You may be right and I have considered that. I just wish he did not surround himself with the despots he has like Norquist and the leader of the Swifties and the host of lobbyists on his staff. That sounds like more of the same failures we currently have and that frankly scares me. As for HC and JM I really think McCain had a chance to do that when Kerry was courting him back in '04. JM chose to stick with the party rather than look at the bigger picture-that Kerry was looking at. I started to lose some faith and trust in him at that point. It would be nice to think he would do that now and take on HC as VP. It would never happen but you do have a valid point.

"we are still intact-mostly."

I don't know pd. I don't think the worst has yet to come. As I am no doomsayer, I will not expound upon my fears.

For JM, this it is my honest beleif he has learned that he has to play the game to win. My favorite scenario is he and HC turn indy and run. Now that would be a statement of unity.

And you know Ira I would have voted for JM in 2000. But the R's gave us the idiot savant Bush and Darth Cheney. The truth will eventually come out why they wanted such a lightweight as POTUS when they had a much better candidate in McCain. But since 2001 JM has changed and flip-flopped like a chameleon/fish out of water. I do not see JM as any better than BO-they are both poliicians and they both will lie cheat and steal (politically speaking) their way to office. Frankly though, this sense in some that BO is to be feared and that he would destroy the country seems a tad paranoid to me. That is why we have checks and balances. We have had Bush for going on eight years and we are still intact-mostly.

McCain did run on "hope" and "change." Obama's biggest offering in the primary was that he was different. I know it is hard for centrist like ourselves, but this guy is a cunning and deceitful politician and nothing more. Obama wants the job and power. His real agenda has yet to be seen. See my other posts on his latest lie on Iraq.

I agree with you that there are questions about B.O. But the dishonsty you speak of is just as present with J.M. He says he is for campaign reform but ignores his own legislation. He offers no more than more of the same for the economy and for Iraq. And both have proven to be disasters. He calls people like Grover Norquist crooks several years ago (and deservedly so) but now sides up with them to get elected. He said he was against the Swiftie attacks on Kerry and called them unjust but then hires the head henchman to run a smear campaign against B.O. He brings on the highest powered lobbyists to help in his campaign while bemoaning lobbyists in the past. He has uttered patently false information on B.O.'s tax plan. I could go on. He portrays as a maverick but he is anything but nowadays and he is hoping enough people will be fooled into thinking he is a new kind of politician. He isn't.

I understand. The problem here is that we need action now. We have real problems. Offering this task to an unproven and apparently dishonest candidate is not the good start we need. What chaps me the most is how he promotes he is different and then acts exactly the same. I will always see BO as a skilled orator and an incredibly smart politician. I do question his motives in offering pipe dreams to the public. We need results and not open ended promises. If you had asked me 8 years ago if Iwaoulf vote for a republican president I would have scowled at you. It's no secret I hate the jet noise. Do you think the chances are better Moyock will get the OLF if a pilot is elected? A hard pill to swallow.

TR, your twisting the intention of the LTE. Mine as well. I hope the campaign is paying you.

I commend your statements where you say it should not be about race. But when you agree with a LTE writer who is NOT voting for Obama because of perceived race riots, and when you feel the need to incorrectly guess my race because you think its driving my decision making, that makes you a hypocrite.

And when you note that Obama backers CITE RACE as a REASON PEOPLE OPPOSE Obama (as though there's no validity to the charge) as a reply to a letter where the author CITES RACE as a REASON TO OPPOSE him, i dont know whether to laugh or cry at your ability to miss the obvious.

I know what you are saying and I cannot disagree, but we have to start somewhere in tackling the issue. Otherwise we just give into the powers that be and let people's lives hang in the balance. We have had enough inaction and graft from DC and we now need real leaders on this issue not partisan hacks who will suffice for more of the same.

Only offered the tidbits to bolster you agenda? There's more and you know there more. What do you say we just throw the race thing out of the window? How about you expalin his lies? Tell us how this makes him a different from any other politician.

PD, I understand how they are intended to work. What I am telling you is it cannot be done. The root cause of the cost is the same lawyers that are elected and depnded upon to legislate the changes. Won't happen. How are you going to call out an RX Co. when our goverment assisted them in high pricing? Other countries pay less. Why do you think that is?

Ira 6/28: "You are the one who interjected race"

Ira 3/01: "In fact, I would say from reading your posts you are only voting for him because you are black."

Which makes Ira incorrect.
___________________________

Ira 6/26: "(BO) followers habitually cite race as a reason people oppose him"

LTE writer: cites race as reason to oppose Obama

which makes BO followers correct here.

