Obama beats McCain in three swing states: poll - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Janett_Reno · 06-18-2008, 12:45 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080618...l_080618153230

For the first time, White House hopeful Barack Obama leads his Republican rival John McCain in three of the biggest battlegrounds of November's election, according to a new poll Wednesday.

The surveys by Quinnipiac University also found independent voters are opposed to defeated primary contender Hillary Clinton running as Obama's running mate on the Democratic ticket.

Another poll out Wednesday by Zogby had Obama leading McCain by 47 percent to 42 nationally, with a 22-point lead among all-important independents.

The Quinnipiac polls had Obama besting McCain 52-40 percent in Pennsylvania, 48-42 percent in Ohio, and 47-43 in Florida. All three states are crucial building blocks to an election triumph for either candidate in November.

In all three states, Obama leads McCain among female voters by 10 to 23 percentage points, but among men the two contenders are "too close to call," Quinnipiac University Polling Institute assistant director Peter Brown said.

"Finally getting Senator Hillary Clinton out of the race has been a big boost for Senator Barack Obama," he said.

Clinton beat Obama in the three states' Democratic primaries, although neither campaigned in Florida because of a scheduling row. Obama lagged particularly among working-class voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

"Senator Obama is certainly not out of the woods, but these results are a good indication that he enters the summer slightly ahead in the race to be the next president," Brown said.

The Quinnipiac surveys found that while most Democrats back Clinton to join Obama's ticket, clear pluralities of independent voters in all three states were against seeing the former first lady run as his vice president.

"If Senator Obama seriously is thinking about picking Senator Clinton as his running mate, these numbers might cause him to reconsider," Brown said.

"The people who really matter come November -- independent voters -- turn thumbs down on the idea. And, many say they are less likely to vote for him if he puts her on the ticket," he said.

The Quinnipiac polls also suggested that one in five voters see McCain's age as a reason to vote against him. At 72 in January, the Republican would be the oldest president sworn in to a first term.

"But overwhelmingly they don't see Obama's race as a factor at all -- indicating that Americans are either much less concerned with race, or just don't want to tell callers what they really think on the subject," Brown said.

----------------------------------------------------------

According to the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Maine voters, Obama now leads his Republican opponent 55% to 33%.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Virginia voters finds Obama with a statistically insignificant one-percentage point lead over McCain, 45% to 44%.

Wi Obama (D) 52%, McCain (R) 43%

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Alaska voters finds John McCain earning 45% of the vote while Barack Obama attracts 41%.

----------------------------------------------------------------

What is scarry for Republicans? McCain 72 and alot of Republicans do not support him. Obama, most liberal man in the senate and going to be the president of the usa. McCain is from the state of Az and Obama has a chance of winning Az. McCain does have a lead in Az but the gop has to pour money in to try to hold Obama off. Obama is polling good in Az. Va a Republcain state and Obama is leading but close. Ga is a huge Republican state and Obama has a good shot of winning Ga. It is other swing states Obama is in the lead and close to McCain in many Republican states. This one is going to be hard for Libberman/McCain to pull off. If Obama wins OH, FL and PA, the race is over anyway. FL surprises me because it is alot of seniors and i figured they would back McCain but maybe they see our infrastructure is in bad shape under Republicans, healthcare is not a priority with Republicans, they do not care about global warming as big oil is put first. McCain wants to give big tax breaks to Exon/Mobile and Obama wants to tax big oil and people making 250 thousand and above and give tax breaks for ones under this. I think seniors and all people are listening to Obama speak, comparred to McCain/Bush/Cheney/Libberman and liking Obama better.

It is very early yet but i see this a hard one for McCain to pull off.

wmbwinn · 06-18-2008, 02:21 PM

It's not news that Obama is expected to win. But, Hillary was considered an auto-win earlier so we'll see what happens between now and November.

I think that Obama better come out with a plan to deal with oil prices. His statements that drilling and exploration
1)take too long to help
2)won't result in enough oil to matter for very long

might be true. But, it doesn't matter. When McCain stands up with an "answer" and Obama has no answer (other than to attack McCain's answer), that might hurt Obama.

Obama has no answer for how to deal with terrorism other than to go talk to them. That might help McCain.

But, for now, the polls are not wrong. It is generally assumed that Obama will be the next president unless something changes dramatically.

Janett_Reno · 06-18-2008, 07:23 PM

This is the way i see it on how they stand on issues. McCain said he would give oil companies and it was mentioned Exon Mobile a tax break. Obama said he would cleary tax big oil and that means Exon Mobile. McCain wants to help the rich and cut the middle class and poor. Obama is right the opposite. Obama has said he would tax anyone making over 250 thousand a year, they would pay more taxes and he said people making less than 250 grand a year, would pay less taxes.

Many have mentioned and even Republicans that McCain knows nothing on economics. Republicans are begging to hire people that know economics and let them help McCain, on what to say and what to do. I feel people will not blame JFK, carter or Clinton on the hard times we are in. The blame is on W's and Chains back. Yes we can make excuses but the people want to hold someone acountable. Our infrasturucture is worse in this adm. We really do need to pay attenion to levies, roads, bridges, our borders, because it really matters. I am not sure where McCain stands on our infrastructure but Bush/Chains could care less. They stand for one thing and that is Libberman and Israel. The middle east is everything to this adm.

I won't go into Iraq but as far as a military man, McCain wins here but the public doesn't want to invade Iran, Syria and even stay in the middle east. So really how much does McCain's military help against Obama? This is yet to be seen but the American public does not want to stay in Iraq or invade Iran. The neocons do. Not all Republicans want to, just the neocon Republicans.

The people have to decide who is best on healthcare, jobs, and the middle east will also be huge on what the people want. They had a special on drilling in the usa and the results was it would bring down the price of gas .01 and it would take 10 years to get it up and where we needed it. Republicans in Co have fought Bush every step not to drill in Co and say go to Alaska, FL, etc. Stevens in Alaska is a crook and has been tried on different things and is tied to big oil and i feel he would love drilling in Alaska. Alaska never elects a Democrat and Obama is maybe 4 points behind in a total Republican state.

