Skip navigation.

Latest poll shows McCain leading Obama

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/1117409,elexpoll082008.article

In the latest Zogby poll, McCain is leading Obama by 5 points. McCain has lead in several polls of "likely voters" (a mathematically determined weighting system applied to demographic information in general polls), but this marks the first time he's lead in a general poll.

My Bet's On McCain

I have a feeling that McCain is going to be the next president. Obama is a great speaker and everything but I just don't think he cuts it in debates. Besides, I think that with this whole Georgia Russia fiasco didn't help Obama at all.

McCain is no match for

McCain is no match for Obama. Even Obama critics acknowledge that the man can rally a crowd and speak extraordinarily well.

It's stupid. Real debates have little to do with leadership ability. And political debates have little to do with leadership or logic. They are emotionally charged and for educated voters, should have little to no impact on your voting decision.

It will take one of three things for McCain to be elected, in order of my perceived likelihood:

1) Obama makes some massive screwup, or some dark secret from his past is revealed by the press
2) Obama is assassinated prior to November
3) There is a major terrorist attack on US soil

None of this critiques McCain. A prevalent feeling, both in my own anecdotal experience as well as in the polls, is that a McCain presidency will be a continuation of the Bush presidency. Bush's approval ratings have been abysmal for a really long time.

So barring those three circumstances, my bet is on Obama.

And I'll be glad to see that happen.

Barack Obama's past?

First up, there's the Reverend Wright. For 20 years, Obama placed his behind in a pew at a church led by a man who preached a gospel of hate & racism. No links, as most of us are aware of this issue.

Next up, we have Bill Ayers. Ayers was a leader of the notorious Weather Underground, a terrorist organization that blew up boms innumerable in the '60's and '70's. Ayers and Obama not only sat on the same committees in several Chicago organizations, but Ayers also contributed to all of Obama's campaigns. To date, Obama has not returned any of the money known terrorist Bill Ayers has given him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/04/17/airing_the_ayers-obama_connection
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/no-he-cant-because-yes_b_87036.html

Then we've got the Rezko deal. Obama engaged in several shady--to put it mildly--real estate deals with Rezko, netting him several hundred thousand dollars (and potentially millions of dollars) worth of savings. Rezko is currently under indictment and is likely to be convicted.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

And we shouldn't forget to mention the following important tidbits:

His wife's salary tripled after Obama was elected to the state Senate. Shortly afterwards, his wife's hospital received a multi-million dollar earmark. She is better-paid than any doctor at the hospital she worked at.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/D/Drew,%20Christopher
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93535521

Obama won his state senatorial election by default, after getting his opposition thrown off the ballot based on technicalities.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html

Why isn't the press playing all this up? After all, Dan Rather was willing to go after Bush on a single uncorroborated piece of evidence (later discredited) that he shirked his National Guard duty. Now, we have a potential presidential candidate who associates with known terrorists and felons.

Obama is nothing more than a corrupt politician from the same cesspool we know as Chicago politics. He has hardly any record in either the state senate or as a Senator. Given his past, what reason have I to trust him?

mud slinging

Come on RC...

Wright and Ayers? What is this, guilt by association?

Rezko: Obama got a $2000 contribution from two companies Rezko owned (not his largest contribution). Obama bought a house next door to a Rezco property for $1.65MM that was being asked at $1.95MM... oh, but Obama's offer was the highest. So I guess it doesn't matter if the house was assessed at a trillion dollars... value is established with what a willing buyer pays, and Obama's offer was the highest. Obama did pay for a strip of land above it's assessed value, to lower the value of the split lot next door. So he's guilty of that. That's about all the "Rezco ties" that amount to anything, hardly "potentially millions" of dollars in savings.

The slam about his wife, let's take a closer look at your NPR article cited:

After her husband won a U.S. Senate seat in 2004, Michelle Obama's professional life began to come under scrutiny. An online video [hey, fantastic source there] said she received a pay increase of $195,000 just months after her husband was sworn in.

