Political Punch

Has anyone here read the "OBAMA LAUNDRY LIST OF LIES"?

Or "THE AUDACITY OF HYPOCRISY"?

Goolsbee is still on staff and head of economic policy!

Hoffa Jr is running around with Obama trying to get Union Support for Obam. Hoffa JR. just called out Obama and Goolsbee about the NAFTA gaffe. Wow that sure is some supporter Obama has!!!!!

Since Penn has merely been slapped on the wrist, still works for Clinton, still support the Columbian deal, I wonder if this will have an impact on Hillary's union support?

Just asking, but what powers that be completely closed down the reporting on the Colombia NAFTA Clinton deal? The entire Clinton campaign staff was part of the lobbying in support of the deal. Penn quits, people starting talking, Bush puts the deal on fast track for approval, story over! Talk about fish stinking up the place!

John, you wrote: "Same sex marriage is a State's Rights issue, but so should abortion..." Actually the former is not the case; and, I agree that the latter should be. The difference is marriage is generally considered to be a contract, and abortion is not. The significance in this difference is that Article IV, Sec. 1 of the U. S. Constitution requires that a contract that is legal in one state will be recognized as legal in every other state. So if the courts affirm that marriage is, in fact, a contract, then all states must recognize marriages that may be legally performed in only one or a handful of states.

lou: "the differential is >700,000 in Senator Obama's favor"

it's a lead of about 814,000 actually; check the numbers at realclearpolitics

Those who site the vote total separation at 1% are in error. This is only true when you count the FL & MI votes which are not valid under the DNC's rule and agreed to by all campaigns. Without those votes, the differential is >700,000 in Senator Obama's favor. Also, on this website, several causcus states turn-out is represented in terms of district delegates and not the number of voters who cast ballots. If you want to see an objective approach to the popular vote, go to realclearpolitics.com. I have tried many times to get ABC to at least report all the facts in their numbers but I guess the truth doesn't matter.

Jake
Why are you asking that Clinton completely get rid of Penn. While obama still has the guy on his team that actually went to Canada with the winkwink deal.Goolsbee.

HEADLINE: CLINTON LOSES PENN...

Hillary Clinton is finished. If the Mark Penn-Colombian Trade Meeting weren't enough of a WMD to sink her already leaking ship, the Glover Park Group connection with now campaign strategist Howard Wolfson and the Colombian government will end the disaster soon enough. The Unions will back Sen. Obama and the blue collar votes will follow...Thank God we won't have to listen to her idiotic logic any longer.

Wow!!! what is happening to the once perceived inevitable nominee, her campaign is getting worse, we can now mirror how she will handle the presidency if she will be the president. The Clinton campaign always put the blame to her Chief Strategist Mr. Penn but think of it, which of the two is at fault, the candidate Hillary or The Chief Strategy Penn, I think the former is the one who is at fault, maybe she is not the right candidate....what a campaign strategy turned into a tragedy.

Both Obama and Hillary are part of and support the DNC platform which quiet clearly supports gay marriage under their "equal rights" plank. They stand to lose far more votes by supporting that position than they might gain by opposing it as a substantial majority of Americans oppose same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is a State's Rights issue, but so should abortion be because the Bill of Rights does not expressly address the matter. A liberal Supreme Court took that issue away from the States just as they one day will with same sex marriage. Thus is the problem with liberal Justices.

@LOM
i guess 18-25?

if McCain picks Gov. Charlie Crist, of FLORIDA, this argument between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters is pointless because FLORIDIANS will vote for their hometown governor over a disenfranchiser!

all McCain would need to convince California(which Obama lost), Texas (which Obama lost), Ohio(which Obama lost), New York (which Obama lost), Michigan(which was disenfranchised by the DNC), and Pennsylvania (which is up in the air) to vote for him and he's the President.

Hillary voted against expanding Nafta to Peru. She walks the talk.

what is considered the "youth" vote anyhow?

If Obama is going win because of the youth vote, i hope my peers vote in record numbers in the general election!

WCM -- Are you actually trying to make an argument with reason and logic? I think TCG went to go work on his math homework.

Despite what the Obama campaign, the pundits and the biased MSM say, this election is pretty much 50/50 and that is without including MI and FL.

This Penn flap isn't going to hurt her campaign. She is on the record for being against trade with Colombia and the MSM and their ilk are going to spin it as damaging, when indeed it is not.

