repeatedly called labor unions "blood-sucking parasites"? Hillary stood by and did nothing in that case. Please see the following article and video from ABC news and spread it around when hypocrites try to smear Obama for letting someone else say something offensive:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4218509

I know Hillary's got to be in consideration for Obama's veep slot, but who else?

I was thinking Obama/Edwards last year, and still see it as a possibility. Of course Richards is in play. Who else?

ReformerRay

Obama has a much more serious problem than he realizes.

It's not just his time in Rev. Wright's church. I can understand his interest in Liberation Theology.

His problem is he seems to be tone deaf to the outrage whites experience when the Wright clips are shown. Whether these clips are exceptional is beside the point. These clips are what is on the mind of many white voters. What does he say to them?

Does he say your outrage is justified? Does he say that no preacher should say such things from the pulpit? No, he says he "disagrees" with Rev. Wright. That is too intellectual. He has to say that this kind of rhetoric is dangerous to the future of the U.S. because it tears down the convergence between white and black that has been building up since the time of Martin Luther King. He should say that he will be unable to bridge the gap between black and white so long as blacks support this kind of rhetoric.

I agree that he should not disown Rev. Wright. But he should disown the thoughts Wright expressed and that so many blacks agree with.

I write this in sorrow. I placed so much hope in his potentional leadership. But he cannot be elected if he continues to think like a black that cannot overcome black history. He must combine pride at what blacks have accomplished with pride at what whites have accomplished.

His "Wright problem" has not been put behind him.

Considering the excitement that built around the Texas and Ohio primaries and how much importance and urgency was placed on those primaries, it's not surprising that they brought in such incredible amounts of money. It's also not surprising that numbers are down the month after. I mean...what's really transpired this month to invoke that kind of excitement? Considering Obama is doubling his closest opponent, I'd say it was really a very successful month for him.

It's very disheartening that the Clinton machine can roll into PA and say or do just about anything to get elected. My family used to vacation in PA and I always got the impression that people in PA made up their own minds and couldn't be force fed a bunch of "same old crap" that politicians have been spewing forever. Give your vote to Hillary now but don't cry about the Democrat losing in November.

Eric
Rutland,VT

Said Drum,

"It would be a pity to have to remind our good friend Jeetz that the drop in fund raising that Clinton and Obama saw in March was still more than McCain collected the entire month."

That's because we use cold, hard cash. Democrat's gamble away their personal future by pumping funny money (credit cards online) into Obama's coffers.

That is emblematic of the spending we'll see if they get in the White House.

Democrat's love funny money.

Keep in mind Obama is overcoming 16+ years of American's familiarity of Hillary Clinton. Had you really heard of Obama even 3 years ago? It takes a lot of money to stand next to a Clinton and garner a similar level of name recognition.... That fact that Obama wasn't blown out in this election by Edwards or Clinton demonstrates just how well he has run his campaign.

In addition, based on your suggestion that we look at how campaign management predicts presidential potential, I would say all factors point to Obama. From what I understand his level of debt is less than $1M compared to Hillary at almost $9M. (And that doesn't include a $5M loan she made to the campaign.) Hillary has been in the news more often than she'd like to be because of poor campaign management. (She wasn't even campaign-ready on day one: how does she claim to be White House ready on day one?)

And as for Bill's "balanced budget"...you'll see how balanced it was when you go to collect you social security and it's not there (assuming you were born post-baby boom). Here's a link: http://preview.tinyurl.com/4xceao or, Google it and you'll find more than you can read....

Pro-Hillary and Pro-McCain supporters continue to reference these two issues as reasons for why Obama should not be President. Setting aside the fact that both these arguments are baseless and factually incorrect, such supporters should consider the precedent that is set by challenging a candidates religious beliefs and patriotism.

(1) Do you really want to open up the issue of religion and scrutinize the clergy that counsel our leaders? Huckabee wouldn't even allow his sermons to be heard! McCain can't decide if he's baptist or Episcopalian. When Hillary speaks to a congregation she changes the pitch and tone of her voice depending on the demographic of the audience she's speaking to. None of this matters. What does matter is whether these people will lead our country with integrity, and I believe they all would. If you continue to challenge the credibility of Obama based on a 30 second collection of sound bites from over 15 years of sermons, then it would only be fair to go back and scrutinize all of the pastors that all the candidates have called their own; and I am sure you could find something unseemly for every one of them.