Obama was promoted to a vice president at the University of Chicago Hospitals; her salary nearly tripled, from $122,000 to $316,000 a year...

Former hospital chief Riordan calls the criticism of Michelle Obama silly, and he says Barack Obama was not a factor in her promotion or her raise.

"If you want good people to solve difficult issues, I think the market sort of sets what's the price that we have to pay to attract and keep those people," Riordan says.

So... what's corrupt about this? Do you scream "conspiracy!" whenever a relative of a politician makes some progress in life? So the man earmarked $1MM to the hospital. Okay, a conflict of interest, sure, but it's a hospital! It's not like Michelle built a pool near her helicopter landing pad on the roof.

The press isn't playing up to this because there isn't much to play up to. He's not perfect. He's made mistakes. He's had errors in judgment. He's probably lapsed in his integrity more than any reporter will ever dig up.

Are you suggesting McCain is not guilty of any of these things?

Keating Five
Cindy McCain drug thefts/usage
McCain bribery
Endorsement of Rick Renzi (no link, do some research)
McCain cheated on his wife

And so forth. Given McCain's past, what reason have I to trust him?

Underplaying a bit?

This is how things happened:
1) Obama gets elected
2) His wife's salary triples
3) Her hospital gets an earmark.

You're trying to tell me that's NOT a conflict of interest? To me, that reeks of corruption, not of "hope" and "change."

Ayers is a TERRORIST. Who said he didn't light ENOUGH bombs off. Obama decided to start his election bid at this man's home!

While any one of the things I listed above might be forgivable, the cumulative effect leads me to believe that Obama enjoys the company of people who hate America. McCain and his wife have dome some unsavory things, but they don't come close to approaching the level of racism, corruption, and hatred that Obama basks in.

This is how things

This is how things happened:
1) Obama gets elected
2) His wife's salary triples
3) Her hospital gets an earmark.

You're trying to tell me that's NOT a conflict of interest? To me, that reeks of corruption, not of "hope" and "change."

The earmark is definitely a conflict of interest. But it's not definitely proof of corruption. But so what? So a million bucks went to a hospital. The first two items there, the hospital director defended the promotion. Is it just unbelievable that perhaps Michelle Obama was actually worthy of a promotion? Yes, you'd question these things, but it's hardly ironclad proof.

Ayers is a TERRORIST. Who said he didn't light ENOUGH bombs off. Obama decided to start his election bid at this man's home!

Sounds like a clip from Fox News. Even light online research shows that this connection is being played up by critics. There's nothing there. Obama associated with some controversial figures. Give me a break. Using your logic (but not comparing the two, so let's not turn this into more than it is), Jesus should be condemned for spending time with criminals.

While any one of the things I listed above might be forgivable, the cumulative effect leads me to believe that Obama enjoys the company of people who hate America. McCain and his wife have dome some unsavory things, but they don't come close to approaching the level of racism, corruption, and hatred that Obama basks in.

Hey, if you want to use these events and associations, which are mostly trivial, and describe the man as racist, corrupt, and hateful because of it, go for it. But to me it sounds like a real stretch of "reasons not to vote for Obama," given by Hannity, Limbaugh, or Faux News. Furthermore, everyone has skeletons in their closet, and your man McCain (assumption on my part) has just as much or more to be criticized for.

Not a Fox News watcher

But burying your head in the sand is a poor way to conduct dialogue. I'll cite LIBERAL sources as much as I can, if that's what it'll take for you to believe. I'll ignore the fact as well that Keith Olbermann, NBC anchor, is the biggest Obama cheerleader out there on news, and that your whines about Fox news are implicitly hopelessly biased.

Okay, here we go. First up, some liberal background on Mr. Ayers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/obamas-ayers-issue_b_97477.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/17/ayers-and-obama-what-is-t_n_97204.html
I'll quote: "In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district's influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn...."
Obama and Ayers sat on the same committee. Obama was a guest at this man's house on numerous occasions, and chose to officially begin his elected political career there! You're telling me this is insignificant?