Maybe it was actually well-timed and strategic in nature. Right before the PA primary...get folks acutely aware of the true FACTS (not the MSM spin) and then go to the voting booths. Brilliant!

@ LOM

it's pure bs that the young vote for Obama.

it is 50/50.

i don't buy this HOPE/CHANGE/BELIEVE/PREACH message of his.

Words will not fix the economy and a speech made in 2002 will not end the war occurring 2008.

hopesprings52 -- Exactly! People want to continue comparing apples to oranges. The arugment that he was against and she was for it is just plan illogical.

To your point, the better and more accurate measurement is how the candidates stack up for an exit strategy.

John,

Wait a minute...stop the presses!

You're young and supporting Clinton?

I'm so confused. How can it be? Oh, the same way that I'm educated, have a super automatic espresso machine on my counter (latte) and support Clinton! OMG!

Does Obama know?!

If Obama was in the U.S. Senate and spoke against the Iraq War vote and voted against it, then I would consider that a suitable comparison to how Hillary stood on that vote. Unless one is in a particular legislative body under the same conditions and factors you cannot compare two decisions straight up. The question is who will make the right decisions from here on.

@ LOM

I was 15 when Kerry ran.

I knew he was going lose.

I would have voted Edwards.

Liberal/young support doesn't translate into winning the general election!

and let's face it, Kerry is coming out everywhere supporting Obama.

I wonder if this will be a repeat of 04?

Lom, that is a very good point.

@ omentum

hey guess what?

the obama strategist that contradicted obama is still in the obama campaign.

at least hillary demoted Penn!

John,

So many Obama supporters are quick to dismiss Clinton because of her Iraq vote. I would guess, however, that many of those same people didn't flinch when they pulled the lever for Kerry in 2004 who voted the same way.

Hypocrites.

@ lom

Kerry in 04
reminds me of
Obama in 08

They are both LIBERAL, both very popular with my demographic (college students) and with Hollywood personalities, but Kerry had experience and he didn't have all these "scandals" waiting in the wings.

MiGuy

It isn't the Presidency of Pennsylvania!

It is the Presidency of the United States and Rendell has made it obvious how he truly feels about Obama.

I wonder if Wright's antisemitism had anything to do with shaping Rendell's opinion of Obama.

apples to oranges still...

Obama was in no position to enable the war or oppose it with any real responsibility.

Did you vote for Kerry in 2004?

How can you trust the judgment of folks like Kerry, Daschle and Rockefeller who support Obama then if that is truly your yardstick for not voting for Hillary?

How can two polar opposite "positions" on the war have nearly identical voting records when their time in the Senate overlapped? I'm not buying the Obama stance on the war.

Obama/Clinton won't win a general election unless both their names on the ballot.

It isn't a dream ticket.

It is the ticket that will unite the party!

@John:

What if he choose Murtha or Rendell from PA?

If her strategy is to win in 2012 she will be disappointed because she will be blamed for his loss in 2008.

John say "and when there was a vote to give Bush the power to use military force in Iraq if NECESSARY, a power which he abused, everyone in the United States was PRO-WAR!"

I still expect to be punk'd at any moment by this nonsense.

But here it goes, Hill was one of the chief enablers of this screw up.

Hillary enabled st00pid stuff in the past, has she not? And she was one of the chief enablers of the Irak debacle.

Not everyone was prowar. Hillary was not either.

If Obama wins the nom, Hillary needs to be the veep.

If Hillary wins the nom, Obama needs to be the veep.

That is the only way (besides making a co-presidency) the Democratic party will be united.

Obama supporters will not come around to support Clinton and some random African American and Clinton supporters will not come around to support Obama and some random woman.

Nice try Pelosi, Reid, and Dean!

TCG -- I don't follow football.

"Hillary wants a one term president to beat in 2012."

Um, I'm not sure what election you're following, but I'm pretty sure that she wants to win the presidency in 2008. I'm sure you have to be familiar with this as the mantra from the Obama campaign is that "she'll say or do anything to win." So, your above strategy is debunked.

And I know it's actually basketball, but either way, I don't follow it. Although, Barack must be sad that his pick of NC went down in flames over the weekend.

