Political Argument Arena!!!

[colinh9]

Funny, when President Bush misspeaks you don't give him the benefit of the doubt of being "tired." What do you mean by with the news cycles the way they are? The MSM is in the tank for Obama and I first saw his lies on TV, not reading about it on the internet. Do you think they edited the footage?

Find me one time in this thread where I went after President Bush for misspeaking. The MSM is not in the tank for Obama by any means. Fox isn't, CNN isn't. MSNBC is the only one you can even claim. If you watch CNN at all you will notice they are very pro-Clinton.

And I mean that the MSM is always looking for stories that make headlines for that day. These comments were headlining news for 24 hours and then off the cycle if nobody cares. But the MSM looks to pick up comments like these all the time and run with them. Look at Bosnia with Clinton, look at the sunnis-shia with McCain, look at Wright comments etc. Any comment that makes the candidate look stupid will be aired to no end. So, Obama, knowing he is being videotaped would have to be a complete moron to say Auschwitz on purpose. That's what I'm getting at.


Care to link to a videoclip or 2? I don't think misspeaking when talking about the Sunnis and Shias and telling an outright lie in relation to a family story are comparable.

Sure, no problem. http://youtube.com/watch?v=EetobKXQsr8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0qu6B6fcfo8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yr6Va7PEBg8


This last one is the best and completely marks my earlier points.


The CIA's World Factbook States that "Ultimate Political Authority" in Iran is Vested in the Supreme Leader. "Known as Persia until 1935, Iran became an Islamic republic in 1979 after the ruling monarchy was overthrown and the shah was forced into exile. Conservative clerical forces established a theocratic system of government with ultimate political authority vested in a learned religious scholar referred to commonly as the Supreme Leader who, according to the constitution, is accountable only to the Assembly of Experts." [CIA - The World Factbook, accessed 5/19/08; (https://www.cia.gov/library/publication s/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html#Govt)]

Ultimate Authority in Iran Rests With Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. "[Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei heads a theocratic Shiite Muslim state with elements of a democratic republic, including regular elections for parliament and the presidency. . . . Iran's constitution does not recognize political parties. But authorities regulate political groups and even fund some organizations loyal to the 1979 Islamic Revolution. These groups battle one another for power and influence through the parliament, although ultimate authority rests with Khamenei, a high-ranking cleric." [Los Angeles Times, 1/25/08]

President is SECOND Highest Ranking Official in Iran. The president is the second highest-ranking government official in Iran. Elected by popular vote to a four-year term, they are limited to two consecutive terms. The president appoints and supervises the Cabinet, coordinates government decisions, and selects government policies to be considered by the parliament. Above the president is Iran's supreme leader, who has control over the military, judiciary and any critical policy matter, both domestic and foreign. The president sets the country's economic policies and has a nominal rule in other governmental matters including security and intelligence.



So you support someone who will just flat out lie about things? How can you possibly try and turn this around on the RNC?

I was being facetious.


Do you really not believe Iraq has never been involved with WMDs?

No, it's well recorded that at one time they were. That's common knowledge. What I'm saying is that Cheney knew at one time they were involved and at that time it got past most intelligence communities. So he didn't believe any intelligence community telling him there were no WMD's in Iraq in 2001-2003. He made sure that evidence came out to support his theory of what Iraq did and did not have. That's a pretty dangerous thing to do when you are playing with something as serious as war. Especially after you said this a decade before.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY



I don't think anyone is in favor of going to war with Iran unless necessary, Colin. So you want us to just go and bomb a sovereign nation because the Taliban is hiding in the hills. Do you not think the US has the wheels in motion trying to get these guys?


Who said that is what I want? I just said why haven't we when that clearly has more to do with the war on terror than Iraq? Same could be asked of North Korea? Why is it that the Bush administration starting negotiations with the Koreans after all these years of ignoring them? Because they realized their policies failed. Now McCain wants to go back to the old way of ignoring them, which allowed them to develop and test a nuclear weapon. You support those policies?


What about the 57 states? Or the numerous times Dave has linked. Check your facts Colin.