Where Hillary woiuld have won TN/KY and fringe Republican southern states, Obama won't but then again here comes VA and GA. The Republicans can not let Obama win two of the big three. Ohio, Florida and PA. They must hold FL and OH because Obama will win PA. Then Obama has to pick off a southern state or two. It will be interesting but Obama is doing to the Republicans what Rove has done to the Democrats and they can't out smart him(or haven't yet). He is one step ahead. He isn't a weasel either, when Kerry was attacked, they told him to be quiet and Obama doesn't stay quiet. He answers and then delivers an attack worse.

In the end i feel the economy will be the number one issue in this election. To many people are hurting. Watch Obama how he ties McCain to Bush/Cheney, who he will tax and who McCain will tax, watch where they stand on the middle east, jobs, oil/gas, health care.

The polls hurt Hillary today. It was polls showing McCain had no chance of winning if he picked Hillary. Today shows the undecided breaking Obama to where he doesn't need Hillary to win. The three states i mentioned are going to be huge again.

The Republicans must push the terrorist are comming to get you. We need to invade them before they come here. Obama must push Iraq war and economics. I feel the old rule of taxes is not a good play with McCain as he wants to help give oil tax breaks.

I agree with you on Hillary, she was suppose to win and didn't, so the polls are way to early. One last thing is money. Who will raise the most money to attack the other? Money usually wins.

For me, i do not trust a Libberman/McCain as they stand differ each week. Fip flopping around or atleast McCain does. I think you know the Republicans i am comphy with. I am ok with Obama as i feel we do need change and i also feel jobs and economics is number one. I also feel the usa is number one on protecting us and building up our infrastructure. Not the middle east and people that do not even like us. I think both McCain and Obama are not in favor of us giving all our money to China and making us a slave to China and where this adm loves it.

McCain's offshore drilling is a flip flop from 3 or 4 weeks ago. This guy use to be pretty smart but when Bush/Cheney was going to kick him to the curb and he joined the neocons it hurt him bad. Now people wonder is it his age or is he just a flip flopper on what flavor of the week it is. In the end i feel age, Bush/Cheney, economics, gas, jobs will get McCain in trouble. Maybe even healthcare and the middle east is still up in the air and maybe this does favor McCain but not sure. The biggest bad thing on McCains back is Bush/Cheney and that might be a hard thing to shake in the end.

jefelump · 06-18-2008, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

This is the way i see it on how they stand on issues. McCain said he would give oil companies and it was mentioned Exon Mobile a tax break. Obama said he would cleary tax big oil and that means Exon Mobile. McCain wants to help the rich and cut the middle class and poor. Obama is right the opposite. Obama has said he would tax anyone making over 250 thousand a year, they would pay more taxes and he said people making less than 250 grand a year, would pay less taxes.

Many have mentioned and even Republicans that McCain knows nothing on economics. Republicans are begging to hire people that know economics and let them help McCain, on what to say and what to do. I feel people will not blame JFK, carter or Clinton on the hard times we are in. The blame is on W's and Chains back. Yes we can make excuses but the people want to hold someone acountable. Our infrasturucture is worse in this adm. We really do need to pay attenion to levies, roads, bridges, our borders, because it really matters. I am not sure where McCain stands on our infrastructure but Bush/Chains could care less. They stand for one thing and that is Libberman and Israel. The middle east is everything to this adm.

I won't go into Iraq but as far as a military man, McCain wins here but the public doesn't want to invade Iran, Syria and even stay in the middle east. So really how much does McCain's military help against Obama? This is yet to be seen but the American public does not want to stay in Iraq or invade Iran. The neocons do. Not all Republicans want to, just the neocon Republicans.

The people have to decide who is best on healthcare, jobs, and the middle east will also be huge on what the people want. They had a special on drilling in the usa and the results was it would bring down the price of gas .01 and it would take 10 years to get it up and where we needed it. Republicans in Co have fought Bush every step not to drill in Co and say go to Alaska, FL, etc. Stevens in Alaska is a crook and has been tried on different things and is tied to big oil and i feel he would love drilling in Alaska. Alaska never elects a Democrat and Obama is maybe 4 points behind in a total Republican state.

Where Hillary woiuld have won TN/KY and fringe Republican southern states, Obama won't but then again here comes VA and GA. The Republicans can not let Obama win two of the big three. Ohio, Florida and PA. They must hold FL and OH because Obama will win PA. Then Obama has to pick off a southern state or two. It will be interesting but Obama is doing to the Republicans what Rove has done to the Democrats and they can't out smart him(or haven't yet). He is one step ahead. He isn't a weasel either, when Kerry was attacked, they told him to be quiet and Obama doesn't stay quiet. He answers and then delivers an attack worse.

In the end i feel the economy will be the number one issue in this election. To many people are hurting. Watch Obama how he ties McCain to Bush/Cheney, who he will tax and who McCain will tax, watch where they stand on the middle east, jobs, oil/gas, health care.

The polls hurt Hillary today. It was polls showing McCain had no chance of winning if he picked Hillary. Today shows the undecided breaking Obama to where he doesn't need Hillary to win. The three states i mentioned are going to be huge again.

The Republicans must push the terrorist are comming to get you. We need to invade them before they come here. Obama must push Iraq war and economics. I feel the old rule of taxes is not a good play with McCain as he wants to help give oil tax breaks.

I agree with you on Hillary, she was suppose to win and didn't, so the polls are way to early. One last thing is money. Who will raise the most money to attack the other? Money usually wins.

For me, i do not trust a Libberman/McCain as they stand differ each week. Fip flopping around or atleast McCain does. I think you know the Republicans i am comphy with. I am ok with Obama as i feel we do need change and i also feel jobs and economics is number one. I also feel the usa is number one on protecting us and building up our infrastructure. Not the middle east and people that do not even like us. I think both McCain and Obama are not in favor of us giving all our money to China and making us a slave to China and where this adm loves it.