(2) The picture of Obama standing, listening to the NATIONAL ANTHEM and not the Pledge of Allegiance has already been discredited. First of all, you don't salute if you are a civilian. Second of all, the National Anthem requires nothing more than standing without your hat on. Anyone who challenges his patriotism over this photo should have their voting rights revoked! And, I agree with his wife: I've never been proud of this country in my entire adult life until now (as I've only been an adult during the Clinton and Bush administrations). The past 30 years of American politics has reduced our standing in this world from the greatest nation to one of belligerence, overindulgence, and uncompromising greed. If the world could vote in our election, Obama would win with 90% of the vote.

Learn the facts, and stop regurgitating the vial sludge that you hear from Fox Noise.

Said nchoward,

"If the world could vote in our election, Obama would win with 90% of the vote."

1. First of all check the Presidential oath of office before you put out that ridiculous disclaimer reducing respect for the National Anthem to some ho-hum, yawner event.

That's the problem in this country -- taking the little things for granted. An internal lack of respect is a little problem that has mushroomed into a big problem.

If Obama wants to truly be the leader of the free world, then he should lead by example in his own country first.

He doesn't. He leads with pretty words and fails with not-so-pretty actions. You mentioned two of them.

2. Secondly, your quote about the world. I am certain you are close. The rest of the world would love to vote in our election.

Why not take the easy way of bringing the U.S. to it's knees by allowing them to vote in our elections. The hard way would be to compete with us on every level to ensure a Democratic world.

Take us down and they'll soon wish they had us back.

-- stick that in your liberal pipe and smoke it. Or am I incorrect, you call it a bong now?

The best thing to do is to calmly debunk some of the baloney that's being bandied about, and you did that well.

_____________________________

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

I am trying to figure out what our good friend Jeetz means.

1. First of all check the Presidential oath of office before you put out that ridiculous disclaimer reducing respect for the National Anthem to some ho-hum, yawner event.

The oath of office was written before the National Anthem, so it is unclear to me what this means. Is there some passage in the oath of office that requires candidates for President to show respect for the National Anthem as defined by Fox News or you, Jeetz?

Of course, Republicans have been proposing a lot of Constitutional Amendments lately; perhaps I missed it.

By the way how did you like my Latin? ...woohoo!

Back to the National Anthem and Presidential oath of office. See Drum you're a braggard with no real constitutional education. That's why I don't discuss things with you.

Me? I brag about music. Much more fun.

The U.S. Constitution is the foundation of all my serious posts, not the issues. The non-serious is -- music.

Is Obama legally bound by the U.S. Code, Title 36? No. But he would be bound by an oath of office that would require him to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By not honoring Title 36, he is not preserving, nor protecting the Constitution of the United States.

You think you have a perfect candidate. I'm showing you he is not.

You go bone up on the Constitution and I'll give you a rousing discussion of politics. As for issues, I could give a rat's arse. I don't even care about issues near and dear to McCain. The oath of office doesn't recognize issues. If it did, they would have been incxluded in it.

All I care about is the law. Because in the end that's all that will matter. How? ...what candidate will do the best job of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution?

McCain.

...now do you understand why I think discussions are ridiculous? If not, too bad. Get a wife/husband.

Reformer Ray, you bring up a good point that, whatever the truth, some whites are still outraged.

Some people have not heard, or accepted, what Obama has said, in his race speech and elsewhere. Other people may have remembered selectively. Certainly the media have not been repeating Obama’s denunciations the way they repeated (and still repeat) Wright’s tapes. But Obama certainly did more than ‘disagree” with Rev. Wright. He roundly rejected and denounced those sentiments shown in Wright’s clips.

As important as rejecting and denouncing, he said that what is so wrong with those sentiments is that they show an older thinking that considers the situation “static,” that is, unchanging and unchangeable. He clearly said in his speech that he did not believe that. In fact, he said he knows he is where he is because America can change and has changed. And he said he has consciously chosen the more positive approach of moving forward together to make more of this change he believes is possible. (He believes this change is possible in this area and in so many other areas of American life that need improving.)

You say, “I agree that he should not disown Rev. Wright. But he should disown the thoughts Wright expressed and that so many blacks agree with.” He has repeatedly rejected and denounced those thoughts.

