I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values.

And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

Sounds like the republican game plan to me.

You would then of course admit that failing to scrutinize one candidate's obvious shortcomings regarding qualifications in favor of focusing on trivial nonsense regarding another would constitute bias. You know why you would? Because it IS bias. As for the tired old Love Story and Internet stories that you reference as evidence Gore lied, I would direct you to do some actual research on these myths, which again were repeated by the press without ever checking to see if they were true (i.e., what some would call "doing your job"),thereby helping to further substantiate them. Just as the press failed to do their job, the voting populace failed as well, because they too did not find it important enough to check, obviously because the press was "for Gore". And if you truly believe that the press adequately vetted / covered Bush, in 2000 and 2004, and it appears that you do, then you are just ignoring the truth.

Simply counting news items and categorizing them as positive or negative does not prove bias. Note that there were more stories about Gore overall. In fact, there were more negatives alone than all of those on Bush. At the very least, you would have to characterize them as positive, negative, but also neutral or factual (simple reporting of fact, good or ill.)

If a candidate did some terrible thing, like bribing an election official, would it be bias to report that fact? The report would certainly be negative, but would not indicate any bias.

As to the Love Story and Internet claims, when a candidate is caught in a lie, it is not bias to point it out. Failing to comment on those would have been bias.

Polls of journalists at the time showed over 90% supported Gore.

Let me respectfully correct you on your erroneous memory of the 2000 election campaign. The media attcaked Gore for a variety of nonsense, all of which they misrepresented / distorted. The internet, the Love Story flap, how he was robotic, and not an everyday guy like Bush, to name just a few. A Pew study showed a marked disparity between the negative and positive stories for Bush and Gore. Though the study probably has some flaws, the results looked like this: Gore: 613 negative stories, 132 positive stories, Bush: 265 negative stories, 320 positive stories. You may want to believe they were for Gore...but I agree, you are entitled to your opinion, but not the facts.

No, dearie, I'm not at all thin-skinned, about anything really.

Never heard that Barry was Barack's nickname. Could be, I really don't know.

But, on your claim that you made a type with the 'Obambi' mention - You really must think we don't recognize a whopper when we see one. Google 'Obambi' and see what YOU come up with..., but I'm sure that's not necessary, is it? You been there already, me thinks.

Danged good try, though. I'll give you points on the kid and corn smokescreen.

There was nothing insulting in my use of "Barry" as that is what he is called and has been called since he was a child. The other was actually a typo because I had been distracted by my 10 year old with her discovery of a deer in our corn, and did not preview my post.

A bit thin-skinned about your preferred candidate, aren't you?

When all is said and done, It's not the talk but the walk that gets the deed done. It's not what we can promise but what we can deliver that is useful to more than just our friends and contributors that counts.

In 2000, the media was solidly behind Gore, not Bush, and did all they could to get him elected, including calling Florida early to discourage voters in the heavily military, central time zone, panhandle from staying in line to vote.

You are welcome to your own opinions, but you don't get your own version of history.

P Town writes: "How could anyone go fruity over a totally media-created candidate making empty promises, that no one had heard of a year ago?" I could not agree more. As I recall the exact same thing occurred in 2000, with the media solidly behind the man you would most want to share a beer with. Lapdogs.

is the lag time. Car manufactures screamed when seat belts were required, cried about air bags and so forth. If we had waited for market solutions, we would still be driving metal coffins. We have twice as many cars on the road now and about 1/2 the fatalities, a huge savings in lives and money.
SUV's were not a solution to station wagons as much as a cheap pickup truck turned into a very pricey pickup truck with a snazzy camper top. The profit on them was enormous and Detroit put off R&D to collect bonuses. Results are a shameful example of terrible business practices and inattentive boards of directors. Market forces will prevail, but at a cost to American workers and shareholders that will take decades to recover from, if ever. I think the problem lies in that market forces do not provide competitive hiring at the executive level. That is a buddy system with compensation consultants.

Cafe standards are great examples of why Libertarians oppose regulatory approaches to marketplace choices. As it stands now, the marketplace has indeed spoken, making them redundant, but still harmful.

Soccermoms used to drive station wagons, but they were driven out of the market by the first round of Cafe standards. So those with a need for large, multi-passenger plus gear vehicles started buying SUV's which were under the light truck standard instead of the passenger car standard that killed station wagons. So, those gas guzzling SUV's are the result of Cafe Standards.

Tightening the light truck standards gave birth to the PT Cruiser and Chevy HHR, which are classified as light trucks and raise fuel economy averages, making it possible to still make Suburbans and Dodge Durango's.

The market will find a way, though some ways are counterproductive.

Anthony wrote, "Yes, the opponents try to suppress Obama's oratory…"

That's easy. Just turn off his teleprompter.

"…saying it comes from an empty suit with little experience."

Wow! I hadn't heard that phrase before, but it's an excellent description of our nation's most liberal Senator. If you add that his closest associates have either asked God to condemn America to eternal damnation, or have actually bombed America, you've got the whole package!

How could anyone go fruity over a totally media-created candidate making empty promises, that no one had heard of a year ago? We have become a nation of sheep. It's embarrassing.

