2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Obama (D-IL) vs. McCain (R-AZ)

[TJones]

DJ, you trying to tell us that Obama's plan to add another TRILLION dollars of spending to the Budget is gonna fix the economy ? Where are these funds gonna come from ?

Sarah Pain however has not had a drilling interview on the policies since join the general election. That's an absolute lack of substance until that happens. Right now, all we have to rely on her is her rhetoric on the campaign trail, and some false liberal lies on the internet. NEITHER have substance. Her first interview is going to be on September 11th on the day her son's being sent to Iraq? WTF? How are you suppose to drill a parent on the day their child's getting sent to war on the real issues? That sounds like more of a sympathy-move than a get-to-know-the-candidate move. Why aren't you slamming Palen for not giving people insight on her stance on issues via tough interviews like the other three?

Is this directed at ME also ?

[west20th]

DJ, you trying to tell us that Obama's plan to add another TRILLION dollars of spending to the Budget is gonna fix the economy ? Where are these funds gonna come from ?

Again you just give McCain a pass. You sure seem to be a McCain homer for someone who isn't going to vote for him.

"The ad also claims that Obama and congressional Democrats would bring about "years of deficits." But (and we've reported this before, too), the fact is both candidates' economic plans would fail to bring an end to deficit spending, and by that measure, McCain's is worse than Obama's. According to the TPC analysis, Obama's tax plan would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018, while McCain's plan would bring about a projected $5 trillion increase in the same time frame. The TPC also found that: "

from:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_...ad_pattern.html

Both Obama and McCain will increase the debt. McCain's plan increases it more. When it comes to deficit spending no one does it best like the GOP.

[infinite_jim]

Why Libertarians Should Vote for Obama

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginal...ibertarian.html

I'm not going to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate, I think we all can agree that there is too much at stake in this election to revel in tabloid issues and not reality.

[TJones]

West20th, I like your factcheck site. It has some good info, like the kind I found here.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/fa...king_obama.html

[sevfiv]

West20th, I like your factcheck site. It has some good info, like the kind I found here.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/fa...king_obama.html

The Annenberg Public Policy Center (out of the University of Pennsylvania), which runs factcheck.org, is pretty good about research on all sides, imo

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org

[KristinDaugherty]

I'm still waiting on people to point out things they don't like about the candidate they plan on voting for.

I'm just sayin'.

Telling you the negatives about John McCain would take DAYS. He's taken great glee over the years in sticking his finger in Republicans' eyes, so when he got the nomination, I was stunned.

Pro-amnesty? Check.

Global-warming believer? Check.

Anti-Gitmo? Check.

Constitutional rights for (non-citizen) terrorists? Check.

Ringleader of the Gang of 14? Check.

McCain-Feingold? Check.

Likes to demonize Big Oil? Check.

Opposes drilling in ANWR? Check.

Opposes repealing Roe v. Wade? Check.

I'm not entirely sure what there IS to like, besides Sarah Palin.

Oh yeah, and he's not a blatant socialist like Obama.

But that's it.

Pulling the R lever this year is gonna stink.

[Highway6]

Bridge to Nowhere -

Holy hell... both sides blew this one way out of proportion. First the Right for epitomizing it as wasteful earmark spending, and the the Left for criticizing Palin for once backing it up, and now Palin for stabbing her constituents in the back.

Seems to me this bridge should be built.. albeit a cheaper alternative.

A good portion of the $398 million pricetage stems from the associated highway thats part of their preferred alternative.

But there are several other alternatives that dont involve extra highway that are nothing more than 500' long expanses.

We're talking about a minsucle bridge smaller than 2 of our downtown blocks that crosses a narrow strait to connect an airport and allow the city to grow...... not some 1000 mile trek across ice to connect a few igloos.

I'd be ticked of if I were part of the local residents planning, and fighting for this, only to have it a) killed by congress in the fashion it was, and B ) thrown under the train by the governor that once supported it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge

http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/projectinfo...ve_11x17_v4.pdf

http://news.google.com/maps

I dont know about the cost or the % that should be paid for by the fed, but it does seem the need for this bridge isn't totally out in left field, and this project is not the monster it's been made out to be by both sides of Congress.

Edit: Seems the alternative they are going with is kind of overkill... so maybe they should have chosen more wisely if they wanted the fed to pay for it.... but still... There is a good Reason to Exist for a bridge in this location.