You say that “this rhetoric is dangerous to the U.S. because it tears down the convergence between white and black that has been building….” By saying he rejects the idea that the situation is static, and that he is where he is only because we have changed, and that he believes we can continue to change, and that he wants us all to move forward in a positive way together, he has answered that.

You say “he will be unable to bridge the gap between black and white so long as blacks support this kind of rhetoric.” He has said that the idea that America is in a static situation is wrong and that he wants us to go forward in the more positive thought that we can change and are changing.

So he has said what you suggest. And I agree some whites are still outraged. Why is this? Perhaps they haven’t heard, or they do not want to hear, or they are filled with their own denial. Perhaps whites, too, need to change their (our, I’m white) thinking in order to bridge the gap. Why do we react so much more with outrage and denial than compassion, empathy, and even some acceptance? Both “sides” need to change to bridge this gap, and that is what Obama said and what he is trying to foster (not hate, but unity and common purpose).

Obama did say he knows this is the beginning, not the end, of the discussion on race. And of course he knows he will have to revisit the subject of Wright. But in the spirit of wanting to help ALL Americans, white and black (and Hispanic, and Asian, and Native American), who are hurting, he wants to spend time talking about the things that will help all these people.
So perhaps your sorrow is premature. If Americans of all kinds can begin to look at each other with a measure of empathy and desire for common purpose as Americans, we can still succeed, not just Obama, but all of us together.

Why is it that the media is not reporting that Hillary's donors are pretty much tapped out and the money they are raising can only be used in the general election.

Currently she is running a deficit and the only way she can stay afloat is to tap her own resources which we will soon hear about then perhaps she will get a new influx of cash in the same manner she did previously.

We already have had a line of folks who were experts in deficit spending we don't need another.

Thanks, Jeetz, for telling us what defending the Constitution means to you: putting one's hand over one's heart when the National Anthem is played.

We have just had revealed the torture memorandum that justified torture and treatment of prisoners that shocked most Americans.

Yoo explains how even if a particularly brutal interrogation might "arguably cross the line drawn" by the law, "certain justification defenses might be available." Those are "necessity" (the "choice of evils," the evils being torture and a terrorist attack) and "self-defense" ("If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network. In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions.") Just about the only actions that were impermissible and indefensible in Yoo's eyes, it seems, were those motivated strictly by malice or sadism.

To quote you from another thread Jeetz, it does not matter if someone has their hand over their heart when the National Anthem is played (are for arresting half the people at Kaufman?), but it certainly does matter that this Administration believed it had the right to do whatever it wanted to prisoners if they thought they were protecting the nation.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, and even more importantly, nobody expects justifictions of the Spanish Inquisition to be used by our government in the torturing of people.

Real serious damage has been done to the rule of law and our good friend is concerned a person didn't put his hand over his heart. Thanks for telling us what a Bush apologist thinks is important.

By the way, Jeetz, how big does the flag lapel pin that is made in China have to be to show one is a "real" patriot?

THE MEDIA LIKE AP-CNN AND MSNBC ARE SELLING OUT AMERICANS
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/04/05/ap-covers-obama-avoiding-churchs-pastors-essence
Associated Press: Playing defense for Obama: Karen Hawkins and Christopher Wills of the Associated Press quilty of Wright-wash! In their articles Hawkins and Wills avoid any mention of the main tenets of "Black Liberation Theology that form the foundation and belief system of the Trinity United Church of Christ. AP pair purposely avoided any mention of inflammatory items in weekly bulletin articles published by the Church.

Nowhere in the story's 1,200-plus words was there any mention of the Church's belief system, which was outlined by McClatchy's Margaret Tavel on March 20: Obama’s church pushes controversial doctrines. Jesus is black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation. Those are some of the doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Obama’s church.

Wright said basis for Trinity’s philosophies is the work of James Cone, founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone’s seminal 1969 book, “Black Theology & Black Power. Cone wrote that the U.S. was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation.

In the July 22 bulletin, in the "Pastor's Page" section, the Rev. Wright gave two pages of space to a colunmn by “Hamas TERRORIST Mousa Abu Marzook. The column originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times, which came under heavy criticism for running it. Among Marzook's many whoppers: A number of political parties today control blocs in the Israeli Knesset, while advocating for the expulsion of Arab citizens from Israel and the rest of Palestine, envisioning a single Jewish state from the Jordan to the sea. CAMERA.org wrote at the time that "that no Israeli parties in government advocate the 'expulsion' of Arabs; one calls for voluntary transfer."