57 states, give me a break. A 5th grader knows this and you are telling me that the editor or the Harvard law review doesn't? Most of those Dave linked are ridiculous, I will go through them later when I get back from work.

[tigerdave]

You're right, they're ridiculous, Colin: ridiculous in that they came from Obama's mouth/book, with a preponderance of evidence to shoot them down. I don't post random things for the hell of it.

[Dirt McGirt]

No, but I hardly think that it's ok for the Clinton Administration to try and boast of such a Golden era.


O yea, they tried to "warn" them. Why not take care of the guy during the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency? There were 3 attacks on American citizens on American soil and the Clinton Administration did absolutely nothing about it. Except for bomb a chemical plant in the Sudan, at which point no less than 6 Clinton officials stated that Iraq had been helping the Sudanese during their nuclear quest...but of course Iraq has never had anything to do with WMDs. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/24/bomb.damage/



Clinton and Gore get convenient amnesia... (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160442/posts)




Blame Reagan but they didn't turn on us during his Administration, they did it during Clinton's. Couldn't Ol' Bill have gone after them? And what about Bosnia? Clinton showed why people's claims that "he was the first black President" are a complete farce by letting hundreds of thousand of people get murdered in Rwanda while he did nothing. The man spent maybe 30 minutes in the whole country after the incident. But then when Bosnians in Europe are getting massacred he rushed to their aid. Just a little amusing.

You're grasping at anything to avoid placing any responsibility on our current administration for it's mind blowing foreign policy blunders.

1. Rwanda
2. Iraq
3. Clinton
4. Sudan

I do agree that Clinton should have been more proactive in neutralizing Bin Laden and dealing with the Taliban. I also agree that Rwanda was a huge mistake that world waited far too long on recognizing. I also agree that Iraq was a problem in the eyes of the UN since the end of the Gulf War.

What I don't agree with is trying to lay the blame on the Clinton administration for 9/11 when the root cause of this attack maybe a 1000 years old and the main bad actors in this tragedy were empowered by the Reagan administration, ignored by Bush I, mis-understood by the Clinton administration and ultimately overlooked during the transition of power by Bush II.(according to Richard Clarke and to a certain degree by the 9-11 commission) It would be unfair to point the finger at one administration when at least four have had significant influence. To point the finger at one and absolve the others of any blame is partisanship at it's worse.

I'll follow that up with some questions? Why is Bin Laden still breathing after 7 years? Why is Mullah Omar still breathing after 7 years? Why did hijackers all come from Saudi Arabia?

[Dirt McGirt]

You're right, they're ridiculous, Colin: ridiculous in that they came from Obama's mouth/book, with a preponderance of evidence to shoot them down. I don't post random things for the hell of it.
Maybe trivial or frivolous would have been a better word then ridiculous.

[ToonUSA]

Find me one time in this thread where I went after President Bush for misspeaking. The MSM is not in the tank for Obama by any means. Fox isn't, CNN isn't. MSNBC is the only one you can even claim. If you watch CNN at all you will notice they are very pro-Clinton.
Jesus wept Colin, every news outlet with the exception of Fox News is in the tank for Obama, CNN is well on it's way as soon as Hillary is out. Open your eyes.

And I mean that the MSM is always looking for stories that make headlines for that day. These comments were headlining news for 24 hours and then off the cycle if nobody cares. But the MSM looks to pick up comments like these all the time and run with them. Look at Bosnia with Clinton, look at the sunnis-shia with McCain, look at Wright comments etc. Any comment that makes the candidate look stupid will be aired to no end. So, Obama, knowing he is being videotaped would have to be a complete moron to say Auschwitz on purpose. That's what I'm getting at.
Or, just a complete and total liar. If you listened to the way he told the story, and then the actual facts surrounding the story you would see there is no room for misspeaking.



Sure, no problem. http://youtube.com/watch?v=EetobKXQsr8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0qu6B6fcfo8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yr6Va7PEBg8


This last one is the best and completely marks my earlier points.

2 Keith Olbermann clips...shocking. Did you not see him immediately amend his mistakes? Did Obama do that and I missed it?