[RedScare]

Bridge to Nowhere -

Holy hell... both sides blew this one way out of proportion. First the Right for epitomizing it as wasteful earmark spending, and the the Left for criticizing Palin for once backing it up, and now Palin for stabbing her constituents in the back.

Seems to me this bridge should be built.. albeit a cheaper alternative.

A good portion of the $398 million pricetage stems from the associated highway thats part of their preferred alternative.

But there are several other alternatives that dont involve extra highway that are nothing more than 500' long expanses.

We're talking about a minsucle bridge smaller than 2 of our downtown blocks that crosses a narrow strait to connect an airport and allow the city to grow...... not some 1000 mile trek across ice to connect a few igloos.

I'd be ticked of if I were part of the local residents planning, and fighting for this, only to have it a) killed by congress in the fashion it was, and B ) thrown under the train by the governor that once supported it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge

http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/projectinfo...ve_11x17_v4.pdf

http://news.google.com/maps

I dont know about the cost or the % that should be paid for by the fed, but it does seem the need for this bridge isn't totally out in left field, and this project is not the monster it's been made out to be by both sides of Congress.

Edit: Seems the alternative they are going with is kind of overkill... so maybe they should have chosen more wisely if they wanted the fed to pay for it.... but still... There is a good Reason to Exist for a bridge in this location.

Considering that Palin increased taxes on the oil companies drilling in Alaska to bring in $12 Billion....twice Alaska's $6.6 Billion budget....they could afford to build it themselves. Personally, I don't fault Alaskans for trying to get free money for their bridge, but when Palin then campaigns as an enemy of earmarks, she deserves all of the criticism she gets. Remember, Alaskans get a big refund every year, while the rest of America is paying for a $9.5 Trillion deficit.

This is the dishonesty that is big in these campaigns, and that is apparently ignored by many voters.

[Highway6]

Considering that Palin increased taxes on the oil companies drilling in Alaska to bring in $12 Billion....twice Alaska's $6.6 Billion budget....they could afford to build it themselves. Personally, I don't fault Alaskans for trying to get free money for their bridge, but when Palin then campaigns as an enemy of earmarks, she deserves all of the criticism she gets. Remember, Alaskans get a big refund every year, while the rest of America is paying for a $9.5 Trillion deficit.

This is the dishonesty that is big in these campaigns, and that is apparently ignored by many voters.

What qualifies as an earmark ? How is this any different then us asking the fed to pay for half our rail lines ?

I dont fault Palin for trying to get federal money for a transportation project either... and to be honest, i guess i dont consider it an earmark because I dont see how it's any different from any other city or state trying to get their piece of the pie.

I assume this was applied to under whats allotted under the transportation budget? So it's not like this was tacked on behind a "Feed the Children" bill, right ?

I dont see what qualifies this as a bad "earmark" or how its any different from our rail situation.

I do fault her for doing the 180 after the fact though just for political gain. Pretty crappy of her..... Sucks to see shes just your typical politician no better than the rest of them.

Actually, we're dealing with 3 senators and a governor, all of who's jobs are to get things accomplished for their constituents... so isn't the "I hate earmarks" argument a losing one for every damn one of them.

[RedScare]

What qualifies as an earmark ? How is this any different then us asking the fed to pay for half our rail lines ?

I dont fault Palin for trying to get federal money for a transportation project either... and to be honest, i guess i dont consider it an earmark because I dont see how it's any different from any other city or state trying to get their piece of the pie.

I assume this was applied to under whats allotted under the transportation budget? So it's not like this was tacked on behind a "Feed the Children" bill, right ?

I dont see what qualifies this as a bad "earmark" or how its any different from our rail situation.

I do fault her for doing the 180 after the fact though just for political gain. Pretty crappy of her..... Sucks to see shes just your typical politician no better than the rest of them.

Actually, we're dealing with 3 senators and a governor, all of who's jobs are to get things accomplished for their constituents... so isn't the "I hate earmarks" argument a losing one for every damn one of them.

An earmark is an appropriation for a project that is attached to an unrelated bill, so that it is not debated on its merits. Congresspeople are forced to either allow the earmark through, or vote down the entire bill. This is wholly different from rail appropriations, in which Congress set aside money for rail and a process for applying for the money. If your project passes muster it is funded. In an earmark, no one debates it.

Ted Stevens was the undisputed king of earmarks. Palin sided with him when it was good for Alaska, which was her job. Now, she claims to be against them, frankly, a lie. McCain even pointed out 3 of her Wasilla earmarks for criticism when he was bashing earmarks in the early 2000s. Makes for a strange combination. Politics does that.