A June 10 bulletin article, also in the "Pastor's Page" section, was written by terrorist sympathizer Ali Baghdadi. Among other things, Baghdadi wrote I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs. The KKK, on its worst day, never accused the ethnic groups it hated of attempting to concoct a "white bomb. Rev. Wright not only allowed these hate-filled diatribes to appear in TUCC's bulletins but supports as does Obama.

**The Conservative Times: Exclusive: Obama Connection to Terrorists Revealed
March 22, 2008 by Jim Kouri, CPP vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/31408.html

Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden would be praying for an Obama victory because it would help the militants win in Iraq. Article by Citizen Wells 3/08,
Obama has a dual citizenship with Kenya. Obama is an anti-Israel, pro-pan-Arabian Islamic-socialist who has ties to Marxist Libyan President Muamar al Gadaffi, and a Syrian tycoon, Antoin Rezko, Saudi Arabian Scheiks and Rezko's "close friend" Nadhami Auchi, the one who gave Obama fundraiser money (and helped to buy his mansion): Iraqi billionaire, global arms dealer, Nadhmi Auchi, was Baathist best friends with Saddam Hussein, and the main financial backer (from funds stolen from Oil for Food Program0 for Saddam's - Iraqi -Saudi oil pipeline, and who stood trial with Saddam Hussein in 1959 for conspiring to assassinate Iraqi President Qasim.

Also marxist Nicaragian President Daniel Ortega is on the front line supporting Obama for the revolution of changes and then there is hard core anti-Israel, pro-Palestine PLO Enforcer Rashid Khalid, (Obama was on Kalidi's Woods Fund. Obama was a memb er of the Woods Fund with communist domestic terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground who bombed the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol among other things and their organization raised money for anti-Israel programs, and also AAAN, for Arabs and then there is especially Kenya - where in August 2007, Obama went to Kenya to support his E. Germany communist educated cousin Raila Odinga for Kenyan Presidential election, who claims coincidentally to also be a Christian who signed NAMLEF and other pacts wutg radical muslims who set churches filled with Christians on fire, and macheted them in the streets, causing a political and religious mini-civil war over the MUO.

all of Obama's mentors, buddies, political affiliations, organizational memberships and all of his hard core militant muslim family members, like his brother Abongo (Roy" Odinga who hates America, and their communist grandfather who ran with Russia and hated America, not to mention his socialist connection to his profound childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party, CPUSA, and Obama's endorsement by the Black Panthers. Obama titled his book "Audacity of Hope," after Pastor Wright's sermon about the need to destroy capitalism and the middle-class at the hands of the rich white people and the west.

Your Howard Dean rhetoric is falling on deaf ears.

How many Republicans have you voted for Old Drum? I bet you ignore this question.

When I lived in Iowa, I voted for Tom Harkin (D) every single time he was up for election and Chuck Grassley (R) every single time he was up for election.

That's called crossing the aisle. Your crap is called crossing up the electorate.

I imagine you as someone who goes to the polls and you're in-and-out before your car engine shuts off.

Yes, I want a President who does the little things. I want a President who when he takes the oath of office he actually listens to the words he's speaking. Obviously Obama doesn't know the law or he'd follow it.

It doesn't matter than no one else honors the National Anthem, but it damn well matters that someone who wants to be President does.

It's called leadership. And the little things matter.

Only one of those three have ever taken an oath where they put the words of their oath to actual practice.

That's McCain.

It is interesting anyone would be debating who raised how much money before and after what. Its a striking what people grasp at as a valid argument foy why their candidate should be the nominee. The snippets from one or two of his sermons/speeches being looped countless times is doing what it is designed to do. How much national attention does Phelps and his hate group get? Talk about snippets! I wouldn't be surprised if some of you are members of his church. The duplicity between the gatekeepers in the media and the "Manifest Destiny" majority power brokers in this country is achieving is objective, keep ANY person of color out of the Oval office. We now know the Clintons are wealthy, wealthy, wealthy. So much for all her rhetoric as to how regular she is, how as the self-entitled, dutiful, long-suffering wife of a habitually philanering husband, she feels our pain. Lifelong tolerance of that conduct is the new forgiveness. Yet we descend into an abyss of condemnation and judgement when it comes to a man remaining at his church despite some inappropriate and offensive comments made by his then-pastor. We highligh a lapel pin. I have no problem with anyone who supports whomever they support. When we engage we should at least make some reasonable attempt at research and real info gathering. Everything on the net is not factual. We live in a world of spin. Even before the master of code language, buzz language, and racebaiting, I suspect there were many who were salivating to find anything to say "See, I told you that so and so doesn't need to be President. Whet

I just remembered a lobbying meeting I sat in on at Harkins Senate office in D.C. twenty years ago.

