EVERY politician in Chicago, Republican AND Democrat has worked with Ayers!   That's why NONE of them are saying a word about this.  Even the local REPUBLICANS think this is a non-issue and have stated so all over the place. It's like saying you are pro-gun just because you worked with Charleton Heston on a charity fundraiser once, hahahahaha.

George Bush is the ranking War Criminal these days in the free world.  Lots of people associating with him...  McCain was not only associating the the Keating 5 Savings and Loan crooks, HE WAS ONE OF THE KEATING 5.  Yet, with the economy collapsing in the same damn way as he and his people caused, you aren't on his case at all.  I'm not on his case because he was cleared of wrongdoing and I don't hold a man accountable for the actions of the people he's met in his long life.  Especially politicians who have to meet and great EVERYBODY and have to, as part of their job, often negotiate and compromise with real scum bags.

Really?!  He's got really good PR. 

Cause the way I see it, he's the President who got caught with his PANTS DOWN on 9-11.  In every other country, they kick the bum out of office who is found to be THAT incompetent and asleep at the wheel when disaster strikes.  But what do we do?!  We rally around the moron in chief who had advanced warning of this and was too busy taking naps and vacations while working bankers hours in the White House to prioritize OUR safety over his comfort and agenda.

So, are you going to give credit to Clinton and all the other Presidents who WEREN'T attacked on our HOME SOIL because we weren't enforcing visa and passport restrictions like Bushie boy?  Meanwhile, while Bush was STILL in office, London and Madrid were bombed by Al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden is STILL FUCKING FREE AS A BIRD.  Why don't you hold him responsible for THAT?  I do.

You can pretend George Bush has "kept us safe".  How convenient for him that we only get attacked on our home soil once every 50 years or so.  He doesn't take blame for being caught with his pants down, AND gets credit for nothing happening in between.  Lucky George.

I think, however, I'm a little more worried about the 10,000 NEW terrorists that our bombing of civilians in Iraq has created.  Because, we're all going to be paying the price for them for DECADES, just like we paid the price for US funding and CIA training Osama bin Laden twenty years ago.  Imagine what 10,000 bin Ladens are going to be like.  And you can't blame that on Clinton.  Those new terrorists are all Bush's legacy.

Oh, so now you are saying they attacked us on 9-11 because they perceived Bush's leadership as weak?  I'm confused.  How can you have it both ways?  Either Bush is strong on defense and that scares terrorists (rofl) or Bush is so weak he encourages them to attack us brazenly.  You contradict YOURSELF in the self-same post, amigo.

And for the record, Osama attacked us because of Bush family meddling in the Middle East since the 1950's.  From the Shah of Iran, to the creation of Saddam, to Bush's palling around with the Saudi Royal Family - which has put US bases right in the middle of their holy land.   Now, Osama's a nutter, plain and simple, but to ignore the fact that WE are responsible for them hating us because of REPUBLICAN meddling (all tied to the Bush family for over 50 years) is just plain ignorant of US and world history in a very extreme way.

PS  Osama used the techniques WE (as in the CIA under Bush Sr. btw) taught him to attack us on 9-11 and hide from us in Pakistan/Afghanistan.  Bush Sr., Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld were there for ALL of this.  Just read their bios and weep.

Tell that to the people in Florida - like my parents, haha.  When the final votes were tallied, after the Supreme Court intervened when it should not have, Gore WON that state's popular vote.  If the Supreme Court had just let the count continue, Bush would not have become President.

[quote]Um....the problem is they had more than "minor" contact. Ayers and Obama relationship goes much deeper and 0bama lied about it, that is another fact.[quote]

I've already addressed this in previous posts...ad nauseum.  Even the REPUBLICANS in Chicago say this is a waste of breath.  They've all worked CLOSELY with Ayers for decades.

And Bush's daddy got him the governorship of Texas.  So friggin what?!  You can't have voted for Bush, who hasn't earned a damn thing in his entire life, and then pretend Obama's rise to power is somehow "suspicious". 

Obama's charismatic, intelligent, and hard-working.  The right man at the right time.  You know, like Clinton, Kennedy, Reagan, and many other men who've come out of nowhere to become President - and like Lincoln, for another fine example.