[Highway6]

An earmark is an appropriation for a project that is attached to an unrelated bill, so that it is not debated on its merits. Congresspeople are forced to either allow the earmark through, or vote down the entire bill. This is wholly different from rail appropriations, in which Congress set aside money for rail and a process for applying for the money. If your project passes muster it is funded. In an earmark, no one debates it.

So its the process, not the project then.

But the bridge went through the whole FEIS process to try to qualify for funding..... How is that not pleading their case to whoever decides who get what from the transportation budget?

I trust that if this is considered an earmark and was tacked onto somewhere it shouldnt have been, so be it.... I guess i just dont understand why it had to be... esp since it appears with the FEIS that they were abiding by some official process to get funding.

[RedScare]

So its the process, not the project then.

But the bridge went through the whole FEIS process to try to qualify for funding..... How is that not pleading their case to whoever decides who get what from the transportation budget?

I trust that if this is considered an earmark and was tacked onto somewhere it shouldnt have been, so be it.... I guess i just dont understand why it had to be... esp since it appears with the FEIS that they were abiding by some official process to get funding.

Like I said, it wasn't getting funded through normal channels. Stevens was attaching it to unrelated bills.

It is important to realize that earmarks are rarely criticized by the community that gets the funding, and often the project is worthy. Earmarks are a storm largely created by John McCain. He has railed against them for years. It just becomes hypocritical when he then chooses an earmark queen, so to speak, and both of them try to claim she is against them...when she is not.

[Highway6]

Like I said, it wasn't getting funded through normal channels. Stevens was attaching it to unrelated bills.

It is important to realize that earmarks are rarely criticized by the community that gets the funding, and often the project is worthy. Earmarks are a storm largely created by John McCain. He has railed against them for years. It just becomes hypocritical when he then chooses an earmark queen, so to speak, and both of them try to claim she is against them...when she is not.

well.. i see your point... and i dont know her wasilla history....

But for the bridge - She's supporting the bridge from the get go for legit reasons. Shes tries to get funding through the appropriate process. It isn't then Palin that makes it an earmark, its senator Stevens..... a governor actually can't be responsible for an earmark. Palin is then supposed to not support the bridge she wants ?

Are we supposed to stop desiring our rail plan if it were denied by the FTA, but then Rep. SJL turned around and tried to earmark it for us.... Would that scenario justly turn a good project into a terrible earmark? Would White be a bad Mayor for still pushing to get rail and federal funds ?

[RedScare]

well.. i see your point... and i dont know her wasilla history....

But for the bridge - She's supporting the bridge from the get go for legit reasons. Shes tries to get funding through the appropriate process. It isn't then Palin that makes it an earmark, its senator Stevens..... a governor actually can't be responsible for an earmark. Palin is then supposed to not support the bridge she wants ?

Are we supposed to stop desiring our rail plan if it were denied by the FTA, but then Rep. SJL turned around and tried to earmark it for us.

And that is EXACTLY what she did. She supported the bridge and Senator Stevens efforts to get it funded. Then, when the political S++t hit the fan, she claimed that Alaska would build it themselves. NOW, she claims she was always against it. It is the dishonesty that is haunting her, plus the fact that her duties as governor conflicted with McCain's witchhunt against earmarks.

If she had simply done as you suggest, the blowback would not be so great, but she also could not claim to be a "reformer".

[Highway6]

And that is EXACTLY what she did. She supported the bridge and Senator Stevens efforts to get it funded. Then, when the political S++t hit the fan, she claimed that Alaska would build it themselves. NOW, she claims she was always against it. It is the dishonesty that is haunting her, plus the fact that her duties as governor conflicted with McCain's witchhunt against earmarks.

If she had simply done as you suggest, the blowback would not be so great, but she also could not claim to be a "reformer".

I agree. Palin is now a bad person.

Of course, i still think all politicians are liars and this isn't gonna make me switch my vote to an extreme left socialist.

Still, how can any local official not continue to push for a project they supported before it went from approved path to earmark path?

Would White continue to push for federal funding for the rail if the FTA denied it ?

Would he back off support for rail if after being denied, one of our federal representatives ran with the ball to try to earmark funds for us?

Would you support White or that federal representative or our rail project if it was paid for by earmarked funds ?

[RedScare]

I agree. Palin is now a bad person.

Of course, i still think all politicians are liars and this isn't gonna make me switch my vote to an extreme left socialist.

