It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

I find some of the things to be kinda funny and typical of the right wing. When the chips are down and you have no viable candidate, you get all philosophical on our asses.

For one, the president cannot form economic policy. The Congress makes the laws and the president can only sign what comes to his desk. While the president is the Commander and chief, anyone with 1/2 a brain surrounds themselves with the best of the best to make important military decisions. Well, present president excluded. Pro-choice vs. Pro-life will forever divide the 2 parties, no matter who you parade out there.

The truth is, there is no clear cut choice for president. Unfortunately for the Right, the current administration has been so poor that they are gonna have to pull a rabbit out of their ass to win against damn near anybody that the Dems put up there.

America seems to be crying for change and the Reps put up another old retread in McCain. It's time to realize that the majority of Americans are not old, rich white folks. Most of us are lower middle class people who squeak by from paycheck to paycheck.



Where did that come from? Have you been to the gas pump or the grocery store lately?? We are getting gouged left and right and amazingly...the big corps are seeing record profits. If they are raising prices to meet their expenses, shouldn't they sorta be the same as they were?

Won't matter who wins, the rich will get richer and us in the lower-middle class will bump down to lower class or poverty levels.

Good read thanks.

In terms of Senator Obama, Hmmm .... the clouds from the crystal ball are clearing, a faint light is starting to sliver through, and indicates that after a most laudable, and hard fought no surrender battle, with speeches that are earth shaking, indeed not unlike those of President Lincoln's "Emancipation proclamation", and Pastor King's "I had a dream speech" as noted by news members on CNN, and other media broadcasting stations-Senator Obama at last, will try, and accept Senator Clinton's Vice President offer to him. Unfortunately, since he is now so controversial due to various associations, and some with troubling peccadillos, it is not possible-and rejection sets in. Finally, (the light from the crystal is most clear now), he ends up a wealthy collector, and seller of political memorabilia, along with artifacts at future presidential conventions, and of course flea markets too.

The price at the gas pump has only to do with the wall street traders on the futures. The price of oil is now falling. The price increases is due to the Global Warming fallacy. Ethenol production is driving up the priices, causing grain, beef, and anyother things that depends on corn. Obama is all on the global warming thing. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...99-7583,00.html

So why aren't our elected officials doing anything to help us? You keep saying Obama isn't the answer. Obviously Bush isn't. What is McCain gonna do besides keep the status quo, which is falling fast?

All I hear from the right is that Obama gets elected, the sky is falling. Newsflash, it is already falling on most of us. Why is this everybody elses fault but the current administration? You guys are starting to sound like kids...I didn't do it!!

Show me what McCain is gonna do to make our life better. Not the people making 6+ figures, but the rest of us.

bull .... interesting questions ... suspect that both Senator Obama, and President Bush have untapped resources and talents-Obama will do exceptionally well on Saturday Night live-he is quite a funny guy-and as CNN notes a most compelling individual-Hmmm .... do however wonder where that may be? Clearly believe that that President Bush, should take under consideration a new career change, i.e., after he leaves office, possibly becoming head of a new branch of government that does up-beat public relations. Perhaps, the Department of Tension Easement and Relaxation.

With respect to Senator McCain ... Mcain is a true hero, and for this, he has the respect and gratitude of the United States. The Senator, has not been flapping Dixie in terms of economic resolutions as other contenders have. Indeed, he noted that that this is not his long suit by any means. What to do? Suspect that he has the ability to have a new cabinet, and economic advisors that will aid him in decision making policy that best serves the country. Senator McCain is a man of his word, works apparently with both republicans and democrats, and has made some difficult decisions that can attest to his experience in decision making, and good will with the best interests of the United States in mind. Thank you Senator McCain for your courage, and unselfness that you more than displayed when serving in Nam, along with all your fellow mates that served there with you.
May God be with you. Happy Easter.

I have the utmost respect for Mr. McCain and all he has done for our great country. He is truly a great man. That is not the question.

Words are easy to say. Hell, Bush made promises too and look at where we are.

I have no doubt that any of the candidates want to do what they feel is right, but why is one so evil and will destroy the American way of life while the other will make it all better? They all make promises, but do any of them have the power to make them happen? I say no. In many ways the president is a figurehead, the face of the current power that is.

I would challenge any and every politician (a word that rings closer to scumbag with each passing day) to show us. They can all talk, they can all take $$ from pacs and big business and they can all say one thing and do another. I think the real problem here is that our government has spiralled so far out of control that there is little that can be done to save it. Politically, we are a freaking disaster. Our "leaders" are out picking up men in public restrooms, sleeping with young men or prostitutes, taking money from the wrong people...and the list goes on and on.

These are the people who make the laws and enforce them?!?!?