McCain's offshore drilling is a flip flop from 3 or 4 weeks ago. This guy use to be pretty smart but when Bush/Cheney was going to kick him to the curb and he joined the neocons it hurt him bad. Now people wonder is it his age or is he just a flip flopper on what flavor of the week it is. In the end i feel age, Bush/Cheney, economics, gas, jobs will get McCain in trouble. Maybe even healthcare and the middle east is still up in the air and maybe this does favor McCain but not sure. The biggest bad thing on McCains back is Bush/Cheney and that might be a hard thing to shake in the end.

Wow, you said "neocon" three times in that post. To quote Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Flacolaco · 06-18-2008, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Obama has said he would tax anyone making over 250 thousand a year, they would pay more taxes and he said people making less than 250 grand a year, would pay less taxes

I hope you didn't believe him. We'll all be paying more taxes.

Even if that were true....I don't understand how anyone could get behind that. It is unfair to tax some people a small percentage, and others a large percentage. It is unfair. It makes no sense. There is no way to explain it.

And why stop there? Lets ask to see a W2 at the gas station to determine your tax on a fill up. Maybe a variable tax scale at the grocery store when you're buying milk. "Sorry Mr Business man, that's 2.99 x 1.39 = 4.15 for your milk, sir. Have a nice effing day."

Ridiculous and unfair. Lets tax people who EARN more money. "Hey way to go on being successful, but I'm going to have to penalize you for it."

jefelump · 06-18-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I hope you didn't believe him. We'll all be paying more taxes.

Even if that were true....I don't understand how anyone could get behind that. It is unfair to tax some people a small percentage, and others a large percentage. It is unfair. It makes no sense. There is no way to explain it.

And why stop there? Lets ask to see a W2 at the gas station to determine your tax on a fill up. Maybe a variable tax scale at the grocery store when you're buying milk. "Sorry Mr Business man, that's 2.99 x 1.39 = 4.15 for your milk, sir. Have a nice effing day."

Ridiculous and unfair. Lets tax people who EARN more money. "Hey way to go on being successful, but I'm going to have to penalize you for it."

Exactly right. Mane of those people making over $250k/yr are small business owners, who use their earnings to employ others. By raising their taxes, you cause them to employ fewer people (aka LAY OFFs). So yea, let's "tax the rich" and watch the poor (by Obama's definition those making less than $250k/yr) lose their jobs. Great plan Obama

u2sarajevo · 06-18-2008, 08:10 PM

One of the many things that scares me about our next President is that he has now said several times that he essentially supports a maximum wage.

How can anyone get behind that?

Flacolaco · 06-18-2008, 08:14 PM

It's flat out un-American

Janett_Reno · 06-18-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefelump

Exactly right. Mane of those people making over $250k/yr are small business owners, who use their earnings to employ others. By raising their taxes, you cause them to employ fewer people (aka LAY OFFs). So yea, let's "tax the rich" and watch the poor (by Obama's definition those making less than $250k/yr) lose their jobs. Great plan Obama

Bush tried trickle down economics and has it trickled down? I won't mention names that has been tickled and trickled but i do not see where it is raining down to the middle class. Why give Exon Mobile tax breaks and not the middle class American?

I'll give an example. I happen to know a company that many friends work for. This company is connected to what gm, ford and other car companies do. This company also let it known that Republicans are working for you and it trickles down. The company said to all workers, never listen to a union or try to start one as it would wreck you and the company. A big Republican friend here always told of how great the Iraq war was going and really mission was acomplished. He said the media just made Iraq look bad and it really wasn't.

Then this company was hit bad by Ford and GM, not selling cars and suvs and they started cutting back parts. Diesel engines from Dymler took a huge hit and then they started taking pay cuts, not much insurance, dental taken away and said no pay raises and probably ever. This was people that had been there 20 years and more. They wanted them to match the stock plan. It wasn't long they took bankrupcy and actually wanted out of filling orders and take the money and run. The judge said no, you have the money and you must fill the orders. The stock went down and then it was nothing. They took it off the stock market and then reconstructed and started new stock and screwed anyone that had stock. Then a ceo or two took a 20 million bonus and retired. The union swooped in and flooded the papers locally to sign up for the union, we will help you. The employess tried to listen to what had been said to them but the company big wigs gave in and did what they said to never do. The employees feel in many ways they was duked.

This company now is starting to shut down for a week or two weeks at a time because they have no orders to fill(they filled the ones in a year or so that they took the money on). I feel the company will fold or maybe sell out if anyone will take them. I asked a friend other day, i know you are so proud Hillary is out and he could not stand Hillary. He is a huge Republican and the one that said the war was going good, just like one i know in here always use to say. It was just all overblown on the media.

Now this Republican told me, he sure wishes Hillary was in the race because he is scarred to death. I asked why. He is afraid of Obama and is afraid he has won. He can't stand McCain and now says W was a failure. He and some at that company and many Republicans got trickled on as ceo's got out with a nice bonus and now these many, many people wonder what they will do if this co folds.

Why i even bring up this story, many people and many Republicans are feeling the same thing and they are jumping ship to anyone besides a Republican. He now thinks Hillary is much more conservative than McCain and Obama. Not only does he feel he is going to lose his job where he has been for 23 years but he has no choice on someone to vote for. It is many other Republicans are feeling the pinch and feeling they have been trickled on.

Again, you have your opinion and feel Exon Mobile deserves more tax breaks but i feel the majority of the American people will like a tax break at less than 250 grand a year. I might be wrong but we will see. Not just Democrats are losing jobs but Republicans are also. They are not happy campers. He has a new view on faith and values.

Flacolaco · 06-18-2008, 09:33 PM

Why is it fair that a family who makes more than 250k a year will be taxed a higher percentage?

Explain that to us, because we are puzzled.

Janett_Reno · 06-18-2008, 10:15 PM

Read what Warren Buffett says...

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3869458&page=1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel more Americans will like Obama's approach than McCain's. Thanks to this adm that has put many middle class into the poor and even some rich into the middle class or poor. The republican i speak of is changing his mind about some things and he is not the only one. When people do not have jobs and lose them after 25 years and has alot of college degree and are kicked to the curb it hurts. The Democratic senate and congress is tied to Bush/Cheney two years of the eight. Greenspan, Hagel and others told of how this adm has wrecked or tried to wreck this economy and has done a good job. This adm had 6 years of a Republican senate and congress and see what all three branches done.