Still, how can any local official not continue to push for a project they supported before it went from approved path to earmark path?

Would White continue to push for federal funding for the rail if the FTA denied it ?

Would he back off support for rail if after being denied, one of our federal representatives ran with the ball to try to earmark funds for us?

Would you support White or that federal representative or our rail project if it was paid for by earmarked funds ?

You should ask that question of John McCain.

Remember, I said I was not personally against earmarks. This is a John McCain demon. I have never gotten worked up over earmarks for others, as the Houston area has benefitted from them, too. Perhaps this helps explain why I do not support McCain. His threats to democracy do not equal my threats to democracy.

As for Palin, she is what she is....except in the eyes of her supporters.

[houstonmacbro]

So while we're here debating the merits or demerits of our presidential and vice presidential hopefuls, look what's going on in the rest of the world:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/...uela/index.html

[crunchtastic]

Everyone has to go somewhere for tropics training.

I would not read that much into it. Russia is not going to ante up on the US via Chavez. They have money now. They don't have to stoop. They have oil in the Ukraine.

However, for vacation, the islands immediately off the coast of Venezuela are the schizz. I highly recommend Isla Margarita. You can bonefish in the shallows going WAY out. And it's a pretty quick speed boat to Aruba from there.

[DJ V Lawrence]

DJ, you trying to tell us that Obama's plan to add another TRILLION dollars of spending to the Budget is gonna fix the economy ? Where are these funds gonna come from ?

I don't know. I don't know how McCain will either. I assume both candidates have put their plans on their websites. If neither candidate's plans are broken down during the debates, then I'll actually go onto their websites to find out. That's why until those debates happen, I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet. The grilling on the issues has only begun.

My point to you is that you said this:

You might be right, sounds awfully familiar, in fact it sounds just like the Obama gameplan of "CHANGE". Base your whole campaign on "HOPE". Don't tell anyone how you are gonna change things in Washington and hope you get elected.

SO, we have a much more qualified candidate running on the same promise as the opposition, and you want to chastise him for it. The big difference is McCain will let you keep more of your money while Obama wants to redistribute more of your money to the poor. Socialism at it's finest.

Obama, as well as McCain, have said what their plans are in Washington on multiple news interviews the past few months. BOTH candidates have substance leading to this point because we know their overall views. Each interview for both candidates breaks down that person's plans. I don't understand how you could say Obama hasn't said anything less than McCain has, especially after the O' Reilly Factor.

Is this directed at ME also ?

Absolutely. If there's anyone of the Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates that hasn't said anything about "how they were going to change Washington" at this point, it's Sarah Palin. I wanna hear her take on the issues. So far, there's been nothing. I wanna hear reporters cut the bull on her daughter and that stupid super-trooper story, and drill her on questions on her stance on health care, what she can offer with foreign policies, what kinds of roles she would play with Iraq, etc. like the other candidates have. Until she does that, all we have on her is a ???.

Why wouldn't you as a conservative be pissed off that she hasn't represented herself yet on the Sunday media circuit with less than 60 days left in the election on the issues that matter?

[KinkaidAlum]

Absolutely. If there's anyone of the Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates that hasn't said anything about "how they were going to change Washington" at this point, it's Sarah Palin. I wanna hear her take on the issues. So far, there's been nothing. I wanna hear reporters cut the bull on her daughter and that stupid super-trooper story, and drill her on questions on her stance on health care, what she can offer with foreign policies, what kinds of roles she would play with Iraq, etc. like the other candidates have. Until she does that, all we have on her is a ???.

Why wouldn't you as a conservative be pissed off that she hasn't represented herself yet on the Sunday media circuit with less than 60 days left in the election on the issues that matter?

That's what gets me. We are about 60 days off from the election and Palin hasn't been allowed to face the press. If the Republicans are that worried about her meeting the press then what's gonna happen if McCain dies and she's gotta meet Putin, Jintao, Putin, Lula, Koehler, or even Calderon?

That's a scary thought. And, if you've seen McCain in public lately, his passing away while potentially in office isn't far-fetched. His medical records are longer than the Confederacy of Dunces, he has a history with a deadly cancer, he can barely lift his arms, and the stats aren't generally in his favor.

Would any of you TRULY be comfortable with Palin trying to negotiate between Israel and Palestine? This is a woman who majored in broadcast journalism, attended 5 or 6 colleges before getting her degree, was a mayor of a town smaller than Brenham, and who is must (in)famous for things like book banning and creationism. How's that gonna play in the Middle East?