Tell me what one man can do to stop this?

God help us all in the direction we are heading.

I'm going to have to side with Bull on this one. I like to consider myself more 'middle of the road' than anything, however, I tend to lean right when push comes to shove. My income and lifestyle (yours too, Ace) depends on a solid conservative (pro-military) administration being in office.

And while I agree that Obama may not be the way to go when Election Day comes, Hillary definitely is not the way to go. We've already seen her revert to mudslinging tactics when it became apparent she was losing control of the Primary Race. She'll do anything to get into power - including throwing a tantrum and firing key people in her campaign for no good reason, playing the vicitim because she's a woman - yet tossing the race card out there like it's different, posting her own people into Obama's to stir the turds during campaign speeches, make false claims of enhanced skills and experience based on her husband's tenure, and surrounding herself with dishonest and racist people.

Is that the kind of CiC you want in office when things start going badly with countries we're trying to keep from launching attacks against us or our interests?

No thanks.

I know 4 years is a long time, but honestly, I think it's time to 'flip the mattress' and hope for something new. McCain will keep some things rolling in the same direction, but I think he's a little more of a known-quantity. Obama on the other hand, will most likely stir things up - and I don't know that that's a bad thing necessarily. We've endured almost 20 years of either a Bush or Clinton in office - and I think the whole 'tit-for-tat' and 'revenge politics' needs to stop. We need an administration that's able to concentrate on running the country, rather than keep the age-old rhetoric of undoing anything (good or bad) from the previous administration 'just because' in place. Worse case scenario (administration-wise, that is) we push the 'flush' lever in 4 years and start over.

I think McCain is just left-leaning enough to make some good things happen and become a 'happy medium,' which will only help us in the long run. I think people want a 'less-intense' flavor of Bush, providing "more of the same" slows to a crawl.

But I also think Obama jumping in from a completely different direction might be a little painful early on, and bring about some 'WTF?!' moments. But it might also buy us a little political currency with the rest of the world - which can't hurt at this point. Once that starts rolling in the right direction again, we might notice other things getting better - like the dollar making gains again. With our economy on the mend, everything else will fall back into place.

No matter who gets in there, I think we've outstayed our welcome in Iraq. I don't know that there's a graceful way to exit, unless the Iraqis grow a pair and start taking care of themselves. And that won't happen unless we start showing signs of drawing down - once they figure out that it's their problem to take care of themselves, then we can leave.

So as far as Obama goes - I think that maybe some change is in order. Like Bull says, We're a mess economically, and more of the same means exactly that - more of the same. Lately, with the economy dropping like a rock (Global Warming Farce or not), more of the same means more of the economy slipping down the hole. I don't think anybody wants any more of that - no matter who gets in there.

And don't fool yourself - OPEC is screwing us, not the investors and stock marketeers. With the prices in the range they're currently in, OPEC's driving the bus. Haven't you noticed about the time the prices seem to start stabilizing or turning around, OPEC decides it's time to cut production? They're manipulating the market to keep the prices high. Face it, they're getting 400% profit right now over 3 years ago - they're not going to want to let that go anytime soon. They just built an indoor ski-resort in the desert and have been basically terra-forming islands of their own design in the Persian Gulf, after all. That costs money.

All we can do at this point is hope for the best, and wait for our potential presidents elect to step on their own before they take office and do the same.

bull ... I have the utmost respect for Mr. McCain and all he has done for our great country. He is truly a great man. That is not the question.

Words are easy to say. Hell, Bush made promises too and look at where we are.

I have no doubt that any of the candidates want to do what they feel is right, but why is one so evil and will destroy the American way of life while the other will make it all better?

Suspect this depends on a person’s ideology and belief system. In this regard, the personal history, back ground, experience, associations, and truthfulness are very important factors in how they will attempt to govern.


They all make promises, but do any of them have the power to make them happen? I say no. In many ways the president is a figurehead, the face of the current power that is.