Many Republicans, middle class and the poor are looking for relief. Who's message will they listen to? Is Obama's tax plan or is McCain's tax plan right? I can't answer that for anyone but i know for me who has faith and values. I am not complaining one way or the other on taxes as i am fine. I pay my share and i will pay what i am suppose to. I am saying i feel Obama's message will be liked by more than McCain's and even the senior citizens in the end that liked Hillary. Who will help the bigger majority of the people in the end? Many people are hurting and yes politicians say alot to get elected and neither party will follow thru on most.

Flacolaco · 06-18-2008, 10:31 PM

Way to avoid the question.

Taxing people the way liberals want to is basically socialism. I don't think I'll vote for that.

And by the way, I will never make more than 250k a year at the rate I'm going...it's not personal. It's the principal of the thing. The American Dream is stolen away. When I was in Las Vegas last weekend, I saw a woman win $43,000+ on a slot machine. I wonder if Obama wants a disproportional piece of that as well...

jefelump · 06-18-2008, 10:38 PM

Of course he does, the tax rate on gambling is higher than it is on salaries.

Janett_Reno · 06-18-2008, 10:53 PM

I am not saying i am right. Everyone gets to vote. I like people with substance, not phony's. Not people that stand up behind slogans and have no substance. I do not like the ones that sell us out to China because i love my country and i do not want to fund the middle east that hates us or fund China. I want to pay the American people and protect them. I like my tax dollars helping Americans and building my country up, not tearing it down or sending my tax dollars to the middle east and build them up.

I know many in here are in love with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield but i am not one of them. I do not think they was good for our country or our economy. Plus we are less safe. I am not saying this because they have Republican after their name. I happen to like Greenspan, Hagel, Romney, Newt and even though Huckabee had some pretty wild ideas, he wasn't bad at all and had substance. He wasn't a phony.

Some will say the ones i have issues with are Democrats and that is Bush, Cheney, Rudy, Libberman and McCain. McCain wasn't half bad at one time untill he sold his soul to the neocons. I don't like his flip flopping on him asking people, what am i suppose to say this week? He has no substance to him. He is just another puppet like W Bush was. This is the way i feel. His dad wasn't and i liked him just fine.

As far as gambling, i think anything over $1,500 is taxed on one lick or one hit. Maybe it is differ for differ states, not sure.

Janett_Reno · 06-18-2008, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Way to avoid the question.

Taxing people the way liberals want to is basically socialism. I don't think I'll vote for that.

And by the way, I will never make more than 250k a year at the rate I'm going...it's not personal. It's the principal of the thing. The American Dream is stolen away. When I was in Las Vegas last weekend, I saw a woman win $43,000+ on a slot machine. I wonder if Obama wants a disproportional piece of that as well...

Our country is more than taxes. It is about jobs that we are hurting on now. Some will say well give more tax breaks to big oil and this creates jobs. Instead of giving our money to China and the middle east, why not help get us off oil and the middle east? Why not put that money into other alteratives? Money needs to be going that way, not big breaks to big oil. As long as we stay a slave to Saudi and are in bed with them, they can treat us anyway they want to and we look the other way. It's not right to say if you want a job, then go to the middle east. We want jobs in our country.

As we need our infrastructure built up and our borders protected where we can be safe, this adm has bankrupted us. We have to borrow money from China to even try to help ourself and our country. This isn't the American way. Billions of dollars for contracts that was in Iraq just vanished and they say they have no trace of it. It just floated away and no big deal. I happen to think that is a big deal. Is that values you teach to your kids? We don't teach that where i am from.

As the Iraqi gov want's to put timetables on us to get out as they are already dealing with Iran. Is this really what we wanted? An Iraqi gov being run by Iran? Funding Iraq will be like funding Iran then, if that happens. I don't think that is smart. Mission wasn't acomplished and isn't now because we can't make them people live like us and have the same laws. Our troops did the job and a fine one but now what? Look at the healthcare they do not get when they get back here. This isn't right.

This election is important about faith and values and what is right and what is wrong. Not slogans. So if taxes is your main thing and you feel that is all that needs to be addressed, vote the way you feel about taxes. I happen to think this election is about alot of stuff and as bad of shape this adm has us in, no one will get us out of this fast. It will take along time and someone with substance that loves this country and really tries to do right. I like buying things American made, that my fellow Americans have made. I like helping them. That is where my values are.

Janett_Reno · 06-19-2008, 12:11 AM

I got off topic and did not mean to. I am going to read awhile. I think it is an interesting race but i think McCain is going to have to get some really smart people behind him. Keep him on topic and he really needs to hit the south and those swing states. He has a huge weight around him in this adm. Obama needs to just keep on speaking like he is and stay smart and do not make any slip ups.

I am also very interested in who both pick for the vp's. In all fairness i think i saw McCain ahead by 1% point about an hour ago in FL in another poll. It is also interesting that they say Obama can win by winning like not any other Democrat has in winning some states a Democrat hardly ever wins. Still it is a very close race now. McCain winning FL and Oh puts alot of pressure on the Democrats and that can happen as those are two big swing states.

It is interesting seeing Hillary winning KY and beating McCain but with Obama, McCain clobbers him in KY. The vp picks for both will probably be people that can maybe help both in Oh and Fl.

jefelump · 06-19-2008, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

I am not saying i am right. Everyone gets to vote. I like people with substance, not phony's. Not people that stand up behind slogans and have no substance. I do not like the ones that sell us out to China because i love my country and i do not want to fund the middle east that hates us or fund China. I want to pay the American people and protect them. I like my tax dollars helping Americans and building my country up, not tearing it down or sending my tax dollars to the middle east and build them up.

I know many in here are in love with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield but i am not one of them. I do not think they was good for our country or our economy. Plus we are less safe. I am not saying this because they have Republican after their name. I happen to like Greenspan, Hagel, Romney, Newt and even though Huckabee had some pretty wild ideas, he wasn't bad at all and had substance. He wasn't a phony.