I'm a Clinton supporter who's getting ready to make that transition to McCain.
There is no way given the mainstream media bias for Obama that Clinton will get the nomination. I am so thoroughly
disgusted with the Democratic party and how the far left have hijacked this party - the moveon.org's, the Huffington Posts and all this other crap. I have no problem with the politics of the far left per se, but the hate and rigidity of the far left is no better than the far right. I've had it with the Democratic party. I've been a lifelong Democrat and I'll be casting my first vote for a Republican President this year. I'm sick of the way the far left has trashed our two terms of a Democratic President Clinton; how they have villified Ferraro and Clinton, who have long documented records of working on issues pertaining to race, gender and sexual
orientation, as being racist and how they have propped up a candidate who's been able to slide on the basis of his youth, attractiveness, charisma and the prospect of being the party who is the first to put forth a viable African-American candidate. People talk about the Clinton camp, and heaven knows their campaign has been a mess, but the old, dirty politics played under the tutoring of David Axelrod and the cover of a biased media has been disgusting.

@LOM:

No argument. I personally feel that for once I will not be voting for the lesser of two evils. Anything is going to be better than Bush/Cheney. But this country has got to face some serious issues and he-said she-said bickering that the media fuels is pointless. I wonder what would happen if instead of constantly reporting on this nonsense if reporters actually barraged us constantly with "boring" things in layman's terms. Like daily blogs on: Your medicare tax won't be available for you when you retire; followed by: neither will social security.

TCG -- You have to stop with your math argument because you're wrong.

According to the numbers being reported here at ABC, those "negative numbers" that you speak of that count her "out" just aren't adding up.

Candidate | Delegates | Votes
Clinton | 1,496 | 13,755,568
Obama | 1,631 | 13,858,246
Delta | 135 | 102,678
% Difference | 4.32% | 0.37%

Less than 1% separates them in the popular vote.

If you factor in the total number of delegates (4,047), his lead would be reduced to 3.33%. When ALL of the delegates have been counted, it is very plausible that she can overtake his lead and clinch the nomination. Those are the rules.

LOM

kewl deal Kansas won. And I won my brackets.

Simple. Hillary wants a one term president to beat in 2012.

Romney wants a one term president that he can succeed (think McCain) in 2012.

So there you go.

@ The Commander Guy

and when there was a vote to give Bush the power to use military force in Iraq if NECESSARY, a power which he abused, everyone in the United States was PRO-WAR!

There is one person in this campaign that Obama has gone to the wall for...Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He has lied for him, he has slurred the white grandmother who raised him for Wright, and he has alienated many other "typical white people" as well as others who love America and deplore hate speech. Wright is his "spiritual mentor", his "sounding board" and will most definitely have substantial influence over Obama should he be president. For any other candidate, the media would have carried this story daily because it speaks so clearly to what Obama is about. Obama will be Wright and Farrakhan's man in the White House, make no mistake of that!

MIGuy,

There is a lot we can't afford in this country as a whole. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do what's right. We can't afford tax-and-spend liberals either, but to your point, maybe we should be spending our money domestically instead.

I'm not defending McCain--he's no Bush though and I'd welcome four years of McCain over Bush any day. I've survived the last 8...anything else will be a cake walk.

MIguy

Hillary gotta make a decision. Is she gonna destroy her party to win the nomination or is she gonna act with class and look at the negative numbers then walk away.

So there it is. On the boards you get lots of deception. The surrogates want you to think Hills gotta a chance to win..... but she doesn't.

So they say all sorta crazy stuff.

@ The Commander Guy

Obama has flipped flopped on whether he supports it or not!

If the public is pro war, he's pro war.
If the public is anti war, he's anti war.

His voting record is nearly identical to Hillary's and what is worse is he is trying to say he didn't vote to authorize the war....of COURSE HE DID NOT, HE WAS NOT IN THE SENATE!

@LOM:

1. The point about being a one-termer is that realistically that's all it can be for him. It is exceedingly difficult for any President to enact meaningful changes within a 4-year confine.

2. The inane position on the war is one that has no end and no clear definition of victory. It's really not hard to define victory in Iraq - I'll do it for him: 1. Food, 2. Water, 3. Safety, 4. Electricity, 5. A semblance of government. Iraq is not Korea. There is no DMZ, there is nowhere for soldiers to stand guard protected. This is not a fair option for our soldiers and their families who worry for their safety.