[TJones]

Absolutely. If there's anyone of the Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates that hasn't said anything about "how they were going to change Washington" at this point, it's Sarah Palin. I wanna hear her take on the issues. So far, there's been nothing. I wanna hear reporters cut the bull on her daughter and that stupid super-trooper story, and drill her on questions on her stance on health care, what she can offer with foreign policies, what kinds of roles she would play with Iraq, etc. like the other candidates have. Until she does that, all we have on her is a ???.

Why wouldn't you as a conservative be pissed off that she hasn't represented herself yet on the Sunday media circuit with less than 60 days left in the election on the issues that matter?

If you had bothered to read the whole thread instead of jumping in on page 31, you would have seen that I was the FIRST one to give Palin both barrels. Again, she does not fully represent me as a Republican. Her views are to far right for me. If you will take the time to go back and read through, I will be happy to accept your apology my old internet buddy. I don't need to here an interview with her, I already know what she is all about.

Kink, if Palin had to get between Israel and Palestine, then Palestine better get ready to pack up and move, because she would give it all to Israel. Is that a bad thing for you, or a good thing ?

[DJ V Lawrence]

If you had bothered to read the whole thread instead of jumping in on page 31, you would have seen that I was the FIRST one to give Palin both barrels. Again, she does not fully represent me as a Republican. Her views are to far right for me. If you will take the time to go back and read through, I will be happy to accept your apology my old internet buddy. I don't need to here an interview with her, I already know what she is all about.

I remember you said your stance on Sarah Palin from the moment she was announced. To clarify though, my comments or query to you isn't on her being picked for nomination by John McCain. My comments are based on the fact that SINCE being picked by McCain, she's yet to be drilled on the issues by the media, yet you're claiming it's the opposing party that has "lack of substance". I may or may not agree with Obama/Biden/McCain's views, but I know their views because they themselves clarified them. Palin since the RNC hasn't stepped up yet because it sounds like she isn't ready to be interviewed yet, or answer the tough, important questions.

I'm not talking about the policies themselves; I'm referring to the fact that she's yet to clarify herself.

------------------------------------------------------

Would you be willing to answer my previous question?

There's been a President for the past eight years who represents the Republican Party and conservative ideas in policy. Why would the McCain/Palin ticket want to "Change" that? What's the shame in using the fact that McCain voted 90-95% of the time for the President that represents his own party and using that as an example of the "experience" factor that so many people in both parties are talking about? ANY devoted member of a political party would more than likely also vote for their party's policies more than against it. If anything, why not say "I'm going to keep the same policies as Bush, my fellow Republican, only I'm going to do it better and make them work. At the same time, I'm going to reform the Republican Party after getting voted in by trying to get people to vote out Congress, because the President's done a great job, and THEY'RE the ones that failed"?

I mean, how are you going to support the President, then try to alienate any association with him, then try to improve his strategies after getting elected?

There's another question as well (for clarification purposes). When McCain/Palin say they want to "change Washington," what exactly are they referring to? Change from Bush's policies to something else, or change in how Washington is run while keeping Bush's policies on Iraq, the economy, etc.?

[lockmat]

Haven't been here in a while. Anyone post this yet?...

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe reports: Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Ill., vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., Wednesday said that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., might have been a better pick for the position than him.

At a rally in Nashua, N.H., a man in the audience told Biden how glad he was that Obama picked him over Hillary, "not because she's a woman, but because, look at the things she did in the past."

"Make no mistake about this," Biden responded. "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let

[TJones]

Dude, I don't even need an interview from Palin to know that she will make the wrong choices. She is basically Dan Quayle in a skirt, minus the law degree. DJ, who is your horse in this election ?

[barracuda]

Haven't been here in a while. Anyone post this yet?...

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe reports: Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Ill., vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., Wednesday said that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., might have been a better pick for the position than him.

At a rally in Nashua, N.H., a man in the audience told Biden how glad he was that Obama picked him over Hillary, "not because she's a woman, but because, look at the things she did in the past."

"Make no mistake about this," Biden responded. "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let

[RedScare]

It sounds like an apology aimed directly at her supporters. Maybe they think they can still scoop more of them up by praising Hillary. But I'm not sure it's really true -- if Barack had chosen Hillary, it would have alienated quite a few people who just don't like the Clintons.

Sounds a whole lot more like Biden being deferential than apologetic. What would one expect, a narcissistic, "No one is better than me!" response?