If he was Joe Biden and had been in politics for decades, then you'd all be ranting that "he's a Washington insider, a career politician" blah blah blah.

You're obviously just cherry picking "points of difference" with no cognizance of how it relates to previous candidates in order to serve a narrow ideologically driven viewpoint.   And as soon I take any of the "excuses" and apply it to all of the other candidates the "conservatives" have supported, it's just so blatantly hypocritical.

Good, right or left wing 527 lie/smear tactics are just despicable (like that ridiculous pdf above).  I don't care which side they come from. 

People are human, they make mistakes.  It is INSANE that Obama has had to life such a nearly perfect life just to ONLY be getting this level of smear tactics thrown at him.  The same goes for McCain.  There are so many things Obama's people could have tagged him with, some actually relevant to current events, but they took the high road as long and as much as possible and have brought up any of the really big ones.

Well the conservatives are PMing you cause they are trying to be conservative.

Seriously though, the internet is what it is. You can't really call it "liberal internet" That's a really blanket statement and unfair to all the people and sites that aren't. What you've seen may be mostly liberal. So that's your view of it. But, let's not judge the whole internet based on the sites you visit.

nicely said WG

What I find interesting is the right complains that Obama isn't running against Bush he's running against MCCain and yet they keep saying Obama isn't Obama he's Odinga or Ayers or Wright or all three but he definitely isn't Obama.

The other thing I find interesting is McCain has complained Obama has a financial advantage in this election yet the RNC and its supporters are matching with millions of their own regardless of their own support for McCain from fear of losing Congressional seats.

It seems many are painting their pictures to match the tint of their glasses. 

And that is exactly what it is - a show

Now, it's a matter of the rating, it could end up with a "G" or even an "XXX" depending on how it pans out the next 4 years. 

        Even though the election is tomorrow, this will play out over the next 4 years and I'll bet he will be a one term president if he wins.

I just want to know one thing. Why is everyone convinced that we only have two options? Beyond that, what makes anyone think there's a huge difference between McCain and Obama? Almost everything we heard in the debates was a contrived one-size-fits-all response. All the attack ads are based on lies, conveniently leave out part of the facts (lie), misdirect the real issue (lie), or flat out lie.

The democrats and republicans are pretty much 2 sides of the same coin - they both support disproportionately large federal government, corporate/big media interests, diminishment of basic constitutional rights, and economic folly. If you really pay attention, they both say a lot of the same things, including the whole "change" mantra, and they both change their minds on their policies a lot, (maybe that's the change they're talking about.) They both avoid a lot of important issues like immediately converting to available clean energy, poverty and homelessness (both alarmingly prevalent in the US), and viable solutions to help our economy as opposed to just throwing money at it. They both try to look like liberal/conservative, but they're both closer to center, like Reps and Dems have been for at least a decade.

McCain is (of course) going to help the corporations and the already rich more than any other people. (Yeah, corporations legally count as people in virtually every way except the death penalty.) If McCain's really so much like Bush, he'll probably milk the war machine for all it's worth. Obama's campaign is funded by wall street and big corporations, so I would think he's pretty much in their pocket. He keeps talking about supporting the middle class, but the middle class is shrinking, and has been shrinking for a while, so that doesn't mean much.

Ralph Nader is way smarter and more straightforward than eitherMcCain or Obama, so is Ron Paul (shame he dropped out) and I imagine the green party candidate (the black woman candidate nobody knows about) and constitution party candidate (Chuck Baldwin) have policies in mind that will actually help this country.

I'm more or less conservative myself, I'd much rather vote for McCain than Obama because of moral issues, but I don't have to vote for either of them! Chuck Baldwin 2008! (By the way, Baldwin is considerably more conservative than Republicans have been in a long time.)

Well - that is a citation.  But irrelevant as you prove his point with the documents, not the statement you wanted to try to prove.

Tell that to Obama about Biden.  Best comic on the circuit this year.

Then you can easily link to them and explain how they are lies (not your opinion they are lies) and how they are going to believe a speech over a report that only 3 of them actually read.

Perhaps what is galling to you is that they failed to do their own work, instead relied on others to read and then regurgitate the findings of the intelligence community.  That hardly makes it Bush's fault or lie.  It is not my fault if you fail to do the work you are paid to do.