The last one doesn't prove anything more than some smartass trying to make McCain look bad. Don't be naive and think that everything is how it appears in Iran Colin. Of course formally the Ayatollah is in control but in reality? It's probably the man coming out making the threats.

No, it's well recorded that at one time they were. That's common knowledge. What I'm saying is that Cheney knew at one time they were involved and at that time it got past most intelligence communities. So he didn't believe any intelligence community telling him there were no WMD's in Iraq in 2001-2003. He made sure that evidence came out to support his theory of what Iraq did and did not have. That's a pretty dangerous thing to do when you are playing with something as serious as war. Especially after you said this a decade before.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
Most intelligence agencies and Government officials believed Iraq to have had WMDs. We made the decision to go in there and see for ourselves and we didn't find any in Iraq at the time we went in. Doesn't mean they didn't have them and moved them, nor does it mean they hadn't had them.


Who said that is what I want? I just said why haven't we when that clearly has more to do with the war on terror than Iraq? Same could be asked of North Korea? Why is it that the Bush administration starting negotiations with the Koreans after all these years of ignoring them? Because they realized their policies failed. Now McCain wants to go back to the old way of ignoring them, which allowed them to develop and test a nuclear weapon. You support those policies?
Yep, what's the reason to talk with them? They're an isolated country who starves it's own people for ******** all. They'll take care of themselves after a while. The real threat to us right now is Radical Islam.


57 states, give me a break. A 5th grader knows this and you are telling me that the editor or the Harvard law review doesn't? Most of those Dave linked are ridiculous, I will go through them later when I get back from work.
That's why I said I give him a break for misspeaking in that sense. Just as McCain should have gotten when messing up Sunni and Shia, because you know they kinda are similar words.

[ToonUSA]

What I don't agree with is trying to lay the blame on the Clinton administration for 9/11 when the root cause of this attack maybe a 1000 years old and the main bad actors in this tragedy were empowered by the Reagan administration, ignored by Bush I, mis-understood by the Clinton administration and ultimately overlooked during the transition of power by Bush II.(according to Richard Clarke and to a certain degree by the 9-11 commission) It would be unfair to point the finger at one administration when at least four have had significant influence. To point the finger at one and absolve the others of any blame is partisanship at it's worse.
I wasn't attempting to lay blame solely at the feet of the Clinton Administration, however for all of those that claim the Clinton Administration was the Golden age and that Bush ********ed everything up is just a straight lie. Such is the story you often tell...

Why is Bin Laden still breathing after 7 years?
What do you want as an answer Jay? Do you know where he is? Can you text him and tell him to come out?

Why is Mullah Omar still breathing after 7 years?
Tell him to come out with Osama when you text him.

Why did hijackers all come from Saudi Arabia?
Radical Islam knows no borders Jay. Just look at the attacks they've committed.

[Dirt McGirt]

I wasn't attempting to lay blame solely at the feet of the Clinton Administration, however for all of those that claim the Clinton Administration was the Golden age and that Bush ********ed everything up is just a straight lie. Such is the story you often tell...
Don't fear the truth. George Bush's legacy (http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7BD68CD0B2-1442-4804-9F6B-AF67DE7FF585%7D&DE=%7BFDD09C4F-E958-4E13-A92B-179C2FAC6FEA%7D&Design=PrintView)

[ToonUSA]

Don't fear the truth. George Bush's legacy (http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7BD68CD0B2-1442-4804-9F6B-AF67DE7FF585%7D&DE=%7BFDD09C4F-E958-4E13-A92B-179C2FAC6FEA%7D&Design=PrintView)

You don't think that a certain event has thrown that chart into overdrive?

[colinh9]

Jesus wept Colin, every news outlet with the exception of Fox News is in the tank for Obama, CNN is well on it's way as soon as Hillary is out. Open your eyes.

Didn't find me one instance where I jumped on Bush for misspeaking, but ok. What is every news outlet? CNN is not biased towards Obama. Fox is not biased towards Obama. MSNBC is biased, but only in a liberal sense as Fox is. There are a few of the newscasters like Keith that are biased towards Obama but that's about it. Find me proof that these guys are biased towards Obama.