Some will say the ones i have issues with are Democrats and that is Bush, Cheney, Rudy, Libberman and McCain. McCain wasn't half bad at one time untill he sold his soul to the neocons. I don't like his flip flopping on him asking people, what am i suppose to say this week? He has no substance to him. He is just another puppet like W Bush was. This is the way i feel. His dad wasn't and i liked him just fine.

As far as gambling, i think anything over $1,500 is taxed on one lick or one hit. Maybe it is differ for differ states, not sure.

If you "like people with substance" and dislike people that "stand up behind slogans and have no substance," then you clearly don't like Obama. Does that mean you're voting for McCain?

chumdawg · 06-19-2008, 12:54 AM

I saw a McCain ad on my cable TV tonight, here in Texas. Odd...

Arne · 06-19-2008, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

One of the many things that scares me about our next President is that he has now said several times that he essentially supports a maximum wage.

How can anyone get behind that?

Did he really say that? That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while....

Arne · 06-19-2008, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I hope you didn't believe him. We'll all be paying more taxes.

Even if that were true....I don't understand how anyone could get behind that. It is unfair to tax some people a small percentage, and others a large percentage. It is unfair. It makes no sense. There is no way to explain it.

And why stop there? Lets ask to see a W2 at the gas station to determine your tax on a fill up. Maybe a variable tax scale at the grocery store when you're buying milk. "Sorry Mr Business man, that's 2.99 x 1.39 = 4.15 for your milk, sir. Have a nice effing day."

Ridiculous and unfair. Lets tax people who EARN more money. "Hey way to go on being successful, but I'm going to have to penalize you for it."

First of all, I do think an income tax is injust and I do think it's illegal.

But if someone wants to tax the wealthy and reduce the burden on the poor, than all he has to do is put a national sales tax in place that will be different from product to product. 0% on milk and groceries, 25% on Masserattis and Porsches, 0% on education, 15 % on technology, etc, etc. These rates could be made up thorugh democratic procedures. I do think that that would be a lot fairer than the current system. Because you wouldn't tax working people but people who have enough left to spend it on things that are not vital or clearly luxury goods. The way it works now, some entrepreneurs won't be able to hire new people, since the income tax took their "income", even though it's not income if you eventually use it on hiring more people.

A varying tax rate like that would tax consumption, not work.

Plus, if what Warren Buffett says is true, then wouldn't it be fair to make adjustments so that rich people won't be able to somehow surpass the income tax? Because if Warren Buffett has to pay less taxes than his staff, than something is wrong. Why should his staff have to pay more? Are they not worthy of handling their own money as much as Buffett?

mcsluggo · 06-19-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arne

Did he really say that? That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while....

no, of course he didn't really say that. Since when has THAT mattered?

u2sarajevo · 06-19-2008, 10:01 AM

He didn't say it in exactly those terms.... but...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/..._politics.html
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...some_ceos.html
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/o...ein-in-ceo-pay

DirkFTW · 06-19-2008, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

He didn't say it in exactly those terms.... but...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/..._politics.html
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...some_ceos.html
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/o...ein-in-ceo-pay

If he really does implement a maximum pay, I wonder what it will be and what loopholes will be in place. Is he going to take away stock options, or does Steve Jobs actually count as only making $1 a year?

DirkFTW · 06-19-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Obama opts out of public financing system

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama told supporters Thursday that he has decided not to accept public financing for his general election campaign.
Sen. Barack Obama repeatedly broke campaign fundraising records during the Democratic primary season.

Sen. Barack Obama repeatedly broke campaign fundraising records during the Democratic primary season.

In an e-mail message, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said the decision means that his campaign will forgo more than $80 million in public funds.

In exchange for taking public funds, candidates usually agree to a cap on the amount of money they can spend on their campaigns.

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama wrote. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system."

Obama repeatedly broke campaign fundraising records during the Democratic primary season. Since January 2007, he has raised more than $272 million.

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, raised less than half that amount, roughly $100 million, over the same period.

Obama's advisers argue that the Illinois Democrat has set up a "parallel" public fundraising system by soliciting small donations over the Internet.

Two months ago, McCain criticized Obama for appearing to backtrack from a previous commitment to accept public financing for his presidential campaign.

Steve Schmidt, a senior McCain adviser, called Obama's decision to opt out of public financing "a broken promise of staggering dimensions."

"Obama's candidacy is based on words, and it seems like every day that passes, those words look emptier and emptier when judged against his actions," Schmidt said.

Windfall tax?

Seriously though, why the hell are we spending so much money on campaigns?

Janett_Reno · 06-19-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefelump

If you "like people with substance" and dislike people that "stand up behind slogans and have no substance," then you clearly don't like Obama. Does that mean you're voting for McCain?

Obama can speak and yet have we seen if he can produce or not. Both men hardly ever show up for work. McCain is the number one man to miss his job. He doesn't come in to vote and i read where by far he is number one to take his pay check but misses votes and work. The number two man in the senate that misses and doesn't come in and vote is Obama. So it sounds like neither likes to come into work but McCain was way out in front, in not comming in. So that is bad marks on both men.

As far as McCain having substance. I use to respect him and liked him ok but when he fought with Bush/Cheney and the neocons he was standing up for what he believed in. When they wanted to kick him out of the party and he caved in and joined Cheney/Bush/Rumsfield and the neocons i lost all respect. Then he started flip flopping on all he ever stood for. One week against something, next week for it. This is what i call substance. Be for something or against and stand up for what you believe in. Just like Newt has talked about.

The neocons have one mission and this is why Libberman is in love with them. McCain has taken the neocons position. They will say or do anything to complete that mission. We saw this in what a few said to lead us into the Iraq war. They did not care if it was true or false but to lead us in. W/Chains/Rams/ knows mission is not acompolished untill they invade Iran. Some Republicans was not going to stand with them or carry the plan out but they got McCain to join in and Libberman has been with them from day one. It is pretty obvious why Libberman likes the neocon plan.

I am one that thinks we need to build our country, infrastructure, borders, have jobs in the usa, instead of sending us to the middle east for jobs, to build our country, not rip it up and tear it down. When you rip the economy up like the neocons have it makes it hard on the American people. I just do not think we can stand 4 more years of the last 8. I know some on here love Bush/Cheney and Rumsfield and in return will love McCain as he will give them 4 more of the last 8.