Next up: Mr. Rezko. You try to play this off as some kind of one-time one-off deal, but it's not.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/749138,obama20web.article
Rezko funded the entire Chicago Democrat political machine. He engaged in millions of dollars in illegal or fraudulent activity while FUNDRAISING for Obama. He sat on Obama's senatorial election committee. Either Obama's a naive fool who was unaware of where the money was coming from, or Obama was in on it. More sources:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-verdict-web,0,2256058.story
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2006/pr1011_01.pdf
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article
While Obama was in the State Senate, he directed millions of dollars to Rezko's building rehab company, Rezmar. Rezmar's buildings, for the most part, fell into disrepair, costing Illinois taxpayers millions of dollars in foreclosure and legal costs.
It boils down to this: Obama's election to the Senate was accomplished using illegally obtained money.

Valerie Jarrett: One of Obama's closest advisers, possibly the person who will take his Senate seat should he be elected. She's the reason why many more thousands of Chicagoans are homeless than they were ten years ago while her firm raked in millions in legal fees for administering the city's homeless initiatives.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-cha-habitat-sunday-06-jul06,0,125704,print.story

And of course, the Rev. Wright. We're all familiar with that story, so why bother hashing it out here?

Obama CHOSE to surround himself with people who enabled or encouraged corruption. His wife, who benefited quite transparently from his election to the state Senate. His pastor (who he credits in the foreword to his book "The Audacity of Hope" for inspiring him to write), who delivered screeds that would make Louis Farrakhan proud, and who launched attacks on rich white America while he built a 10,000 sq. foot estate on country club grounds. His chief fundraiser, Tony Rezko, a man indicted for corruption and integral to the maintaining of the Chicago/Daley political machine. His closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, who skimmed millions of dollars of taxpayer money without providing the services she promised to deliver. His mentor as a young adult, Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist (as in, officially a member of the Communist Party of the USA) and pedophile (he confessed in his biography to having sex with 12 and 13-year-olds). You can read more about Frank in "The Audacity of Hope"-- he's mentioned numerous times by Mr. Obama. Bill Ayers, another political crony and unrepentant terrorist.

I'll stay off the Hope'n'change Express. I'd rather prefer to avoid the rest of the US turning into the system of cronyism and corruption that pervades Chicago & Illinois.

There's nothing new here.

There's nothing new here. You're still just dragging on about the same things, that he's associated with some bad people. Welcome to the freaking world of politics. It's nothing McCain is innocent of. You have yet to criticize anything Obama actually has done.

Where's your defense of the numerous McCain scandals?

At least, as far as we know, Obama's been loyal to his wife.

I'm not here to defend McCain

But McCain has never associated with known terrorists.

And calling Obama's record paper-thin would be generous. Despite his claims of bipartisanship, he never attempted to reach across the aisle during his term in the Illinois State Senate, and is consistently rated as the most liberal Senator. Many of the bills he "sponsored" were actually borne by other's efforts. You tell me, what has Obama accomplished legislatively? Then I'll have something to attack.

As far as criticizing what he's done, yeah, I've criticized that, if you weren't paying attention. He hung out at the homes of people who blew up bombs on American soil. He got his opponents thrown off the ballot on technicalities. He used money raised by a convicted fraudster.

And, as you said, as far as we know. I guess McCain's indiscretions after returning home from several years as a POW are fair game, but Obama's hard-core drug use (coke, heroin) at the same time are not?

Why aren't you defending these allegations? Trying to minimize them doesn't make them go away, nor does it make them any less relevant. They say you can judge a man by the company he keeps; Obama has chosen to keep poor company indeed.

Wow. That's a lot of BS to

Wow. That's a lot of BS to clear up. Let's start from the top.

But McCain has never associated with known terrorists.