We as citizens expect too much sometimes from our candidates. The healthcare issue is a very complex one and there are no easy solutions. Anyone stating they know for sure what the cure is needs to be questioned. As new facts become available and new info is discovered plans need to change. Obama's plan, as with Clinton's and Edward's does not call for a single payer national system for everyone. It establishes a parellel system that allows individuals and employers to buy into it and get the high benefits at lower costs. Those on lower income brackets would get subsidies of some sort as they do now. No one with a current policy will be forced into this system. Obama wants to "call out" the pharmaceuticals and the healthcare industry to justify their charges and profits being that the downside to no action is people's lives.

I guess your comment appears out of order due to the 'clampdown' by the moderators. However, to answer you question, anytime someone tries to nationalize a service such as health care it is the definition of the left. I agree something has to be done with health care. I just wanted to point that out. It doesn't matter because it's not going to happen. Without medical malpractice and auto insurance, the legal profession would collapse. They will not allow it. they are your goverment. Besides, what do you think Obama's change of mind will be once in office on that issue? He has not been consistent. It is smart though. Basically by doing little, there is less to be critized for in the media. Isn't that odd?

"A perfect validation of what some BO supporters claim is occurring."

TR, your bias is steering your opinion. This is fine but you cannot steer mine and attempt spin my statements, nor the other writers into an unintended meaning. The explanation I have provided is simple and easy to understand. It was funny that you admitted my point in the above statement though. Always remember that our posts are easy to review. You are the one who interjected race into our long lasting debate. It was never an issue until you proposed it. As a result of your mind set, you helped me to decide to back McCain. While the fact Obama has never offered any substance, his lack of ability to come through on his promises, his blatant lying, and now his penchant to discriminate to further his political career are larger factors, in the end, I do not want to side w/ people who think the way you do.

Looking back at the original post, all I have to say is WOW. The mess we are in now is because people acutally believe some of the junk they spew and vote accordingly. NO ONE is promoting turning industry over to the govt. That is a blatant falsehood and not worthy of anymore debate. All this Obama is radical left is garbage also. I am no big fan of his but I at least do my homework and he has his name on 56 pieces of legislation. Only 18 are all Dem originated. The rest are ones that he co-sponsored with Republicans. Yet the Repubs call him partisan. I would love to see how those bemoaners stack up themselves on the issue. As for the race card, McCain is playing it well through his surrogates. Grover Norquist (whom JM called a crook several years back but now has struck of a partnership with) yesterday called Obama "John Kerry with a tan". Why not just say "another John Kerry" (even though it is false)? The an

I am not referring to an overall decision to back JM. I am referring to a specific issue here. If she stuck w/ issues like tax concerns, growth of gubmint, ... then fine... opine away. But she did not. The writer threw out a racial comment that the AA community would riot. You took offense at the remark because u called it "irresponsible". Yet the "weight of this issue" (this racial attitude voiced against BO/AA) concerns you such that it reinforces your need to "vote against the candidate". Thats both a tepid repudiation AND a tortured agreement with the writer. All the while ignoring the demonstrated fact that this person is CITING RACE AS A REASON TO OPPOSE HIM. A perfect validation of what some BO supporters claim is occurring.

Gentlemem, gentlemen, gentlemen,
We don't need to be able to prove intelligence nor sanity to vote in this country. I can write in my pet kitten for president if I want to do so. What a country, eh? Cheers, MGM

"Here we have a McCain supporter citing race as a reason to oppose BO. Here is yet another person demonstrating their need to "cite race as a resason to oppose him". Please get a clue instead of tripping over yourself again & again."

I am not supporting McCain due to anyone reason. Your definition of logic is lacking because you oversimplify the subject to exclude too many variables. Race is not the reason as I have stated before. It is the mindset of many of the supporters concerning race that bothers me. I believe the writer of the letter was implying this fact. You are one of the best examples I can think of for implying race is a factor for many to opposes BO. I avoid many places because of the crowd it attracts. using that 'logic' when I see people(of any color) sharing ideaolgies and views I disagree with, I will dig deeper. In this case I find BO has no substance. Worse, people like you depend on thi

... YOU said. You stated that you were DISTURBED by what you called an IRRESPONSIBLE letter from an obvious McCain backer. You then state that this disturbing & irresponsible letter reinforces your committment to vote for McBush. That is pure logical mush.

What is truly pathetic & ironic about your post was that you state that BO's supporters....

"...habitually cite race as a reason people oppose him"

Here we have a McCain supporter citing race as a reason to oppose BO. Do you get the irony?? You cant see the forest NOR the trees. Here is yet another person demonstrating their need to "cite race as a resason to oppose him". Please get a clue instead of tripping over yourself again & again.