3. It doesn't matter what anyone's position on the war is - we can't afford it. Period. Roll back the AMT - yeah, that would be great for me too, but then even less money to pay for everything. Look at the GAO reports - even if you cut out ALL of the earmarks and pork, Medicare and Social Security alone will bankrupt us. Even without the war.

I don't disagree that McCain is a moderate in sheep's clothing (i.e. a conservative). But his VP candidate will be a young bright conservative - guaranteed. And in this election the VP choice for both parties is going to be huge. Look, I'm not saying he can't or won't win but it is not going to be a cakewalk against either Clinton or Obama unless he pulls off some magic.

TCG -- That wasn't my question. And this isn't a race to win 8 years in the White House. It's a race to win the next four.

Why would a Democratic candidate have a guy who is well known for spewing hate in his church, give the "Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpet" award to Louis Farrakhan and builds a $1.6M house with the paritioners' money as a member of his African American Religious Leadership Committee in his Presidential campaign?

What does it tell us about that candidate?

LOM say: "1. Who wants to elect a one-term President?"

Easy Romney or Hillary.

John

So Hillary is for and against unfair trade deals.

So Hillary is for and against the Irak war.

What else is Hills both for and against?

McCain might pick Security of State Condi RICE as his running mate.

She's African American and a women.

Will Oprah endorse Rice?

Obama's chief economic advisor tells the Canadians not to take Obama's anti-NAFTA talk too seriously -- it's important to voters in the Midwest. Obama denies the conversation took place but a Canadian diplomat's memo shows it did. Can't trust Obama on NAFTA!
Samantha Power, Obama's chief foreign policy advisor, tells the Brits not to take Obama's push for quick withdrawal of troops in Iraq too seriously. She says they'll be there for at least 16 months and decisions will depend on the situation in Iraq. Can't trust Obama on Iraq!

Why would a Democratic candidate have a guy whoo's wellknown for union busting, working for questionable organizations and politicians (Berlusconi, a.o.) and dealings with foreign countries, as a Chief Strategist in the first place?

What does it tell us about that candidate?

1. Who wants to elect a one-term President?

It is rather presumptuous to think that any candidate is not a four year candidate. 8 years in the White House is not a given.

2. The war thing.

I'm not sure what you are implying is his inane position on the war? If you are referring to his "100 years" remark, I think you are taking it out of context. His 100 years remark was referring to a long-term post-war military presence.

3. The economy.

Well, he wants to cut taxes on the middle class, which is what Clinton and Obama want to do as well. He wants to repeal the AMT, which would have saved me thousands of dollars over the past 8 years. He's for cutting wasteful spending (earmarks, pork-barrel spending, etc.). I actually wish he'd roll back the Bush tax cuts that he voted against initially.

He's no conservative in the traditional sense. He can pull off a win by winning the independents (which some preliminary polling shows him doing) and even peeling some of the moderate democratic voters from an Obama or Clinton nomination.

@TCG:

Halloween won't start until the weekend before the primary. There will be another Friday night trick-or-treat (depending on your perspective) from the Clinton campaign. My guess is that she will do a Reverend Wright montage. I expect the Obama camp isn't dumb enough to fall for the same trick twice and will roll out a bunch of SD supporters and union attacks simultaneously. We're in the quiet before the storm.

The Commander Guy

Actually she doesn't need to talk about Obama.

He's gotten himself in enough trouble misrepresenting McCain's stance on the war, saying he wants a 100 war, and trying to attach WARMONGER to McCain. (Obama camp: "He isn't a warmonger" *wink**wink*)

From Political Punch back in December (back when Jake did not hesitate to take on Obama camp):

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod this week on how John Edwards is new to the issue of lobbying reform, as opposed to Obama who worked on the Senate ethics reform bill.

Axelrod: "I can't think of one thing like that, that Senator Edwards did in the Senate."

Then-Edwards senior adviser David Axelrod on CNN, March 2004: "Washington is run by the special interests today ... John Edwards ran headlong into it when he led the fight for the patients bill of rights against the insurance industry in the Senate. He has never taken a dime from lobbyists or PACs. He said, let's ban lobbyist money, so you can't give people a bill to pass in the day and a check at night. And that's how we're going to start changing the culture in Washington. But you have to be able to do that. That's a fundamental difference between these candidates. Senator (John) Kerry accepts that lobbyist money. And we're trying to change that."