First, yes he has. Another source. Second, lighten up on the name-calling. "Known terrorist"? Why not, "baby-killer" or "Jewish-burning-Nazi" or "child molestor"? A known terrorist doesn't openly teach at a public university. Yeah, he was a radical during the Vietnam War, and yes, he set off some bombs. Only one bomb had fatalities, and it was only members of his group. And then you take a statement he made just before 9/11/01, about wishing he'd done more, and ignore that he has repeatedly said his comments were taken out of context, and that he meant they didn't do enough to protest the Vietnam war. So Obama associated with a man who violently protested a horrible war, and McCain associated with a man who sent millions to an actual terrorist group. You be the judge.

Despite his claims of bipartisanship, he never attempted to reach across the aisle during his term in the Illinois State Senate, and is consistently rated as the most liberal Senator.

How can you accuse me of burying my head in the sand when you take tidbits of reports, usually from neocon sources, and ignore the dozens of follow-up reports? Obama has not been consistently rated as the most liberal senator. He was rated the most liberal senator once, by an arbitrary scale that is by its own authors acknowledged to be inconsistent. But even if "the most liberal" myth continued, so what? It's a meaningless label.

Being a POW doesn't excuse someone from cheating on their wife. So he had a hard life. The presidency isn't a stress free job either. It's not excusable. Obama smoked pot, said he used a little cocaine. No heroin. A hardcore drug? Sure, but I wouldn't label a teenager who did coke a few times a hard-core druggie. So if you know someone now who leads a successful life, who at one point in their youth did drugs, even coke or meth, you'd label that person a hard-core drug user?

I could go on and on, and address every trite point you try and vilify the man for, but I'm pretty tired of it. We're all entitled to our opinions, and as far as strength of character goes, I'd take Obama over McCain any day.

Wishing won't make it so

Okay, first up, you gripe about me using neocon sources, even though I'm citing the Chicago Sun-Times and the Huffington Post. You turn around and cite Mr. Moulitsas and the HuffPo. Turnabout's fair play-- you can't whine about me using neocon sources (even if I didn't) and then cite the two left-wing flag-bearer's websites.

Your cites also go to show how little you or the articles' writers know about Colombia politics. CEO of Chiquita paid what essentially amounts to protection money; otherwise, his business would go under and his employees would be unemployed. While McCain did indeed have a fundraiser at this man's house, it's quite a stretch to call Mr. Lindner a terrorist sympathizer. It's even more of a stretch to call McCain such. You've clearly never done business in third-world countries. I won't mention the hypocrisy of how many Che Guevara sympathizers there are in the Obama camp, seeing as how Guevara had a body count orders of magnitude higher than AUC's.

Next up: Mr. Ayers again.
"Yes, he set off some bombs."
That makes him a terrorist in my book.
"Only one bomb had fatalities, and it was only members of his group."
Gee, I guess that makes it okay then? Since when is incompetence a valid legal defense?
"[his] comments were taken out of context..."
Well, let's put them in context. NY Times link:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63
He got away because the statute of limitations expired on his bombings after five years. He was never charged with the murders of his colleagues because all the forensics went up in the explosion, and the only people who knew he'd prepped the bomb were either dead or could be charged as co-conspirators.

Your comments on drugs-- Department of Homeland Security will flat-out deny any job position requiring a security clearance to ANYONE who has EVER used coke or meth. It's also a felony to use coke or meth. Again, minimization. Obama couldn't hold a security clearance in the organization he hopes to lead. As far as heroin goes, he almost used it-- my mistake-- but balked when he realized that it would involve injecting himself. He has a first-hand account in "Dreams of my Fathers."

You still haven't mentioned anything Obama's done. If you want to discuss his record and not his associates, it'd be an excellent time to bring it up. You still haven't, though I believe this marks my third request.

Mt gripe about neocon

Mt gripe about neocon sources was more general, in that your attitude tends to reflect one of the neocon community, that is you tend to cherry-pick your facts and tell part of the story, refusing to acknowledge relevant facts to your points (e.g. "Ayers said he wished he'd set off more bombs," when Ayers denied it immediately after, and ever since, that report came out).

