Well, you certainly make Obama look impressive. However, experience is not an absolute; it is relative.

For example, Palin has executive experience; Obama has none. Obama has federal experience in Washington; Palin has none. Only Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Joe Biden have experience in foreign affairs and foreign policy.

In another relative way, Obama sadly lacks experience when he is compared not only to past U.S. presidents, but to most of the former presidential candidates of 2008. Incidentally, those U.S. presidents who have had similar lack of experience, have performed poorly. Beyond the experience issue are the issues of poor judgment and immaturity, which are often the result of inexperience.

Certainly, not selecting Hillary for the vice presidency is poor judgment. Biden has not helped him on the ticket. He is not a smashing vote-getter, like Hillary. He has made statements that have come to haunt him. For example, the statement that working class people are angry and bitter and want and need their religion and guns. If I were to list more of his errors, then I would run out of characters.

Well that's the point, everything in politics is relative. The problem is everyone is talking in absolutes, i.e., just because Palin has more executive experience than Obama, she has accomplished far more than he.

That's why I list the things he did do. I don't do it to hype him up, but instead that he's made some good with his political career.

In a way, I understand your point about Biden. I'm not sold on him yet, truth be told. As for Hillary, I almost think it was strategic to keep her off the ticket. Should Obama lose in 6 weeks, Hillary is odds-on favorite for 2012.

In fact, I truly believe that McCain will win this year (as much as I don't want that to happen), but he won't run in 2012, setting up a Palin vs. Hillary duel in 2012.

the biggest issue i have with obama/biden is that they want to raise all kinds of taxes (payroll, corporate capital gains, death/inheritance tax) to pay for their programs that they believe will make america better. frankly, i don't think we need more money so 'more kids can go to college'. maybe they need to not go to expensive colleges and work like a lot of us do. usually you appreciate what you have to work for more than what is simply given to you. and, frankly, i don't think the rest of us need to pay for their college educations. i also question the '10 year plan' he has to make us energy independent. has anyone seen the specifics? just like barney frank and his coworkers thought that people that could not afford a house on their own and decided that fannie and freddie mae should 'help them', it turned out to be the wrong choice and a financial disaster.
i also don't think that most of us really think about what happens when corporations get their taxes raised. the cost gets passed on to the consumer.

Need not go to expensive colleges? Are you serious?

So if some poor kid from the ghetto is admitted to Harvard, but can only afford to attend the far less expensive Cal State Dominguez Hills, are you saying he or she should forgo the better school, and a quality education, because you don't want to pay for it?

Why should someone be held from attending a quality school just because they can't afford it?

Hey, look, I understand trying to avoid giving handouts, but not everyone who accepts money from social services is lazy or adverse to working hard.

I am a perfect example of that idea. My father passed away and I had no money to go to school. Yet, I had several government grants that helped me pay for my entire education at UCLA, a school I dreamed of attending since I was a small kid. I worked my behind off to graduate, and I very much appreciated what I had -- even though was "given" some money from the government.

There are plenty of people like me out there -- hard-working, honest people who sometimes need a little pick me up. It doesn't hurt to help them along sometimes. No one ever succeeds in this world without a little bit of help, whether that help is moral or financial.

The question is not whether we should have some assistance available, but instead how to make sure that those who really need, those are willing to work but have no means to move up, are the one who receive the help.

I think we should scrap them all and start over with new ones. I found alot of things about Palin I didn't like and with Obama, now I found a few sources but correct me if I am wrong he voted several times for abortions in late term pregnancys where the child is born alive and are left to die.
Please tell me you are going to post for the other side as well.

justme: Yes, I am working on a post for the other side. It's only fair. Just have to confirm a few things, is all. Standby :)

Obama voted to kill babies that have survived an abortion.

I support a women's right to her own body. She has the right to have an abortion. Nobody should force her to carry a baby, if she does not want to have it.

However, once the baby is out of her womb, birth has taken place. A birth cetificate must be issued. Every possible effort must be made to perserve the baby's life, because the baby is no longer part of the women's body.

What Obama wants is murder.

I'm not saying who to vote for in the presidential election and there is a federal law that prevents anyone from asking me, who I'm voting for the presidency. Abortion is only one issue and one should not vote on a single issue. There is the issue of the candidates' experience and maturity. There is the issue of the candidates' association with known terrorists. Finally, there is the issue of the candidates' honesty, integrity, and good judgment. I hope you will exercise good judgment in voting for the best-qualified candidate for the presidency.

I have a question for Stephen...if abortion is a form of murder would the purging of a parasite, say a tapeworm, be animal cruelty? If a woman is plagued by an unwanted parasite, lets stick with a tapeworm, and has it medically removed, which may include cutting it, burning it, and in most instances destroying it in countless ways, leading to it's death, would her and her physician be guilty of animal cruelty? Should they be prosecuted? Should the removal of ticks, tapeworms, or any one of the plethora of parasites be outlawed?

Now please don't take this out of context, I am not calling children parasites, or equating any one's son's or daughter's to insects. I have a child myself who I cherish endlessly. It is just for example purposes.

Some women don't consider their pregnancy a blessing however, some women are dealing with the consequences of rape even. But when they are carrying a embryo, that at it's current stage is nothing more then a cluster of cells, completely incapable of living outside the mother, should any medical attempts be made to try, in vain, to save it if she has chosen to rid it from her body?

If a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, which is her right, should the medical establishment really have to try and save a baby that has no chance at survival when the time and effort could be put toward another human being who is alive, who has been alive, and who has a chance at staying alive?

I am only posing a question in hypothetical format because I found your last comment odd about preserving the baby's life. Abortions are in almost nearly all cases, performed so early on that this is not an option.I don't believe many, including myself, who is steadfastly Pro Choice (Keep in mind no one on earth is PRO abortion, no one is rallying women who don't want one to have one. It is only the woman's right to CHOOSE that so many are fighting for.), is promoting late term abortions, expect maybe under the rare circumstance that it is medically necessary for the mother's dire health. Even then, once it is so late in the pregnancy its more a preterm induction of labor, not a true abortion. In those cases, YES, by all means, try and save the baby. But when it is a futile effort to preserve a life that is unquestionably over, it may be time to draw a line.

Your comment about once the baby is out of the womb just caught might eye, so I thought I would open up some dialogue on where that concept begins and ends.

I do not believe that abortion is murder. However, I do believe that if a baby is born after an attempted abortion, then it is murder. The women's right to choice has already taken place and her body is not affected by the survival of the baby.

As long as a woman must sacrifice, suffer, and risk her life to maintain and preserve a pregnancy, it is her right to decide to terminate that pregnancy. I'm one million percent Pro-Choice!

However, once the baby is out of the womb, then it is none of the women's business. Doctors are sworn to preserve life. The baby survived an abortion. Birth has taken place. Every possible effort must be made to save the baby's life.

"Need not go to expensive colleges? Are you serious?"

Kandriz is absolutely right!Why should I pay for someone (qualified or not)to go to college? I want a corvette, I can't afford it so I can't have it. Simple as that. Life is not fair....

My daughter had a 4.3 GPA in high school and was turned down admission to a very good school due to affirmative action. So some much less qualified individual gets into Berkley simply because he is a minority. Is that fair? She had to "settle" for a lesser school.

According to Obama his grandmother scrimped and saved to put him through college and law school. Let everyone else who wants to go to college do the same thing. Or get a loan and pay it back. Don't expect the rest of the world to take care of you.

One more comment: Your comment about Obama and "the voter registration drive". We now know how he helped ACORN do that....I see dead people.