Or, just a complete and total liar. If you listened to the way he told the story, and then the actual facts surrounding the story you would see there is no room for misspeaking.


How so? He said he was part of the first american troops to liberate Auschwitz. How was there no room for misspeaking?



2 Keith Olbermann clips...shocking. Did you not see him immediately amend his mistakes? Did Obama do that and I missed it?

Yeah it has nothing to do with Keith, he just happened to pop up on the first youtube. How did he immediately amend his mistakes? He's made those same comments on multiple occasions. Maybe its just the fact that he is old and is easily confused. I'll write it off to that.


The last one doesn't prove anything more than some smartass trying to make McCain look bad. Don't be naive and think that everything is how it appears in Iran Colin. Of course formally the Ayatollah is in control but in reality? It's probably the man coming out making the threats.

No it proves far more. The President has no control over nuclear issues. The President is not well liked within Iran right now, there are plenty really disappointed with him and the way he has run the government. The people want democracy, they want to elect their officials, and they want better officials. So let's try diplomacy. We don't need to talk to the President, there are others to talk to. All I'm saying is diplomacy is always the better option when its possible. It's possible, let's take advantage of it.


Most intelligence agencies and Government officials believed Iraq to have had WMDs. We made the decision to go in there and see for ourselves and we didn't find any in Iraq at the time we went in. Doesn't mean they didn't have them and moved them, nor does it mean they hadn't had them.


Nope, no they didn't. Watch Bush's War on PBSfrontline. Or read one of the many interviews they did. Here's an example.

At what moment do you know that the war on terror is about to take a turn to Baghdad?

I think we knew prior to 9/11 that there was serious interest in having something happen with Iraq. People would joke around the water cooler in the West Wing Situation Room, that "We're flying all these planes over Iraq every day, blowing up their radar sites. Maybe ... they'll shoot one down, and that will give us the provocation we need to do war."

Beginning on the night of 9/11, we have the secretary of defense and others talking about going to war with Iraq. I think we knew pretty much that week that the probability of finding a justification for going to war with Iraq was high on their agenda.

The president, in fact, talks to you about it.

Well, the president wandered into the Situation Room, totally unscheduled, just to say, "Hi. Keep it up! Good work!"-- raise everybody's morale. [He] saw me and dragged me and a few others into the conference room and started talking about Iraq, and having me go through all the evidence that we had piled up from the weeks and months before to see if there was a connection between what had happened on 9/11 and Iraq.

And he said: "Saddam! Saddam! See if there's a connection to Saddam!" And this wasn't "See if there's a connection with Iran, and while you're at it, do Iraq, and while you're at it, do the Palestinian Islamic group." It wasn't "Do due diligence." It wasn't "Have an exhaustive review." It was "Saddam, Saddam." I read that pretty clearly, that that was the answer he wanted.

I said to him, "We have already done that research prior to the attack" -- in fact, we'd done it a couple of times -- "and there's nothing there." And the facial expression back was, "That wasn't the right answer."

So I said, "Well, but we will do it again." And we asked CIA to do it again. CIA did it again, came up with the same answer. That answer was written up and handed to the president by George Tenet in one of his morning meetings, and it said, "For the third or fourth time, we've gone back to look at the relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and there is no real cooperation between those two."


You've spent your life worrying about states. You get that there's an Al Qaeda, but you really believe, probably deep in your soul, that everything bad, including what was happening with terrorism in the '70s, is roughly state-sponsored in some way. So I suppose we could understand the fixation on Iraq by the vice president and others?

I can understand it. I think he's wrong. I think he didn't catch his breath after 9/11; that he got into this extreme way of thinking about the world, a stark way of thinking about the world. We all were there in the days after 9/11. I don't think the vice president ever came back, caught his breath and got perspective.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/clarke.html

So if Al Qaeda is our real threat and we went into Iraq to fight them, it doesn't add up. Further, now Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Victory!


Yep, what's the reason to talk with them? They're an isolated country who starves it's own people for ******** all. They'll take care of themselves after a while. The real threat to us right now is Radical Islam.