Fact is, Biden brings unqualified foreign policy intellect to the ticket. Hillary would have brought great domestic experience to the ticket. Obama (apparently) felt his foreign policy numbers needed a boost more than his domestic ones, making Biden a better pick, even if Biden gave a very self deprecating answer.

[Mark F. Barnes]

If you're curious, her first one on one interview I've seen lately.

We'll see if Bill O'Reilly treats her any different than Obama when she shows up there.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Sounds a whole lot more like Biden being deferential than apologetic. What would one expect, a narcissistic, "No one is better than me!" response?

Fact is, Biden brings unqualified foreign policy intellect to the ticket. Hillary would have brought great domestic experience to the ticket. Obama (apparently) felt his foreign policy numbers needed a boost more than his domestic ones, making Biden a better pick, even if Biden gave a very self deprecating answer.

This is exactly correct. Biden isn't as polished as some, but he was the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for 7 years, those credentials are without question. All Hillary brought was a popularity vote, and Biden knows that he might not be near as popular, and that's what he was referring to. But he has the backbone of experience for that ticket, without him they have very little in the way of credentials. Obama is an intelligent guy, that's without question, but he knows he's in the deep end of the pool now and has the sense to surround himself with strength in experience. He didn't need the popularity vote.

McCain on the other hand has been in the trenches, he needed something to stimulate the voters, and that's what he's done. No one in their right mind will say Palin was the best qualified for the job, but it was a huge political move to put her on the ticket to help win the election. She's not stupid, a bit quirky, put far from stupid. But she has got the Democrats at DEFCON 4 in this race, and that's what the pitch was all about. Keep them back on their heels to even up the race. If McCain doesn't put her on the ticket, and picks Joe Lieberman, who by the way would have blown him beneath the Capital Dome to be on the ticket as VP, Obama walks in the Whitehouse untouched, it's going to take some work now.

That's just the way I see it.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Dude, I don't even need an interview from Palin to know that she will make the wrong choices. She is basically Dan Quayle in a skirt, minus the law degree. DJ, who is your horse in this election ?

I'm glad you've asked this question I'm an independent, and I like and respect both candidates more than any other in their parties. My decision will not be made set-in-stone until all the major debates are over. Obama's WAY better than McCain when it comes to breaking down his policies and telling people what he wants to do and how. McCain is WAY better than Obama when it comes to his military experience. The fact though is that neither of those things matter to me. My choice is based off of five things:

1) Who made the better choice as a Vice President. Not who's more charismatic or more experienced, but who'd be the better advisor to the President, and who'd be a better replacement President should something unfortunate happen. So far, Obama's beating McCain in that regard, but that could change. If Palin's able to prove via interviews that her policies would make America safer and stronger than a Biden-America, then McCain would get that point.

2) Who has the better policy ideas, and who is more realistic. That's where the debates come in. Both said they want alternative energy. Neither has broken that down to my satisfaction yet

3) Who's more straight-forward to the American people. That's also where the debates come in, but so far, Obama's leading McCain in that regard. That's also why I was asking that question on McCain's stance on Bush. I don't think that's been clear yet. I think the debates may help answer that.

4) Who will have the strongest economic plan. And by that, I mean who will create more jobs, and who will create more revenue for lower, middle, AND upper-class Americans. Republicans have had a rich-get-richer stance on the issue, while Democrats have had a middle-class-get stronger attitude. I think you need both. Who will make the rich get richer, the middle-class get richer, and help the lower-class work to become middle or more? I need the debates for that, because I want the candidates to scrutinize each other face-to-face, and want to hear some projections from them as to what their economic plans will do, and who will pay for what.

5) Who has a better plan for how to handle the situation in Iraq. McCain's plan (that I've heard so far) sounds more like the play-it-safe approach. Obama's plan (that I've heard so far), is exactly what the government would need to do to withdraw if that's what we wanted to do, as in direct-talks will neighboring nations no matter the prior relationship and open up diplomacy. Though it could work, it sounds risky, and only a president with diplomatic capabilities could pull that off. I need the debates to hear them say face-to-face why their plans will or will not work, and who's more capable of making America safe in the future.

-------------------------------------------------------

That's why you'll hear me ask the questions I do on HAIF; if there's something I don't know, I want it to be clarified honestly without spin. I have no political stance other than "who's best for the next 4-8 years". Both candidates have good ideas. The question is who has BETTER ideas, and BETTER judgement in my opinion.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Interesting reading from someone who has no dog in this hunt

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips...elieve-in.thtml