The neocons are trying to control people and countries that they will never be able to control. They are not taking care of their own and giving our money and resources away and i do not agree with it. McCain lost all substance with me. As far as Obama, i like his message. Will he deliver? None of us know but i like his plan to build our country instead of McCain building the middle east.

DirkFTW · 06-19-2008, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

The neocons are trying to control people and countries that they will never be able to control. They are not taking care of their own and giving our money and resources away and i do not agree with it. McCain lost all substance with me. As far as Obama, i like his message. Will he deliver? None of us know but i like his plan to build our country instead of McCain building the middle east.

While I agree that this is harder on us, this is basically charity. We're trying to rebuild a country whose government we forcibly toppled. While it's tough, it still sounds like the right thing to do. If you take a dump in every inch of my house (as is the metaphor for the war), the least I expect is for you to pay to have the carpet redone, the walls cleaned and detoxed, and the floorboards replaced. Even if you go broke doing it. It'd be nicer if you were the one actually doing the scrubbing and replacing.

Janett_Reno · 06-19-2008, 01:13 PM

We are giving money to Syria and many more countries because they say the familes and children need money. I am speaking of iraqi familes that fled to other middle east countries. I am speaking millions. Do you trust Syria and Iran, Lebanon, Saudi with your money? They want the money to hand out to the Iraqi familes. Wonder how much they hand out?

I do not like no bid contracts. I do not like billions of dollars that vanishes and people putting it their pocket. I certainly do not like how this adm has made Iran much stronger.

This is the answer in short. Iraq would rather alley with Iran than us. Iraqi gov wants a timeline to get us out. If Iran runs Iraq, then all money we send to Iraq goes to Iran. The oil that China and Russia gets is alot from Iran and as soon as Iran moves into Iraq, then this betters Iran, China and Russia.

We are throwing good money at bad. The neocons wanted Iraq bumped off because of Israel and they want Iran bumped off because of the same but this adm made such a mess of things, the American public won't let them now or the Democrats or Republicans won't let them. So they are stuck in the mess they got us in and they do not know what to do. They keep trying to sell, let's invade Iran. They keep trying to throw good money at bad. The policy they are after won't work. So why keep throwing money at it? This is where McCain/Obama differs in keeping troops in Iraq for many many years as McCain wants and Obama doesn't.

Our economy ties into the middle east. Oil/gas ties into us being in the middle east. It also shoots up anytime Israel talks of bombing Iran or us making threats to them, like we want to invade.

I feel our money is being directed and thrown in the wrong direction. I am not ready to invest in the middle east because they are not ready to invest in us. We are not welcomed in the middle east, so why should i give them my money or my countries money? I want to invest in the United States Of America, the country i love. That is where my faith and values are.

Let me tell you why this adm can't take over the middle east. The laws and beliefs are different. It's like a worm living with a bunch of birds and the worm wonders, why does my friends, the birds keep trying to eat me. You are not going to control there mind set, how they live and what they want. When they step or anyone steps on our toes and does bad to us, then we respond and need to. The hot bed now is trying to guard Afganastan as Pakistan is a hot hot hot bed for Al Queda. You know, the country that is our alley. Just like our buddies Saudi, one of our allies where most all the suicide bombers came from.

So am i happy funding Saudi, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria? No, i am not. I'd rather keep my tax dollars going to my fellow Americans and have jobs in the usa, not the middle east. I am not in favor of our military guarding Haliburton in no bid contracts and many in the military is saying the same thing. Frustrated as they see what is going on.

So i guess you could say,

DirkFTW · 06-19-2008, 01:29 PM

I am speaking of the money we are dumping into Iraq to try to rebuild and stabilize it. I am talking about the people and resources we have dedicated to Iraq right now to try to keep it from falling to pieces. Bottom line that I think everyone agrees with, we are at least partly responsible for the state they are currently in. Leaving them to the wolves is not a good/moral/polite/respectful thing to do. Right now, Iran does NOT run Iraq, and we're trying our darnedest to keep it that way.

In terms of Iraq wanting Iran to run the country... they fought a pretty bloody war over this not too long ago. Who the heck do you think is killing each other over there? And just because some people in the country are blowing themselves up to destabilize things doesn't mean everyone there is like that. (Apply same argument to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).

Janett_Reno · 06-19-2008, 01:30 PM

A big difference dude and i have is he feels the middle east is key to where we can bundle up all bad and call it terrorist and we can go meet them on a battlefield or battlefields in middle eastern countries and have it out. Pat Robertson feels the same way. I am guessing dude and Pat feels like if we can go on the offensive and fight there, then it keeps them from being here or comming here.

So dude or Pat's president would have to think in those lines. Not economy first but the war in the middle east first. I happen to feel it is a flawed and failed policy. As it stands now with Al Queda being in Pakistan, they are our alley, so we can't go in there. I have a problem in that. They come out from time to time to meet us and then run back across the line. It's hard to engage all terrorist when they live and run back behind lines of our allies.

As far as some countries making threats at Israel, they take care of themself and do a good job. Just ask countries that have tried to invade them.

Janett_Reno · 06-19-2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

I am speaking of the money we are dumping into Iraq to try to rebuild and stabilize it. I am talking about the people and resources we have dedicated to Iraq right now to try to keep it from falling to pieces. Right now, Iran does NOT run Iraq, and we're trying our darnedest to keep it that way.

In terms of Iraq wanting Iran to run the country... they fought a pretty bloody war over this not too long ago. Who the heck do you think is killing each other over there? And just because some people in the country are blowing themselves up to destabilize things doesn't mean everyone there is like that. (Apply same argument to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).

We removed Sadam, that was Iran's enemy. The gov now likes Iran and very much so.

Janett_Reno · 06-19-2008, 01:41 PM

I'm not sure of the answer on Iraq and the middle east. I do not have the right answer and it is very hard to know what to do. I know up and leaving is bad and i know staying is bad, so what can be done to be best for us and the people of Iraq? I am not sure and i hope our next pres and adm knows the answers.