Well considering they set off a nuclear bomb, I think they are a threat. Weren't they on the axis of evil?

And if the real threat is Radical Islam why would we go after Iraq? Saddam was not that at all. And by the way what happened to your phrase Islamofascist? How come McCain, Bush and co aren't allowed to use it anymore? Oh yeah, they realized its inane.


That's why I said I give him a break for misspeaking in that sense. Just as McCain should have gotten when messing up Sunni and Shia, because you know they kinda are similar words.

That's a terrible excuse. Similar words? Not at all. Any academic would not get these two confused, and any foremost expert on the subject wouldn't either. It's inexcusable that he can't get them right. I'm willing to forgive him for a few misspeaks but if he keeps this going its just scary.

[ToonUSA]

Didn't find me one instance where I jumped on Bush for misspeaking, but ok. What is every news outlet? CNN is not biased towards Obama. Fox is not biased towards Obama. MSNBC is biased, but only in a liberal sense as Fox is. There are a few of the newscasters like Keith that are biased towards Obama but that's about it. Find me proof that these guys are biased towards Obama.
Chris Matthews comes to mind as well. What do you mean find proof? Do you not watch them?

How so? He said he was part of the first american troops to liberate Auschwitz. How was there no room for misspeaking?
Because no American troops liberated Auschwitz. Not to mention when telling the story as a beloved sitting by the fire family tale you don't usually ******** up details that bad.


Nope, no they didn't. Watch Bush's War on PBSfrontline. Or read one of the many interviews they did. Here's an example.
Dude, it's pretty clear we'll never agree on this.

So if Al Qaeda is our real threat and we went into Iraq to fight them, it doesn't add up. Further, now Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Victory!
You didn't view Saddam as a threat?

Well considering they set off a nuclear bomb, I think they are a threat. Weren't they on the axis of evil?
Yea, but have they openly attacked us as many times are Radical Islamists have?

And if the real threat is Radical Islam why would we go after Iraq? Saddam was not that at all. And by the way what happened to your phrase Islamofascist? How come McCain, Bush and co aren't allowed to use it anymore? Oh yeah, they realized its inane.
I didn't type Islamofascist because you always take umbrage with it and figured it would make things easier to put Radical Islam. Although Islamofascist is a perfectly legitimately way to describe the garbage going on in that part of the world. I could use it if you want. Iraq was right in the wheelhouse of Islamofascism, you really can't be that blind can you?

That's a terrible excuse. Similar words? Not at all. Any academic would not get these two confused, and any foremost expert on the subject wouldn't either. It's inexcusable that he can't get them right. I'm willing to forgive him for a few misspeaks but if he keeps this going its just scary.
What do you mean not at all? They are clearly similar words based on the fact they both start with the same letter. Auschwitz and Buchenwald, now those aren't similar words. 57 states? How could any "academic" add 10 states?

[Dirt McGirt]

You don't think that a certain event has thrown that chart into overdrive?
7 years of excuses. At what point does he accept any sort of responsibility for his policies in your eyes? I don't know about you but I got on with my business after Sep 11 2001.

[Dirt McGirt]

Barack Obama gets bipartisan endorsements from some Wall St heavy hitters. (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/backing-sec-chiefs-gives-obama/story.aspx?guid=%7B787AA129%2D4194%2D4D38%2D8052%2D20F1DCB6295B%7D)


The endorsement of Obama by a bipartisan group of Joe Kennedy's successors - Arthur Levitt, David Ruder and William Donaldson - may help him as much in a general election campaign as the one from Edwards. In their statement, the SEC chiefs praised Obama for his support of "balanced regulatory reform."
"We believe Senator Obama can provide the positive leadership and judgment needed to take us to a stronger and more secure economic future," the three men said in their statement, which for good measure was also signed by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, who endorsed Obama in January and has been an adviser since then.
Two of the former chairmen were Republican appointees (the SEC chairman generally belongs to the party of the president) - Ruder, chairman from 1987 to 1989, was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and William Donaldson, at the SEC from 2003 to 2005, was appointed by George W. Bush. Donaldson, in particular, is an old friend of the Bush family, and his endorsement of a Democratic candidate takes on a particular significance:D.