Funny how the automobile manufacturers now have to increase mileage in order for people to buy their products. That is after laying off tens of thousands of workers, stripping shareholder value and closing plants by the boat load. Bankruptcy is even in the cards.
How come they took so long to do what the rest of the world has been doing for years: building safe, efficient automobiles that people can actually drive without bankrupting them? CAFE standards would have been a piece of cake if the auto executives had been better administrators, rather than padding their own bonuses by selling SUV's.
But don't worry about Obama's industrial costs, Toyota will take care of selling Americans what they now want. The marketplace has spoken, hasn't it?

"Barack Obama is more than a person; he has become a movement"

Not if Bill and Hillary have anything to do with it...

Barry and Obambi - well, isn't that clever? Wow, how long did you spend thinking those up? How does McFossil and McFake sound to you? Disrespectful and silly? You betcha. Maybe we should all stick to what matters and quit attempting to sound like the blowhards that have taken over the airways. Maybe we should give all these people running for something a little respect - 'cause at least they're attempting to be part of the process - not sitting on their bottoms unsuccessfully trying to be cute and clever at their computers.

If you all are so gungho for your guy or gal, walk out the front door, get in the car and volunteer to do what it takes to get them elected. You're accomplishing zip, nada, zero with all this dribble.

I can not believe this writer is so willing to insult the memory of some of the greatest leaders this nation has had by comparing Barry Obama to them.

Without the likes of Lincoln, Kennedy and King, Obambi wouldn't be where he is today, he would still be stuck in the entitlement crowd started by FDR and furthered by LBJ. Of course except for the color of his skin, Obama would make both FDR and LBJ proud with his absolute love of socialism.

Obama is in the finals of American Idol with one liners, bumper sticker retorts, promises that he can't deliver on.
Each of you referenced presidents had event that led to disaster.
Lincoln-His decisions instigated the U.S. Civil War.
JFK-took a hard line against Communists, got us more involved in Viet Nam. I also seem to recall us coming to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviets. BO wants to play with the Communists and has a more than obvious Socialist attitude.
FDR-created social programs that are jacking up our economy, tried to pack the Supreme Court. BO wants to further expand these social programs, as well as create new ones.

My advice you is get away from the top two political parties. The Government has ZERO business in much of what it currently does.

I know a few others that were great orators and had a 'movement'. Stalin was an amazing orator. He led people to do some interesting things. Hitler...now there's a movement. He spoke and it seemed the whole world stopped to listen. Then, they figured out what his real plans were, and by then it was too late. Fidel Castro, Chavez, Che Gueverra, etc. All amazing orators, all with their true selves hidden behind their speeches. Getting the picture? Great orator - yes. Leader of a movement - sure. Hiding something - definitely.

Obama does indeed give a good speech. He promises a wonderful world.

However, there isn't enough money to pay for keeping his promises. By that, I don't mean that we merely can't afford it, I mean there literally isn't enough money in existence for government to keep all his promises and business to simultaneously meet the requirements he intends to impose.

Meeting the CAFE, carbon and energy standards he has proposed would require a huge capital investment from industry, that capital cannot be raised in the same environment with the tax increases that will be needed to keep his promises.

So, he may be a great orator, but he is also either a liar or a fool. Take your choice.

We have had many voices of movements in history. The more famous are Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini. In modern times, we have Mugabe (Zimbabwe), Castro (Cuba), Chavez (Venezuela) , Amadinjad (Iran). As the man said, there was Lenin and the Communist Manifesto. All movements.

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

When speaking of the economy Obama said,
"When America gets a cold, black America gets pneumonia"

When speaking of his grandmother Obama said,
"But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, you know, there’s a reaction that’s been bred in our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that’s just the nature of race in our society"

When speaking of people of the Midwest, Obama said,
And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,"
Great hope for us all I think Not

...the cult of personality?

Funny that Obama denies the 'celebrity' label but will use a stadium to ascend the democratic throne so that the great masses of adorers can bear witness.

Obama is a celebrity and he will pack the house as celebrities do. But at the end of the show, what will we walk away with other than a souvenir t-shirt and a memory?

More than once has great Speakers gotten sheep to be lead to the slaughter, being a great speaker does not a great leader make. Obama is a great speaker when he has a teleprompter and speach writers to give him what to say, unfortunitly but this does not truely tell you what the man is about it tells you what his writers want him to say. If you truely want to find out what he is about then have him agree to sit dow and hold Town hall type debates with John Mccain with no bias media asking the questions just the ordinary people across america, then listen to how the great speaker stutters and try's to find answers not to upset his handlers. Yes he has Ideas and knows how he wants to do things but he DOESN't want us to know it until it is to Late. This man is not the Savior the media and the Democrat's claim him to be. I have know a few great leaders like Colin Powell, Condelissa Rice and Martin Luther King to name a few these people are and were great people trangression the barriers of race and proving that with hard work ALL people can get aheadand be successful.

You speak of Obama as if he is some sort of gift to the citizens of the world, or better yet, workers of the world. We don't give people days in the sun just because they want it. Before you get too deeply involved spiritually in Obama, Google up the communist manifesto and take a look at what you have.

Jim King