"While race is not an issue here, if Obama loses, we will have worse riots than after the King assassination because the media will make the vote racist.

It will not be racist; it will be socialism to its fullest extent. If he wins, we will have to fight tooth and nail against the nationalization of our industry, our health, our resources and the ingenuity that made America great."

I posted this so you could re-read it. I don't see where your comments have any link to what he said. I am disturbed by the subject being considered by many people in the media. I do see many Obama supporters pointing to this issue as the reason for many whit's not voting for him which is false. I think the issue of race should be dropped. It has no constructive purpose. Follow the flute my friend.

You are DISTURBED by the McCain-backer's letter where the letter writer takes a racially-charged swing at the black community fearing riots if BO loses. You also state that its IRRESPONSIBLE. You are so disturbed about the irresponsible letter that it "places me again in a position to vote against this candidate".

Ummm... which candidate would you be voting against? Voting against the candidate backed by the disturbing/irresponsible LTE writer? Or, are you saying that the irresponsible/disturbing attitudes voiced by the LTE writer are very persuasive to you, & that those irresponsible/disturbing attitudes by a McCain backer put you further in the McCain camp?

Per reading the post my poor grammar distorts the message. What I am trying to say is that race is not the issue in the race, but the issue that is being forced on many people. Using distorted logic to pressure a group into feeling guilty about their reasons for voting for or against any candidate is shameful. In fact, I think it may not produce the result intended by the accusations. While there are people who base their choice upon the race of the candidate, I do not believe this to be the deciding factor in the vote. it really should be left alone.

The thought that any segment of the population may riot due to a democratic vote disturbs me. The mere mention of it seems irresponsible. The weight of this issue places me again in a position to vote against this candidate. Not based on race as much. More so because he followers habitually cite race as a reason people oppose him. As witnessed by many of you, multiple people have been accused of racism for not supporting his candidacy. If this is the mentality of his base I choose not to be a part of it.

Neer mind even his most ardent supporters cannot define his platform with any accuracy or substance. Many are blinded to the dishonest portraits his camp has painted. Remember what happened to the pied pipers followers?

I have yet to hear Obama threaten to nationalize any major industries but I know McCain, like other repuglicans continually threatens to privatize Social Security so it can go the way of Enron's retirement plan. Obama will be an improvement over the present variety of political extremism but that isn't saying much.

How about we all hop down 3 letters and praise the Marine who was buried at sea several days ago (ashes). I constantly see us ignoring letters like that one, or the one last week in which the runner-up spelling champion thanked the organizations that sponsored her.

When we have great, polite young people like that to honor, let's honor them. Just a suggestion. Cheers, MGM

I just don't see the race riots. Now, if somehow, the superdelegates chose Hillary over Obama, that would be a different story, but I think everyone is rational enough to know that it would not be an issue in the general election. If there are riots, then it would not be due to race, it would be due to a bunch of criminals wanting to break store windows for free TVs.

You would have to change your proposition to choosing between the lesser of three evils if you include Bob Barr, and most would end up with the same original choice.

I too find the comment that all blacks will take to the streets if "their" candidate loses to be ludicrous.

I lived in Michigan in 1968, when Detroit was nearly burnt down. Nothing on that scale has happened since then and there is little precedent to suggest it will.

Are you reviving the "hot blooded African man who can't control his impulses" stereotype? Cheers, Mary G. Martin, not sure I am voting for Obama, but not sure I am voting for McCain either--I'm gonna read the websites a lot these next few months

I'll be voting Libertarian. We may not win, but maybe the next four years will be enough of a lesson for the country that a Libertarian will win down the road.

I do take exception to the notion that if Obama loses, riots will follow. To make that assumption is to assert that black Americans are not capable of accepting a loss as civilized people. That is not a fair assumption.

But for those not happy with the major party choices, this would be a good year to vote Libertarian. Remember thet when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil.

Wow, three letters slamming Obama. That, coupled with the Pilot's absolute reverence for McCain ( as evidenced by a lack of any disparaging op eds regrading McCain), would make anyone believe Obama doesn't have a chance. I find that amusing, as there seems to be plenty pro Obama (or at least anti- McCain), sentiment throughout the posts on these pages. I concur with Don; no way could I vote for ANYONE who is so much in lockstep with current administration. That goes for Drake as well.

When all else fails, assert the "socialist" charge. Spare me. The role of government in our lives has exploded under this administration, and I do believe that he ran as a republican...