Wow old school Republican fiscal conservatives are getting behind a Democratic candidate? I really doubt these men would support the "most liberal" senator in congress.

[JaredSS07]

Don't fear the truth. George Bush's legacy (http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7BD68CD0B2-1442-4804-9F6B-AF67DE7FF585%7D&DE=%7BFDD09C4F-E958-4E13-A92B-179C2FAC6FEA%7D&Design=PrintView)

So I post what an independant magazine (which by the way isn't conservative) says and you call it "Arbitrary Republican garbage." However you think we should act like the talking points of the Dem Caucus are legit? Come on now... you are smarter than that.

[Dirt McGirt]

So I post what an independant magazine (which by the way isn't conservative) says and you call it "Arbitrary Republican garbage." However you think we should act like the talking points of the Dem Caucus are legit? Come on now... you are smarter than that.Look at the chart it's all footnoted and sourced to either federal sources or bipartisan think tanks. A comparison of economic stats and metrics using the federal government as the source as opposed to a rather arbitrary conclusion that one senator is more "liberal" than other with no explanation as to how that result was determined leads me to believe it's an election year stunt.

Surprisingly John Kerry was deemed most "liberal" in 2004. Shocking I know.:D

Personally I don't care about labels (unless it's for clothes) I care how my candidate voted on key issues, confirmation of judges, examples of leadership and bipartisanship. Labels are for people unlike ourselves who are too lazy to do basic research and look beyond soundbites before make a decision.

[JaredSS07]

1.Arbitrary Republican garbage. Election year stunt by the right wing media again compare vote for vote. Explain McCain not voting to support the wounded warriors with a stronger GI Bill and in increase in benefits for those that gave the ultimate sacrifice.

2. Rescind the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% and get our troops out of Iraq should more then help fund these vital programs to help the American middle class and still have enough left over to help get us back on the road to fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget.

3. Middle America is a state of mind one that helped elect one of the worst Presidents in the history of our country and no matter how much it matters will vote out of fear rather then reality. Ask me again why the South votes Republican since 1964.

As far as the race issue it's McCain's only hope and it will be exploited by him, the RNC, and whatever PAC group that comes to McCain's aid. Let me be clear about something because I don't think you understand. There may be a million legitimate reason for one not to support Obama. To me race, religion and his name aren't in that category. Exit polls have shown in many states including your own that many people listed race as a deciding factor in there decision and overwhelmingly these people voted for Clinton. So don't get all angry white man talk radio:D like I'm calling you a racist(because I'm not and I haven't) when I'm not I'm merely pointing out what they data has shown in some of these mid west battleground states (including your home state). I promise not to get all angry black preacher man on you when discussing Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain.

I agree that's it's stupid to vote for someone just based on gender or race alone as the sole deciding factor. I'll be honest I would have a hard time voting for a Mormon but I would at least try listen to what that candidate has to say first and see if it mirrors some of my own political opinions and beliefs. If I like what I heard I would most likely put prejudices asdie and cast a vote for him or her.

1. Dealt with

2. I'm not saying that Obama can't find a way to fund these programs. I am saying they are socialist.

3. If only all of our eyes were opened like those of the east coast liberals. To bad that everyone out here is to ignorant to think for themselves. I will discuss the voting trends of the South when you want to discuss the voting trends of the inner city.

4. McCain won't use race against Obama and right now the RNC revolting against McCain. It will be interesting to see how much money and staff is put into this campaign. McCain won't have half the staff of BC04 and right now we are seeing the majority of Victory money going towards Congressional and Senate races. I would guess that there will be roughly the same ratio of IE for McCain as there was for Dole. If you want to see someone using race for political benefit, look no further than the DCCC (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/05/13/dccc-links-greg-davis-to-kkk-founders-statue/).

I agree that race and name are worthless reasons to vote for or against someone. I'm not sure that religion, or lack of, should be thrown out because it is foundation of your life. It affects everything you do and how you see the world. Though I won't vote for someone just because they are the same religion as me.