MIGuy

Good point about the thread, McCain has to pick a young but experienced guy, but back to the thread, so here it is:

The thing about Hillary is that she is for Free Trade Deals in ODD numbered years and she is against Free Trade Deals in EVEN number years.

This is all you need to know. So if the Union Guys wanna do some hammering, nobody is gonna blame them.

John

Sorry bout that, but Ol' Hill has been comparing Mr. O to GWB of late. So facts ain't your friend.

Okay, since we are so far off topic and nobody seems to want to go on topic, here is something new. Here is why John McCain is going to have serious problems winning (and let me just say I would have voted for him in 2000):

1. Who wants to elect a one-term President? Seriously, he is older now but not too old. But, after 4 years of one of the hardest jobs, he will be much older. So his VP choice is huge and guess what, it has got to be a conservative's conservative. If you are voting for McCain, you are voting for his VP and the odds aren't that bad that the VP may need to take over.

2. The war thing. It is not his inane position on the war that is the major problem. It is his complete blindness that the war is bankrupting this country. If you are a fiscal conservative, this will drive you nuts. Heck, the democrats might be tax-and-spend but at least they'll blow our wad here in the US not in some other country. If we're going to go broke, we might as well have healthcare.

3. The economy. This goes back to the war thing. The man has no idea how to get things back on track. There are no new ideas. Do you like your paycheck? Do you like your gas at $4/gallon? Well guess what, your money will be worth less and your gas will cost more unless we stop spending so much money that we don't have.

There are more but I just hate long posts.

@The Commander Guy

I wouldn't know.

I don't insult Democrats by comparing them to Republicans like the Obama camp is so fond of doing!

john; "he was anti-Nafta, he would get rid of it if elected"

In a discussion, try be accurate. Obama NEVER said he would get rid of NAFTA. To court OHIO voters, Clinton even released a robocall that said: "NAFTA has hurt Ohio families and I have a plan to fix it. My opponent does not." That was just another Clinton lie of course.

Obama's stand on NAFTA has consistently been that we need to reform it so it can't be used as a loophole around labor and environmental protections. Obama has never advocated scrapping NAFTA. He has always said we need to make sure it doesn't continue to gut labor and environmental protections.

@ Beka

If Obama beats McCain in a general election (people use "if" now, Obama used to be inevitable.) people will hate his wife more than they hate Hillary.

Hillary has never made disparaging remarks about America like that loud mouth Michelle.

Michelle needs to wake up, smell the starbucks, and realize she's privileged!

John

You can't court NAFTA, shill for reforming NAFTA and shame your opponent over wanting to do the same thing.

Dood, its called Romneyism.

BTW, why isn't the media mentioning the dishonesty in the latest of Obama's campaign commercials, where he says he doesn't take money from lobbyists. Oh, that's right, not directly, he just takes bundled money from lobbyists, that way it passes through someone else's hands before it winds up in his coffers. Technically, not taking money from lobbyists, but really taking money from lobbyists. Just like his other commerical, where he states that he doesn't take money from the oil companies. Again, check it out, he has taken bundled money from the CEO's of many of the oil companies. Explain these two instances of lying to the public for me Obama people???!!! Damn those technicalities. They really get in the way.

@Bishop
"This has been a get Hillary from the start "

What is you wrong with you people? Did Hillary's opponents hire Penn for her and put him in touch with Uribe? Did Obama recommend to her to tell the Tuzla story? Did McCain send Patti Solis Doyle home? Did the MSM not pay her campaign's bills? Did Axelrod advice her to skip the caucuses, and did Huckabee tell Bill to compare Obama to Jesse Jackson?

Does it ever occur to you that Hillary simply has run a weak and shaky campaign while Obama did the opposite, and that Super Delegates and other observers conclude from it that he will be the GOP's stronger Democratic opponent in the GE? Who will attract a record breaking amount of voters, as he already did in the primaries, just as he attracted a record breaking amount of donations and donaters?

How would Hillary run a strong GE after such a shaky primary season? Come on, be sensible.

@ The Commander Guy

NAFTA needs to be reformed, not destroyed.

It benefits parts of the US like Texas and does not benefit others like Ohio.

Check your facts!

McCain's first major problem was that the Conservative Right hated him. He's no conservative in the traditional sense. He's relatively moderate and I think many people can stomach four years of that as opposed to the hand we've been dealt in the past four. The fallout from the democratic party should be interesting, whomever ends up being the nominee.

