>> ^deedub81:
You think Obama has been vetted? By whom? The only thing about Obama that has been under the microscope is his personal life before politics. The media has spoken about his mother and his place of birth and his religion and his skin color and his wife until they were blue in the face.

That's what vetting for political office entails -- searching a candidate's past for any tabloid-style scandals that could come out of nowhere to torpedo your chances, regardless of your policy positions. People have been doing that to Obama all over the world for some 20 months now.

Just because people are comfortable with him, doesn't mean they know anything about him. It's because he won the popularity contest that is the DNC by first landing in the good graces of the media.

Not to be too snide, but you do understand how elections work, right? People very often will vote for who they feel "comfortable" with, above any other consideration. Generally speaking (and I realize that the 2000 and 2004 elections didn't work this way), the person who gets more votes gets the Presidency. I suppose that's a popularity contest.

As for winning the media's attention, I would point out that even the right-wing media spends more time covering Obama than McCain, just the nature of the coverage is even more negative than other outlet. He's new, and he's interesting -- people are going to naturally talk about him more.

They've kinda forgotten him for Palin in the last week, 'cause she's newer, and potentially more interesting.

Again, I don't like McCain and I know that there are people out there that are much more qualified to be VP than Palin.

On this we agree.

Obama favors "pay-as-you-go" accounting so new spending or tax cuts are offset by program cuts or increased revenue, but he hasn't said how he would pay for all his tax proposals.
One thing in particular eats at me: How is he going to pay for universal-health-care and all his other promises? Is he going to give us all heath care by the time he leaves office? WHEN he doesn't make that happen, are the democrats going to hold him accountable?
What about the $482 Billion deficit? He's gonna save the American economy by cutting taxes, providing $300 Billion in guarantees for mortgage renegotiations, providing universal-health care and still, somehow, he'll manage to pay down the deficit?

Before I address your specific concerns, I'll note that you're phrasing the argument in terms of Obama's plan, rather than touting the superiority of another candidates'. Perhaps you're part of the media elite that the DNC controls who can't stop talking about Obama?

I also need to ask when Republicans are planning on holding Bush accountable for his deficit? You know, that $482 billion one you mentioned, plus the "emergency" spending levied for the war in Iraq that wasn't on the budget. Never? Is McCain somehow immune from being held responsible for the Republican party's failings over the last 8 years, despite being that party's standard-bearer?

Politics aside, you're making a valid (if one-sided) argument -- based purely on policy promises from Obama, the proposed tax plan doesn't pay for the spending proposals. But McCain's doesn't either.

In fact, the Tax Policy Center's most recent study shows that McCain's plans would put us about $500bn further in debt than Obama, even with his "unspecified spending cuts provided by the campaign" included.

I haven't read the fine print of the study, but Obama's health care plan does include charging people for its use (even if it is a sliding scale based on income), and I'm not sure if that revenue is being factored in. For that matter, I'm honestly not sure if the sliding scale with actual prices has even been developed or published.

I would also point out, that Obama has ruled out balancing the budget in his first term. Restoring PAYGO rules just means new spending has to be offset, it doesn't put the existing set of taxes & spending back into balance after the Republican party's drunken sailor policy of cutting taxes and increasing spending.

McCain's promised to balance the budget, but he's offered no numbers or collection of promises that would make that even remotely possible, even if he gets a full 8 years.

I think politician's policy proposals aren't worthy of a study like the TPC did -- they're not going to become word-for-word policy if the candidate is elected. They're just there to give you an idea of the kinds of changes the candidate plans on making.

If a balanced budget is your primary economic concern (and it's not my primary one, personally), here's what the two candidates offer:

Obama does not commit to balance the budget, just reduce the deficit, and his plan looks to reduce the level to approx $250bn/yr.

McCain on the other hand commits to balancing the budget in his first term, but his proposals point to a $370bn/yr deficit.

Which makes you more comfortable?

The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, can fire the photon torpedos... and make the rules.

seen this before
http://www.videosift.com/video/Super-effective-torpedo-splits-a-destroyer-into-two-pieces

>> ^DavidRaine:
>> ^NetRunner:
Speaking of that report from Bush's own administration that completely torpedos the argument for offshore drilling, here's a link to it.

Not that it matters. Nobody with a brain and a spine wanted the FISA Amendments Act to pass, but here we are.

^What does that have to do with offshore drilling?


On the subject of the donation, Clinton used white house as a high priced hotel, and Bush is selling his political clout and credibility. One of those two is a better investment.

>> ^NetRunner:
Speaking of that report from Bush's own administration that completely torpedos the argument for offshore drilling, here's a link to it.


Not that it matters. Nobody with a brain and a spine wanted the FISA Amendments Act to pass, but here we are.

Speaking of that report from Bush's own administration that completely torpedos the argument for offshore drilling, here's a link to it.

wow that's cool, I thought that the torpedo in Goleta, CA was the only continental US attack.

I'm rather absolutely disappointed that the anti-torpedo guns didn't shred him to pieces. Upvote anyone for being amusing.

Hurra Torpedo has a better version of this song IMHO. No boobs, but more kitchen appliances.

yeah, that's some torpedo car crazy city I just saw

wtf is dark about this???
bush needs torpedo-eyes....

Upvote for photon torpedoes.

Somebody has a sword fetish. Clearly, trilithium torpedos that cause star supernovae beat the death star by a factor of about a quadrillion.

Heidi's torpedos live!

"Okay, Giuliani is taken care of. Who do we go after next?"

I dunno, are there more hypocrite presidential candidates? Like say, ones that push gay marriage bans, but are really closeted. How about politicians that talk about family values every chance they get, but really are visiting prostitutes or young underage male interns. Or maybe there are some candidates that like to dressup in women's clothing.

How about anyone that says we need to use nukes on other countries? Or ones that want to double Gitmo? Who is next?

bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran (that was McCain, but Rove already torpedoed him)