DirkFTW · 06-19-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

A big difference dude and i have is he feels the middle east is key to where we can bundle up all bad and call it terrorist and we can go meet them on a battlefield or battlefields in middle eastern countries and have it out. Pat Robertson feels the same way. I am guessing dude and Pat feels like if we can go on the offensive and fight there, then it keeps them from being here or comming here.

So dude or Pat's president would have to think in those lines. Not economy first but the war in the middle east first. I happen to feel it is a flawed and failed policy. As it stands now with Al Queda being in Pakistan, they are our alley, so we can't go in there. I have a problem in that. They come out from time to time to meet us and then run back across the line. It's hard to engage all terrorist when they live and run back behind lines of our allies.

As far as some countries making threats at Israel, they take care of themself and do a good job. Just ask countries that have tried to invade them.

There are a lot of wackos on the left who are voting for Obama. That doesn't mean Obama stands for everything they believe in. It's actually impossible because those beliefs will contradict with some from other Obama supporters. (See the problem on the Obama-run forums).

The last thing we want to be doing is chasing Pakistani terrorists into Pakistani cities. They're going to blend in and disappear, forcing our hand. It's a lose-lose to chase after them into another nation unless we're planning on really doing something about it. The Pakistani government has the same problem, except it's their own people.

And I think Hezbollah has been laughing non-stop since they kidnapped that Israeli soldier from within Israel and then watched as Israel's military offensive did nothing except piss off the world.

DirkFTW · 06-19-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

We removed Sadam, that was Iran's enemy. The gov now likes Iran and very much so.

He had an entire ethnic group supporting him. And is this pro-Iran government the same one that employs all those police recruits who are getting blown up and executed?

Janett_Reno · 06-19-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

There are a lot of wackos on the left who are voting for Obama. That doesn't mean Obama stands for everything they believe in. It's actually impossible because those beliefs will contradict with some from other Obama supporters. (See the problem on the Obama-run forums).

The last thing we want to be doing is chasing Pakistani terrorists into Pakistani cities. They're going to blend in and disappear, forcing our hand. It's a lose-lose to chase after them into another nation unless we're planning on really doing something about it. The Pakistani government has the same problem, except it's their own people.

And I think Hezbollah has been laughing non-stop since they kidnapped that Israeli soldier from within Israel and then watched as Israel's military offensive did nothing except piss off the world.

Obama is the most libreal in the senate. Romney is a conservative. I like both, so you can't judge the book by the cover. Libberman and McCain, who knows what they are as they switch back and forth.

That is one reason why Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield policy is flawed. You chase after the terrorist and then he crosses back over to where we are not suppose to go and blends back in with the public. This is not only happening in Pakistan but many other countries in the middle east. This is a huge reason the war on terror or chasing terror around is hard because they blend back in and run across alley lines. I feel we should protect our country, invest in our country and fix our borders. Dudes argument could probably be, if we do this now and stay in the middle east, root them out over there, then we don't have to deal with them here. I would agree with him if if was vast land with no boundaries or borders or dealing with other govs.

When it comes to Bin Laden, i think we should chase him to wherever it takes us and never give up.

dude1394 · 06-20-2008, 07:35 AM

I expect that once Hussein's cat is out of the bag, he won't be quite as appealing to ohioans.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._politics.html

Quote:

Oooh, The New Politics
By Mona Charen

I am so excited by Barack Obama's new politics. Like Chris Matthews, I got a thrill down my leg when the senator announced his candidacy promising a "new kind of politics." As I recall, he said, "Our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, commonsense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first." Goosebumps!

You know how most politicians say one thing and do another? Well, Barack is different. He gave Hillary Clinton quite a dressing down during the primaries in the Rust Belt for having once supported NAFTA, a treaty Barack called "devastating." Obama said he'd use the threat of withdrawal from the treaty as a "hammer" to wring concessions out of Canada and Mexico. And sure, his top economics aide told a Canadian consulate official on the QT that Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric was "more about political posturing than a clear articulation of policy plans."

But that only shows how hard it is for Obama to find aides who are as farseeing and honest as he is. Well, yes, the candidate did acknowledge to Fortune magazine last week that he now views NAFTA more favorably and wouldn't seek to renegotiate its terms. And yes, he did say, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified." But, oh, the way he employs the passive voice! It's not that he pandered to or misled the voters. No, the rhetoric got overheated. Who else, I ask you, can so smoothly deploy the passive voice?

Barack Obama is so uplifting. He has said, "We need a president who sees government not as a tool to enrich friends and high-priced lobbyists (note: don't you hate those low priced lobbyists?) but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American." Yes, yes, yes. When he released a list of earmarks he had requested over the past three years in the U.S. Senate, he was being open and honest about the favors he has done. Some might say that $740 million is hardly worth mentioning in the context of the huge federal budget. And if $1 million went to the hospital that happens to employ Mrs. Obama, well, that's because she looks incredible in a black-and-white print sundress.

Obama has called us to something higher than politics as usual. "The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same old Washington games with the same old Washington players," he intoned. After clinching the Democratic nomination, Obama's first big appointment was Jim Johnson to head his vice presidential search committee. Johnson has such wonderful experience under his belt, with ties to Walter Mondale, John Kerry, Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, the Trilateral Commission, and it turns out, Countrywide Financial. Well, yes, Countrywide was one of the mortgage lenders Obama had condemned earlier this year for "pumping up the subprime lending market. ... They get a $19 million bonus while people are at risk of losing their home. What's wrong with this picture?" And it didn't look exactly kosher that Johnson had reportedly received up to $7 million at below-market rates as a special friend of the company's CEO, Angelo Mozilo.

But Obama's response showed just how above this sort of thing he truly is. He zeroed in on the nature of the problem as soon as Johnson's shady deal came to light: "There's a game that can be played. Everybody, you know, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships. I would have to hire a vetter to vet the vetters." How true. It's a shame really that Johnson resigned, not wanting to become a distraction, because he was so tangential anyway.

Obama is the kind of leader who can bring us together. He may have the most one-sided, partisan voting record in the Senate, but that just shows how ready he is for a fresh start. He will take on the "special interests," like the farmers. He voted for the largest farm bill in history ($307 billion). Take that!

