Nice try, but if you want to see people flying off the handle, wait till your comrades from the People's Liberation Army of Clutchfans get going in this thread, that is when the real fireworks will start. Not the highest quality of posting, but they really overwhelm you with numbers.
The failures in attacks on Obama are amazing. Look at all the issues brought up against him, and only one is of any real significance at all 1. He's a muslim(not really a negative and also not true) 2. He's an atheist(doesn't seem to be true, but also not a negative) 3. His church is racist(not true, and contradicts the first couple of claims) 4. He didn't sign an agreement that other candidates signed to basically agree to quotas for an Asian special interest group. (the group lied about their neutrality and reworded the agreement for the other candidates but not for Obama.) 5. Obama pulled hazardous fiberglass while doing community work rather than hazardous asbestos. (not an issue or a negative at all.) 6. Obama wrote loving words about his father, who had the gall to get a divorce from his mothers (again, not a negative, and also not relevant. 7. Obama voted mistakenly on 4 out of 6000 votes(which is commonplace, and not a high percentage at all. 8. Obama bought a house for less than the asking price, and knew a shady real estate guy. (We don't know the condition of the house, if the asking price was at or above market value etc. However this is the one issue that has even the mildest amount substance to it.) Except for #8 the rest of these issues are false, petty, not negatives, and often all three of those. If that is all a leading candidate has to be attacked with, then I say he is among the cleanest politician we've had in decades. It will be refreshing to have him sit in the oval office.
Yep, that is pretty stupid. There are a lot of things you can criticize him for, but that is really weak. TR question MR reply It's pretty clear what he is saying... He's not concerned about the voters finding out, but his opponents. That is a pretty flimsy excuse (worth criticizing), but it's taken out of context very badly. Just dumb...
The only reason there would be fireworks is because you deliberately provoked it. Seriously, stop the race baiting stuff.
Because his opponents, CNN and their fan boys like you will use that information to attack him. While most of the voters don't really care how much of his own money he has spent.
The LA Times has traditionally had a fairly conservative stance. Not total right wing crazies like the WSJ editorial insane asylum, but not left-leaning at all. It's been more like the Chicago tribune-style.
Good lord people. We're talking about having a president who only makes mistakes 0.1% of the time. Sign me f*ing up. LA Times having another slow news day, or another day on Hill's schlong.
No, it's how he handled the situation. You are assuming his cover-up is the truth. He ought to man up and accept his regrettable policy decisions, not rationalize them with excuses such as 'hitting the wrong button'. If I 'hit the wrong button' by pressing the gas instead of the brakes and my Gigantor SUV (8mpg) rams into Sierra Club's headquarters, then something tells me they wouldn't be as accepting of that excuse... But the libs have no problem falling for it.
Man I love the spin by that NYT article and all the excuses Obama supporters are coming up with. How long and what will it take them to realize the man they support doesn't practice what he preaches? The article from a non-partisan think tank offers its critical analysis on Obama's ever-present votes. I only included a link in my opening post. Given the direction the current discussion goes, I think it's appropriate to post its entirety, with Obama's own words highlighted in the article. The Ever-'Present' Obama By Nathan Gonzales Finally and officially, Barack Obama is running for president. His symbolic announcement, in the Land of Lincoln, called for a new era in politics. Obama downplayed his thin federal experience while championing his record on the state and local level, and he talked about the need to change Washington, set priorities, and "make hard choices." "What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions," Obama said in his announcement speech. But a closer look at the presidential candidate's record in the Illinois Legislature reveals something seemingly contradictory: a number of occasions when Obama avoided making hard choices. While some conservatives and Republicans surely will harp on what they call his "liberal record," highlighting applicable votes to support their case, it's Obama's history of voting "present" in Springfield - even on some of the most controversial and politically explosive issues of the day - that raises questions that he will need to answer. Voting "present" is one of three options in the Illinois Legislature (along with "yes" and "no"), but it's almost never an option for the occupant of the Oval Office. We aren't talking about a "present" vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values. For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses. In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill. In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no." And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares. If Obama had taken a position for or against these bills, he would have pleased some constituents and alienated others. Instead, the Illinois legislator-turned-U.S. senator and, now, Democratic presidential hopeful essentially took a pass. Some of these bills may have been "bad. They may have included poison pills or been poorly written, making it impossible for Obama to support them. They may have even been unconstitutional. When I asked the Obama campaign about those votes, they explained that in some cases, the Senator was uncomfortable with only certain parts of the bill, while in other cases, the bills were attempts by Republicans simply to score points. But even if that were the case, it doesn't explain his votes. The state legislator had an easy solution if the bills were unacceptable to him: he could have voted against them and explained his reasoning. Because it takes affirmative votes to pass legislation in the Illinois Senate, a "present" vote is tantamount to a "no" vote. A "present" vote is generally used to provide political cover for legislators who don't want to be on the record against a bill that they oppose. Of course, Obama isn't the first or only Illinois state senator to vote "present," but he is the only one running for President of the United States. While these votes occurred while Obama and the Democrats were in the minority in the Illinois Senate, in the Audacity of Hope (page 130), Obama explained that even as a legislator in the minority, "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up, with the knowledge that it's unlikely to be a compromise that either you or your supporters consider fair and or just." Obama's "present" record could hurt him in two very different ways in his bid to win the Democratic presidential nomination and, ultimately, the White House. On one hand, those votes could anger some Democrats, even liberals, because he did not take a strong enough stand on their issues. On the other hand, his votes could simply be portrayed by adversaries as a failure of leadership for not being willing to make a tough decision and stick by it. Obama is one of the most dynamic and captivating figures in American politics at this time, and he has put together an excellent campaign team. He clearly is a factor in the race for the Democratic nomination in 2008. But as Democrats - and Americans - are searching for their next leader, the Illinois senator's record, and not just his rhetoric, will be examined under a microscope. As president, Obama will be faced with countless difficult decisions on numerous gray issues, and voting "present" will not be an option. He will need to explain those "present" votes as a member of the Illinois Legislature if he hopes to become America's commander-in-chief.
Nope, only responding to the stats of the illinois legislature. Must be a very frustrating time for the muck machine.
the saddest part is that his critics are like "look at all these things piling up" throw a bunch of stuff against a wall, hope it sticks
Depends on who is his opponent and the stances/policies, records, characters of the two candidates. I am not a partisan voter, Max. And I am willing to compromise on issues that are not critically important. Right now we are only in the Primaries. Not that it matters, but if anyone recalls, I said in more than one occasion here in D&D that Nixon is one of the greatest U.S. presidents in the 20th century.