@Beka

I don't support Hillary because she is a woman I support her because she is a fighter and truly does care for people I really don't believe what the media has to say about Penn I don't care for him but I am sure If they put thier minds to it they could find something on axelrod

@ Beka

Only the desperate left would continue to try to tie McCain with Bush.

People aren't buying it!!!!

They like him as much as, if not more than, Barack Obama!

Is anyone watching the game?

It's crazy good.

LOM

Fair enough. Peace.

John - here's one for you:

Hillary in 2007: NAFTA we HAFTA..we HAFTA have NAFTA.

Hillary in 2008: Shame. Shame on you, NAFTA, and on all the bad things you do. SHAME!

Hillary in 2009: NAFTA we HAFTA ..... we HAFTA have NAFTA.

Beka,

What the heck does being a woman have to do with anything??? I never said I support Penn. He has had waning support within the Clinton campaign for some time now. When was the last time you even heard his name in the MSM in the context of anything that mattered?

Hillary and Bush in the same pod? You have got to be kidding me. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that Bush couldn't recognize a core democratic value if it slapped him in the face.

And they say the Obama supporters are the educated ones...

This has been a get Hillary from the start they have come at her from every news channel ever left wing blog every news paper they are really stupid they think Millions of women and other supporters who are mad as hell at this point will unite and be good little democrats and vote for Obama.I don't think so

Bishop and LOM...I am a woman and I know that the last person we need running this country is anyone with as poor judgement as Hillary or Mcbush have...They are like 2 peas in a pod! Its a shame that you cannot see that! How can you defend Mark Penn in good conscience? He is the democratic Carl Rove!

As a President, Clinton would NEVER oppose to the Columbia trade deal. Just check where her political ties are on this. It's not only about Penn, and not only about Wolfson. Here are some illuminating excerpts from today's NYT report on the issue:

"To help make its case, Colombia had already hired at least three firms on Capitol Hill, in addition to the work by Mr. Penn’s firm, Burson-Marsteller, paying out from $15,000 to $40,000 a month. Collectively the Colombian government has paid more than $1 million to firms that have negotiated or lobbied on behalf of the deal.

They include the Glover Park Group, the fast-growing firm set up by former Clinton White House aides including Joe Lockhart, who was chief spokesman for the president. (Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign communications director, was a partner at the firm but has taken a leave of absence.)"

"The ties between the lobbying firms and the Clinton campaign illustrate the complexity of Washington’s political world, where players are often switching positions or playing multiple roles. While Mr. Wolfson has taken a leave from Glover Park, for example, he still has equity in the firm valued at $500,000 to $1 million, according to a disclosure form.

A long list of former Clinton administration aides, including Mack McLarty, the former counsel to the president; Donna E. Shalala, the health and human services secretary; and Leon E. Panetta, the onetime chief of staff, also have come out in support of the deal. It puts them in alliance with Mr. Bush and Republican leaders."

If its Obama vs McCain....

Hello, President McCain!

@Beka | Apr 7, 2008 10:33:29 PM:

And what misery would that be? She is still in contention for the democratic nomination. Why is she miserable? Because she might actually win?

all of what the media is saying is just bull and I really can't believe that people would buy any of it our media is a joke thier more worried about ratings than who is President we went to war so they could have a story the way they have treated Hillary is just unbelieveable the men in the media are sexist pigs.I hope plenty of women show up on friday

All the way to the convention Hillary, we are with u!!! :signed, a McCain supporter

She doesnt seem to know anything that is going on around her? Who else does this remind you of???

TCG -- Perhaps it is both making the mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes and I'm okay with that. I'm okay with Obama's boneheaded mistakes and I'm okay with Clinton's boneheaded mistakes. I'm okay with Obama's surrogates and Clinton's surrogates making mistakes. In this day and age of media and technology, EVERYTHING is scrutinzed and blow way out of proportion. EVERYTHING.

Focusing on this minutiae of crud isn't going to resolve the bigger issues of our nation. If you think that fixating on this minutiae is going to truly affect their ability to lead, then vote your conscience. It's all of our right to do so and good for us.

In this day and age, I feel like we are in information overload. Too many of us rely on the media to distill and synthesize information rather than leaving it up to Americans to come to their own conclusions based on their own research.

I think BOTH candidates are capable of being ready on Day One. I have my reasons fo