Mike

After winning an election in which Obama was a candidate who should not have won running for a party who could not lose...

And McCain was a candidate who should have won running in a party that couldn't win...

Obama ran on change and is rebuilding the Clinton administration....

Now Obama seems to be shifting towards the center and pulling a Clinton. If in a recession, he will not raise taxes not even on the uber wealthy, and cut taxes for the middle class as some reports are stating, can we say that it is an indictment of liberal tax policy? Is this the change you voted for? Or sounds like more Bush tax cut and spend of the last 8 years?

I am no fan of Bush, so save the anti bush rants.

How in the work is it that hillary and Obama have rased nearly 300 Million in campaign contributions to McCains 45 Million.

I thought the Democrates were gaining there support from the middle and lower class income earners. If thats true then who is donating to the party.

Who will they be beholden to if they are elected?

I just heard the stats on the radio this morning and it got me thinking. Follow the money right? Isnt that what bush is always being blamed for, helping out his eron, haliburton buddies who got him elected, wile he is screwing over the lower class. How dose this extraordinary amount of money being raised fit into the lefts argument that the right wing is only for the rich. If thats the case the republicans should be raking in 3x as much as the dems. Not the other way around right?

Who are you going to vote for President....?

Please if you care to.....sound off again who do you like!

is elected?

Is it that hard to understand that McCain isn't talking about active combat but a presence like the bases we have in Germany, Cuba, and Korea. I am not in love with McCain by any means, but it's hard for me to bear the stupidity of people thinking we will be "at war" for 100 years. The war is already quieting down and personel losses are very low compaired with other times sence the beginning of the war.

It just seems like simplton moron democrates that hear what they want, and won't confront the ideas head on. It's like bevis and buthead. HuHu he said well be at war for a hundred years, hu hu.

I think it's fair to say that there were WMD's in Iraq. Their were weapons inspectors in Iraq( before being kicked out - Clear violation of cease fire agreement). They were tagged and catologed. Then after 9/11 wasn't the Removal of Saddam triggered after lengthy UN pressure to get the inspectors back in, and to have Saddam disclose the fate and location of the WMD's we knew where there, but handn't the ability to verify?

It seems such a silly argument to blame Bush, and Hillary for what they could have no Idea? Bushes CIA director was a hold over from the Clinton Administration. Even Bill Clinton supported the Action? Is he the holly grail of objective reason in the Democratic party?

I just want to get some understanding of this argument. Seems to me that there was no other solution. Would it be better to let saddam destroy the credibility of the US and the UN? Then what is the UN purpose of existance. And best question yet? What happened to the WMD's that were there?

I was just thinking of all the money that is being spent and if anybody has a favorite program. I myself don't use any goverment programs, so I says to my self, I says....Self, Why do we need all these government programs. They cost alot of money and all I see on the news is they arn't helping any situation out. Schools suck, FIMA is incompetent, no one likes the medicare or social security, so why even have them?

Thanks for the thoughtfull answers, no comedian bush bashers, I don't like him either!