Here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225979)are some good exit polls for Indiana. It looks like the sample was pretty good, matched the demographics of Indiana, but not large enough. Because of that there isn't enough data on black voters to break down all the questions.
To me, it looks like white voters split their vote, while black overwhelming voted for Obama. 16% of voters said race was important and 47% of them voted for Obama. Doesn't look like racial fear drove people to Clinton.

[JaredSS07]

Look at the chart it's all footnoted and sourced to either federal sources or bipartisan think tanks. A comparison of economic stats and metrics using the federal government as the source as opposed to a rather arbitrary conclusion that one senator is more "liberal" than other with no explanation as to how that result was determined leads me to believe it's an election year stunt.

Surprisingly John Kerry was deemed most "liberal" in 2004. Shocking I know.:D

Personally I don't care about labels (unless it's for clothes) I care how my candidate voted on key issues, confirmation of judges, examples of leadership and bipartisanship. Labels are for people unlike ourselves who are too lazy to do basic research and look beyond soundbites before make a decision.

Arbitrary? You must have missed the big blue link on the right that tells how they calculated the rankings? The roll-calls that the rankings are based on come from federal sources. Obviously that doesn't make something legit to you.

As for Kerry, he has always been known as a very liberal Senator. That ranking was based on votes in 2003. It isn't a surprise that someone running for the Democratic nomination would vote liberal, maybe even more liberal than normal, as they try to appeal to left wing Democrat primary voters.

We both know that statistics and government reports are always spun by the party using them. Republicans have talking points that say President Bush's two terms have been a success, but you wouldn't claim those as being legit.

[Dirt McGirt]

Republicans have talking points that say President Bush's two terms have been a success, but you wouldn't claim those as being legit.
I would actually love to look at them. Specifically something showing an economic improvement over the previous administration. Do you think Bush was a success as a President?

[tigerdave]

Look at the chart it's all footnoted and sourced to either federal sources or bipartisan think tanks. A comparison of economic stats and metrics using the federal government as the source as opposed to a rather arbitrary conclusion that one senator is more "liberal" than other with no explanation as to how that result was determined leads me to believe it's an election year stunt.

Surprisingly John Kerry was deemed most "liberal" in 2004. Shocking I know.:D

Personally I don't care about labels (unless it's for clothes) I care how my candidate voted on key issues, confirmation of judges, examples of leadership and bipartisanship. Labels are for people unlike ourselves who are too lazy to do basic research and look beyond soundbites before make a decision.

The only bipartisanship that the left-wing "progressives" undertake is when the "right-wing Republicans(tm)" cross the aisle and vote with the Dems. I didn't see anything in Obama's voting record, outside of continually voting to fund that war that he was so horribly against to begin with, to indicate he'd be inclined to work on anything remotely conservative in principle.

[Dirt McGirt]

The only bipartisanship that the left-wing "progressives" undertake is when the "right-wing Republicans(tm)" cross the aisle and vote with the Dems. I didn't see anything in Obama's voting record, outside of continually voting to fund that war that he was so horribly against to begin with, to indicate he'd be inclined to work on anything remotely conservative in principle.Some Wall St fiscal conservatives seem to disagree with you. I also think without a mandate from the Democratic congressional leadership, voting against funding the war would have only served to give the RNC an election year attack ad. "Obama doesn't support the troops/military/America." I don't like it but it's the reality of the current times unfortunately. I would bet the meat of his so called " most liberal" rating would come from judicial confirmations. It still seems rather arbitrary considering the Bush administration spending habits. Is voting against the administrations initiatives in itself considered liberal regardless of the issue?

[JaredSS07]

Obama quits Chicago church after long controversy (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080531/D910TLRG0.html)

So has the church gotten so much worse in the past year that Barack finally got disgusted or is he cutting his losses?

Because nothing done during a campaign is apolitical, not to mention that this story was put out over the weekend to limit the coverage, I would say Barack just wanted to cut his losses. Not a very principaled in my opinion.

I wonder if there is a percentage of Black voters that will be turned off by this move and stay home in Nov.