That's crossing the aisle and plopping your butt down. It also called walking-the-walk.

Do you seriously think a 96% liberal voting record can cross the aisle?

I'll bet hands down it isn't going to happen. And I've already won one those hands down bets regarding Obama.

Old Drum,

Thanks for helping me prove my point. I see that the article has been updated (with a hat tip to me). WoooHooo I feel so smart now.

What is there to be proud of? Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo? Wire taps? The U.S.'s incarceration rate? U.S.'s health care system? The corrupt and cowardly congress? The unconscionable (and growing) gap in the distribution of wealth? The failed educational system? The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq? "Official" torture, illegal detentions? The current two-term president?

By any standard of decency the U.S. ranks low on the scale when compared to other developed countries.

There's a great deal to be ashamed of, little or nothing to be proud of.

was either not alive or asleep when Martin Luther King was alive. It struck me yesterday while watching Republicans pander to African Americans by praising Dr King. They seemed to forget how their party went after Dr King and referred to him as a radical who hated America. Now they hail him as a hero and call Rev Wright a traitor.

Do your homework, people. Dr King made much more radical statements criticizing America than Rev Wright has. And quit being hypocrites.

MLK was actually there and speaking of an America that was wrong. Wright, 35 years later, is trying to drag us back to that America.

That move is assinine. But Bullfrog Wright has proven he's ok with that. He's done it often.

If that doofus (Wright, not MLK) wants to continue to put this country on a guilt trip, he'll find out come November what America thinks of his rhetoric.

So will Obama and it'll carry over to Clinton, too. In fact Obama's finding out now.

Our good friend Jeetz observes:

MLK was actually there and speaking of an America that was wrong.

I wonder why it took John McCain so long to realze how important MLK was for America. Here is what John McCain said to reporters yesterday about his voting againsts and for MLK holiday:

I voted in my...first year [1983] in Congress against it and then I began to learn and I studied and people talked to me. And I not only supported it but I fought very hard in my home state of Arizona for recognition against a governor who was of my own party.

In 1983, he learned and studied. Let's see. We learned he went to a private high school in Virginia in the 1950s and he was not aware of separate but equal facilities in Virginia. He is the son of an Admiral who never talked about Truman ending segregation in the military after WWII. Of course, one of the reasons he cites is that Arizona doesn't have a lot of people of color. So, I guess if you live in a place without people of color you are excused from understand the importance of MLK.

As in so many other things, Senator Straight-Talk has a problem with remembering his own history.

The article I linked to above notes:

But McCain's voting record since 1990 doesn't support this explanation. In addition to voting to oppose a state holiday in 1987 (which he later supported) and a federal holiday in 1989, McCain voted in 1994 to cut funding for the commission that promoted King's holiday.

We are not talking about youthful mistakes. As an adult McCain had to study to learn how important MLK was for changing our country.

That kind of experience we don't need in the White House.

Old Drum starts out with "our good friend, Jeetz."

Man you're hoot, Drum. Great comedy.

We know McCain's going to November. On the hand, your guy may not make it out of August.

Never, never mess with a scorned woman. Obama is such an idiot.

The amazing ability of Clinton, and her supporters, to ignore ALL the baddddddd baggage SHE carries into this election that affects HER electibility. She, and they, all scream like insane monkey's about Obama's pastor, and I agree to a point, BUT they totally ignore her problems. Main being she has established a pattern for lying and in all polls she is lowest on the totum pole for this very reason. If one were to start listing what will be much larger issues for Clinton, the pastor issues becomes very small potatos indeed...much as the polls indicate because according to them...Obama appears to have weathered that storm..much to the concernation of Clinton, her supporters and FOX News.
Sam

I use that expression deliberately. I prevents me from just making stuff up and calling someone names.

It is an attempt to remember I am responding to a person's ideas and not the person directly.

Jeetz, I recommend it, but it will require you to change how you respond to other people.

I prefer the name-calling. It's more honest.