Obama is going to set a new tone in politics. Yes, he did promise to abjure private financing of his presidential campaign if the Republican nominee would do the same, but as everyone can see, things have changed. Public finance would provide only $85 million, whereas Obama has raised more than three times that already. As the candidate explained so upliftingly, "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections" but "this is our moment and our country is depending on us."

Somebody catch me, I may swoon.

GuerillaBlack · 06-20-2008, 08:51 AM

This map is not too shabby.

Most of us know Kerry was ahead of W at this point too on this map but he never go this far ahead.

There is no math for the GOP without taking both FL and OH..

I mean Alaska is in play!

Obama 344 McCain 194

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Flacolaco · 06-20-2008, 09:01 AM

Quote:

"We need a president who sees government not as a tool to enrich friends and high-priced lobbyists (note: don't you hate those low priced lobbyists?) but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American."

Translation: If you don't feel like things are fair enough, vote for me and I'll make things unfair for people who have shown they're willing to work hard, so you don't have to.

Fairness and opportunity for every american....what a bunch of bologna. Where else in the world do you have this much fairness and opportunity already?

purplefrog · 06-20-2008, 12:07 PM

My concern with Obama from the beginning has been that even though he talks real sweet there is absolutely nothing in his experiences that tell me he knows a thing about implementation. After hearing more and more of his rhetoric on policy matters, I'm now comforted by this fact. One can only hope that he has no idea about implementation when his ideas are a potential disaster. Yep, I see Jimmy Carter all over again.

DirkFTW · 06-20-2008, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Barack Obama aide: Why Winnie the Pooh should shape US foreign policy

By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 2:04AM BST 17/06/2008

Winnie the Pooh, Luke Skywalker and British football hooligans could shape the foreign policy of Barack Obama if he becomes US President, according to a key adviser.

Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House, told a major foreign policy conference in Washington that the future of US strategy in the war on terrorism should follow a lesson from the pages of Winnie the Pooh, which can be shortened to: if it is causing you too much pain, try something else.

Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: “Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.”

He spelt out how American troops, spies and anti-terrorist officials could learn key lessons by understanding the desire of terrorists to emulate superheroes like Luke Skywalker, and the lust for violence of violent football fans.

Mr Obama’s candidacy was given an early boost by his opposition to the Iraq war and he has repeatedly said the US needs to rethink its approach to the Middle East.

Mr Danzig spelt out the need to change by reading a paragraph from chapter one of the children’s classic, which says: “Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming down stairs. But sometimes he thinks there really is another way if only he could stop bumping a minute and think about it.”

Mr Obama’s approach will be popular in Europe, where President George W. Bush has spent the week on a farewell tour, arriving in Britain yesterday for meetings with the Queen and Gordon Brown.

In a subtle break from Mr Bush’s belief that the war on terror can be won, Mr Danzig, who is a Pentagon adviser on bioterrorism, warned that while the West can defeat individual terrorist groups and plots, it can never entirely remove the threat posed by nuclear proliferation or the prospect of bioterrorism.

In a briefing which will inform Mr Obama’s understanding of terrorists, Mr Danzig said he learnt much from recent interviews with jailed Aum Shinrikyo terrorists who released sarin nerve gas on the Tokyo underground in 1995.

He said that even people who are relatively well off and successful can feel like failures and become alientated from their societies. He said one terrorist told him: “We have been raised on a theory of superheroes. We all want to be like Luke Skywalker.

"When we’re doing mundane things, we lose track of our ambition but when someone comes along, like Asahara, the head of the cult, and presents himself as a messiah and gives us a picture of progress that is ordained by heaven and that we are carrying out a saintly mission on earth that is for us extraordinarily evocative.”

Mr Danzig added: “The parallels with al Qaeda are obvious.”

He said that another lesson about terrorists can be learnt from studying violent football fans. “One of the best books I’ve read on terrorism in recent years was not about terrorism at all,” he said. “It’s Bill Buford’s book Among the Thugs, which is a description of soccer violence in Britain.

“Buford became absorbed by soccer violence. He describes the most appalling examples of soccer violence by fans against fans. But he describes with relentless honesty how he finds sickening things attractive. He says violence lets the adrenaline flow; it’s like sex, you live in the moment.”

Linkaroo

Janett_Reno · 06-20-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuerillaBlack

This map is not too shabby.

Most of us know Kerry was ahead of W at this point too on this map but he never go this far ahead.

There is no math for the GOP without taking both FL and OH..

I mean Alaska is in play!

Obama 344 McCain 194

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Interesting map. Thanks for showing that. The republicans will go hard after FL. If they lose FL, they know they lose the race. It's alot of people from NY that has moved to FL and alot of seniors. Both are huge Hillary supporters. McCain is a senior at 72, so with the seniors in FL, the republicans will try to tap him into them. If and this is a big if, the republicans can take a chance on Crisp(FL Gov) and where they do not think he is to big a risk, McCain might try to get him to win FL. It's rumors about him that would wreck what a republican stands for if democrats or others attack the rumors and if it was true.

This is also where Obama wins FL by picking Hillary. I don't see him picking her because in some republican states, Obama looks like is going to win some states. It's unheard of a Democrat winning in ALaska, Ms, Ga, Va, Mt, Co, Nv, In. On the other hand, Ohio and FL both are up for grabs and McCain will hit hard on those two as well will Obama. Ohio is hurting bad and what was promised to them didn't happen in the last 7 years.

Obama must appeal to seniors and talk to seniors. I saw talks of Obama is looking into Edwards or Sam Nunn vp. Now Hagel says he would probably take the vp spot for Obama if asked. Edwards always looks like he would help and sweep that map more blue down into the Carolinas but it seems the people do not connect to him and that he pulls enough people. I might be wrong as i like him just fine. Sam Nunn is in his 70's and republicans and democrats both like him. Not sure if Hagel helps or hurts but ilike him. A key state i feel Obama needs to win that is in play is Michigan. McCain puts pressure on the democrats if he can pull that one off. It will be interesting.

The latest NEWSWEEK Poll shows the Democrat with a 15-point lead over McCain.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465/output/print