Your cites also go to show how little you or the articles' writers know about Colombia politics. CEO of Chiquita paid what essentially amounts to protection money; otherwise, his business would go under and his employees would be unemployed.

Okay, let me get this straight.

Obama: gets a $2,000 donation (and hangs out at his house) of a guy who built two bombs, destroyed the same statue twice, and then may or may not have had part in the assembly of a bomb that killed his co-bomb-builders, decades ago, and for this he's a terrorist and Obama's integrity is ruined.

McCain: gets a $2,000,000 donation from a guy who spent that amount funding a real, actual, known terrorist group. You accuse me of minimizing, and yet you say something ridiculous like,

what essentially amounts to protection money; otherwise, his business would go under and his employees would be unemployed.

Oh, I get it. Haven't taken a class on business ethics lately, I see. Because in your eyes, apparently, funding terrorism is okay in order to retain jobs and profits. Ayers has been forgiven under the law. Chiquita was charged $25MM after being indicted for their actions. You've got some serious issues with double standards.

One final time, the attacks against Obama for drug use while he was a teenager are petty. People make mistakes. Good people admit them and move forward with their lives.

As for what Obama has done, I wrote a post about that a while back. I'm not a secretary; look it up yourself.

This reminds me a lot of my mission, talking to ministers. Every accusation they would make I would explain it for what it was, and then they'd have something new to bring up. They were a lot less interested in finding truth and a lot more interested in being right. I suspect the same is true of you as far as politics go.

But hey, at least we can agree that booters suck, right?

McCain and Saddle Back

I think McCain has a great chance. Things are starting to change in the US and in the world, and they favor McCain.

Also we need a leader who can talk, not just read scripts. RC said political debates have little to do with leadership or logic, I disagree. We need leaders who can state their points clearly under stressful situations. However, if debates aren't Obama's thing what is? I wouldn't call the Saddle Back meeting a debate, it was a discussion.

And Obama blew it big time! I think everyone will agree that McCain was the star of the show. His answers were quick, clear and the responses of a true leader. And no, he didn't get the answers before hand. Watch Larry King with Pastor Rick Warren if you are in doubt.

Come on people, in response to abortion Obama said, "its above my pay grade." WHAT!!! This is the highest office in the world! Above his PAY GRADE!!!!

Real problems started in the government when we elected in a Democratic congress, not when Bush started, its just easier for the media to blame one man. Look at the last 8 years, its been bad only since the democrats took office!

Okay. But I only have a

Okay. But I only have a minute so I won't be able to respond to everything. I'll try and hit a couple key points.

Come on people, in response to abortion Obama said, "its above my pay grade." WHAT!!! This is the highest office in the world! Above his PAY GRADE!!!!

Let's clear this up for anyone who didn't watch. I'll summarize.

Moderator/Pastor Dude: At what point does life begin [abortion discussion]?
Obama: When life begins, from a scientific or theoretical perspective, having the answer to that is way above my pay grade.

Just what the heck is wrong with that? He's acknowledging that HE DOESN'T KNOW! He went on to say that he was pro-choice, and defended why he was pro-choice.

You know, on the abortion issue, it's been pointed out before, but let me do it again: Mormons are pro-choice. They just don't want to be painted that way. Think about it. The Church's stand is simple: abortion should be avoided except in cases of rape, incest, or when the health of the mother is at risk, and in each situation, the mother should prayerfully consider her options with her partner/physician/bishop. That is pro-choice. When the mother chooses, that's pro-choice. And that's exactly what Obama said should be done. Furthermore, and as he pointed out, it's a states rights issue. The federal government should not have power to make sure a ruling, including the president.

As an aside, Obama pointed out that although Bush has been "pro-life" since taking office, the number of abortions hasn't dropped. There is a deeper problem here. Unwanted pregnancies. So what, exactly, has this pro-life president done to reduce abortions? For that matter, what has ANY conservative president done to reduce abortions?