This is most troubling to say one thing and do another. In war time would guess what is said, and done often enough is for the opposition’s benefit. The idea of promises, and reality often seem like very distant relatives. But, what would be at this time, a good method to measure, and then to determine the ability for one to keep the promises they make-less a history of their deeds, experiences, and public service?
I would challenge any and every politician (a word that rings closer to scumbag with each passing day) to show us.
Would you accept (perhaps for starters) the company they keep, and who has influenced them in the shaping of their lives and careers?
They can all talk, they can all take $$ from pacs and big business and they can all say one thing and do another. I think the real problem here is that our government has spiralled so far out of control that there is little that can be done to save it. Politically, we are a freaking disaster. Our "leaders" are out picking up men in public restrooms, sleeping with young men or prostitutes, taking money from the wrong people...and the list goes on and on.
A person’s moral make-up should be an extremely important social ingredient when selecting a person for especially public office, a husband, or a wife. Using ones status in public office to indulge in sex, drugs, or money is obviously not very bright, and therefore, these happy hunters should not be in office-especially, those that use public money to pay for their fun times, e.g., currently, sighted Governors, or non-sighted Governors, and Mayors.
These are the people who make the laws and enforce them?!?!?
Tell me what one man can do to stop this?
He can start by example, by supporting his peers that are involved with education, and social programs that reward, and help families with work, and self-sufficiency. Payback is required over time-but the biggest payback would come with the reduction of large populations in the slam that are converted to productive citizens-how is that for being idealistic, and pie in the sky-Apple please?
God help us all in the direction we are heading.

Great post Eric.

Df...

I guess you are a bit less of a pessimist than I am. I don't think it matters who is in charge at this point. The warden is in charge of the prison, but the people under him are still what they are. I am no totally sold on Obama over McCain, but to imply that Obama is not honest or a good leader just because he doesn't share ones political, ethnic or social beliefs is just not right. Hilary on the other hand, well, she made her own bed many times. I think that most of the complaints against Obama are because he is young and black.

Besides...anybody can spin themselves into anything they want. It is who the person truly is in their heart that matters. Religion, race, sex...don't mean shit.

Bull … perhaps a little optimistic given a little personal social time travel, and observation. Firstly, when very young, was involved with something called a depression. In the past, like now many folks lost homes, jobs, and the mood of the general population was indeed down. This social atmosphere prompted the idea of safety nets called Social Security, and other governmental actions were started, and installed by then
President Franklin Roosevelt.
Of course, the 1940ties changed much of what happened, because we were a little concerned after Pear Harbor was attacked … many were killed, and the nation started to gear up to fight a foe that wished to change our way of life, and basic freedoms.

At the start of the 1950ties got a few bumps on my head with the start of the cold war, and the Korean war, but fortunately, was not shipped over, but served training others.

Was drafted for something called the Lebanon crisis during the late 50ties in something called the Pen Atomic Army-which translated into bags packed, and ready to leave-never left.

The 60ties was a generation of change from “Father Knows Best” to the Civil rights movement, the VietNam war and many deaths and injuries, and so on.

70ties (high interest rates under then President Carter-and Iranian bad guys held a few Americans hostage-Canada helped us out by taking in these guys for protection-putting their butts on the line-thanks Canada-friends indeed.) and 80ties were several city burning, military in the streets calming down riots, and so on. All this time, the USSR had large atomic bombs aboard rockets pointed this way, which would pass ours going their way!
Still in the 80ties everyone was learning Japanese, because they owned many plants and factories-even a few golf clubs-much concern in an economic take over-late 80ties the USSR went out of business-BTW, there are more billionaires today in a place called Moscow than New York City, you know the place that makes salsa for dip!

The 90ties to now all have a good idea of real-estate concerns, overseas jobs, and something called the global economy…. All this stuff taken in context indicates to me that the United States is very resilient, and bounces back from all kinds of adversity, strife, and even the news media, which has not in the least distinguished themselves with poor journalism, and their own interests at promoting often fallacious news stories that they eat (retract) after the fact, in some instances. Yes, indeed am quite optimistic! Why? Because we have shown, and continue to show as a nation, we just have what it takes. BTW, we do not have to vote for any one party, or person we consider to be a loser.

I am afraid that we are damn near there now. People are losing homes at an alarming rate, jobs are going bye-bye and the mood sucks.

No, disagree with you, we are there now-an extreme economic downturn! Then, why not the publicity of the "depression" word used in the past? It is not that intense yet as in the 1930ties, because of established safety nets that were not in place at that time. E.g., notice, even the FHA loan is now a viable consideration in terms of home loans again. Yes, the mood does indeed suck at present too.

The reason no one is saying "depression" or "recession" is that they're afraid, plain and simple. They don't want to cause a major panic and run on banks like there was in the 1930's. But it IS happening, and going downhill faster than a greased pig on a waterslide. Just because you don't hear the actual word does not mean it isn't happening. To claim otherwise is sticking your head in the sand with everyone else.

Or there's another possibility. You know how there used to be "shell shock"? Then it became "combat fatigue". Now it's "post-traumatic stress disorder". All of them mean the same damn thing, but it's nicer and less scary for the housewives watching CNN or Fox News 24/7 to hear. So maybe we're hearing "extreme economic downturn" instead of "depression". Political correctness also doesn't mean you're not saying the same thing, you're just sugar-coating it.

Felix has it right. The other reason that word is not said is that it is an election year.