Other things: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." So if you believe in the US Constitution, these questions about faith and such will drop. This debate took place in a freaking Church, moderated by a popular pastor, who used scriptures to base a bunch of questions off.

I didn't think Obama blew it, though I haven't yet watched the entire debate. I thought he presented himself very well.

No, a political debate is not reflective of a presidency. Why? Because the president doesn't sit in front of a crowd fielding irrelevant questions from a moderator trying to become popular and earn votes. In real life, questions like abortion, marijuana, taxes, and so forth are rarely an issue for the president. That's what we have Congress for. Besides that, debates are usually emotionally charged. The Nixon/Kennedy televised debate: won Kennedy a lot of points not because of the content but because Kennedy had a better physical image, and Nixon was sick/pale and refused makeup. I just read about (but can't remember who it was between) a debate where one of the contenders stuttered and came across as a fool when he tried to defend his positions, though later researched indicated that he was correct in everything he said, while his opponent stretched the truth and fed the crowd. So no, a debate doesn't reflect reality.

Real problems started in the government when we elected in a Democratic congress, not when Bush started, its just easier for the media to blame one man. Look at the last 8 years, its been bad only since the democrats took office!

Well that's a lot of rhetoric without any evidence, and only your opinion. But I'd really like to see you defend it. But here's what we know:

The Bush Administration took a balanced (or close to it) budget and started a war that, despite its merits, have plunged our national budget further into debt than ever before (oh, but conservatives are all about financial responsibility).

The Bush Administration's approval ratings are abysmal. And so are the approval ratings for Congress.

Finally (for now), it's pretty short-sighted for anyone to talk about how the media loves Obama. Sure, right now he gets more attention, some of it idotic, but McCain has been a media favorite for YEARS.

LDS Church is NOT pro-choice

The definition you have above is one of the most convoluted I've ever read. You can get excommunicated for having an abortion while a member if rape/incest/medical necessity did not occur.

Nobody I know of in the LDS church (or outside it, for that matter) interprets such a view as pro-choice.

It's not convoluted. It's

It's not convoluted. It's simplified. Pro-life means the government chooses. Pro-choice means the mother chooses.

If Roe v. Wade were reversed, and if each state banned abortions, then the Church stance would be forced to change to comply with the law, as it would no longer be the mother's decision, regardless of the circumstances.

Yes, the Church allows abortion only under extreme circumstances, but the Church still makes it clear that it is the mother's choice in those circustances, NOT the government's.

It's a stupid issue. Not many people, regardless of political orientation, are fine with the idea of abortion as a means of birth control.

I'd love to respond. And

I'd love to respond. And I'll be happy to do it once you use a login and stop hiding behind the safety of anonymity.

New account

Farker,

Posting anonymously was easier but hey, I'm interested in your remarks, so here is my new account.

If Obama is not the next

If Obama is not the next president, I'll eat my hat.

This isn't a statement of political alignment, just obviousness.

If Obama is the next

If Obama is the next president, I'll puke and then move to Costa Rica.

If he becomes president and the house and senate are still controlled by the left, then you can say goodbye to Capitalism and hello to socialized everything. It'll be the new "going green" fad.

If only Obama was Ron Paul

If Obama is the next president, I won't consume any articles of clothing or regurgitate any previous meals (although who wouldn't want to move to Costa Rica!). I'll simply thank God that they eight years of hell we've experienced will be over and pray it was the worst of it.

Going green fad? Yeah...if you don't care for the future of your children (i.e. leaving then a livable world despite the fact that most of it is already unlivable), someone has to.

Either way, I glad people will actually go to the polls somewhat educated instead of how my last church told me to approach voting: "This guy doesnt' kill babies, so God wants us to vote for him. Nevermind his take on any of the other issues or his obvious corruption, its God's will cause he's a christian!"

Oh, but the devil has many faces.