At times I feel like it's just me against the world...

  • PrometheusOnFire

    I agree that the MSM see Obama as a projection of their hopes and dreams rather than the person he actually is.

    I also love that this columnist mentioned that Obama manufactured himself (with the help of the press) as post-racial and post-partisan. Even though I didn’t vote for him in the primaries, I remember liking that he wanted to “bring Republicans and independents into [his] coalition.” After eight years of divisiveness, I thought that that wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

    Clearly, none of that’s true. He definitely plays the race card and his record (contrasted to McCain’s, especially) shows that he’s one of the most partisan members of the Senate. What’s even more troubling are his connections to a racist church and his own racist admissions in his book.

  • IndieDogg

    Polls today suggest that OBAMA has received a huge bounce (some showing a swing nationally from 2 points down to 9 points ahead) in the space of a few days because of the FINANCIAL CRISIS facing the nation.

    Can someone explain this to me?

    In a time of crisis, we turn to the candidate with absolutely no experience in finance, government or otherwise? Who can’t decide if he’s for or against the planned bailout (until he’s checked the polls) and doesn’t even plan to be in Washington (is he still a Senator, or have the people of Illinois given him the term off to campaign) to vote or to debate or to offer his enlightened guidance.

    If the American public thinks so highly of his expertise on economic issues, shouldn’t he head to Washington immediately to provide his expertise to those seeking a solution? Instead, his attitude is, “Let them work it out and, if it’s close, I’ll come vote.”

    There is a serious disconnect between the man and the apparent image he has managed to conjure in the public consciousness. This is mass delusion.

    What are people thinking who answer these polls? You trust Barack Obama more on the economy?

    Based on what?

  • Sparky

    IndieDogg – who controls these polls and there output – the MSM. If the news agencies keep putting information like this out it is because they are trying to slow McCain’s momentum. I don’t put much stock in polls.

    The polls are targeted for specific demographics to produce the desired outcome.

  • roguetrekker

    Looking at all that BO has done in this election, why does the brilliant film “Wag the Dog” spring to mind?

  • Sparky

    Because it doesn’t fit into the story line of the “Emperor wears no clothes”.

  • mbander

    Indiedogg,

    If you check the poll with the 9 point bump, it was heavily skewed – 38% Democrats, 28% Republicans, and a too high ratio of African-Americans (who are at 90% support of Obama) Other polls don’t reflect the same trend.

    I am wondering what fallout there will be from Obama wanting to continue the foreign policy debate scheduled for Friday while McCain is suspending his campaign to work on the proposed bailout. Obama said that people need to “hear what they have to say” instead of casting a vote, so we can really KNOW where they stand. Kind of a giant PRESENT vote. I am sure the MSM will run cover for him – again. Personally, I am disgusted by this position. It is clear that he thinks he can stay out of the fray and then continue his blame game. And still protect is contributors. Not very presidential of him.

  • Sparky

    That is exactly what I thought as well mbander – with him not being in Washington he can easily say that he wasn’t part of the problem.

  • just_an_observer

    obama didn’t say “that people need to hear what they have to say instead of casting a vote, so we can really KNOW where they stand.” that is cherry-picking a quote, isn’t it? i cannot find any indication or evidence that obama will NOT attend a vote on the bailout plan. if it’s out there, please direct me to it, as i’m curious ….

    i think there is a legitimate discussion to be had as to which action (not person) is more presidential: mccain’s suspension of his campaign and his ‘no deal, no debate’ stance or obama’s decision NOT to suspend his campaign and his insistence on keeping the debate as scheduled.

    personally, i think the latter (which doesn’t mean that obama would make a better president). mccain’s action seems too politically motivated to me. basically, i don’t believe that his presence (or obama’s) will help accelerate the process of getting a bailout deal that the congress can agree to and approve.

    (also, i think it’s only fair if i divulge my own selfish interests: i was looking forward to the debate on friday!)

  • Michaelene

    I want to see what Obama and McCain vote for, not waht they say they will do.
    I am so tired of hearing what Obama says he will do.
    Just an observer: Obama stated that reid said he was not needed and he will not go unless they call him.
    This man just simply does not want to work!

    Go to the job and do what we pay you for.
    Which is more important today?
    The debate or the 700 billion proposed bailout?

    Get real, McCain is right, Country First!

  • mbander

    Just-an-observer

    I shouldn’t have put quotes around “the people need to hear what they have to say”. I was shortening his response, and didn’t mean to imply it was a quote. What he actually said was “With respect to the debates, it’s my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess.” (But the debate is actually on foreign policy.)

    Since he would have us believe he has the answer, why not go back and do the job that he has agreed to do – as Senator. Maybe it would be a smaller “mess”. Or would he rather – as is his way – to talk a good game, and then criticize everyone else. Now is his time to show his leadership skills. Were he to become president, he would not be able to skip the work on this.

  • just_an_observer

    michaelene – i guess i don’t see this as an either/or issue. in other words, i don’t think that the candidates either a) continue to run their campaign and participate in the debate or b) suspend the campaign and go back to washington to hammer out a deal. i think they should be able to continue their campaigns and contribute appropriately to the framework of the bailout plan. i understand mccain’s decision, but i don’t agree with it. furthermore, i disagree with the premise to your question: which is more important the debate the or the bailout plan? of course, the bailout plan is more important today; however, that’s not the crux of the issue for me.

    neither senators mccain nor obama are on the senate committee on finance, where most of the work and vetting for the bailout plan is taking place. as such, i don’t see how either of them being back in washington is going to help the cause much. will it help having them back? sure. but enough to suspend the campaign? i don’t think so (but, i don’t know so).

    mbander – i don’t get the impression from obama that he has ‘the answer.” to my knowledge, he has outlined his “6 principles” that should be included in the bailout plan. i don’t think it is a good idea to have mccain or obama back in washington because they’ll both be angling for the spotlight. furthermore, i think that mccain recognizes that, according to polls (i.e., not me!), the economy is an issue that obama (and the democrats, in general) has an advantage over mccain (and the republicans, in general). so, it seems to me that mccain would be even more likely to try and get the spotlight. that said, obama has never seen a spotlight that he didn’t like, so maybe it’ll be a 50-50 struggle!

    to address a question that indiedogg raised earlier regarding the economy and obama, and why people polled ‘trust him more’ on the issue. i think it’s well documented that during economic highs and lows, the administration and party in power get a disproportionate share of the praise and blame, respectively. was the recession in the early 1990s the fault of the bush 1 administration? was the economic boom of the late 1990s the responsibility of the clinton administration (or the republican congress, or dare i say both!)? is this current economic crisis the fault of the bush 2 administration? these are not simple yes/no questions, but i think that in every case, the blame/praise is disproportionate to the actual influence that an administration has over a 4- or 8-year timeframe. back to my point … people trust obama more on the economy because he’s not a republican. right now, i think people associate the economic downturn with republicans, fairly or unfairly.

  • WasHRCnowPalin

    just_an_observer,

    you said “….is this current economic crisis the fault of the bush 2 administration? these are not simple yes/no questions, but i think that in every case, the blame/praise is disproportionate to the actual influence that an administration has over a 4- or 8-year timeframe.”

    The FAULT and the BLAME are two separate matters…. the Obamedia will blame McCain no matter who was at fault…. but the fault for this economic crisis may be traced to the root… the failure of Mac and Mae… and that may be found out by following the influence money.. and the money leads to DNC elite – Chris Dodd and Barack Obama.

    I wasn’t voting for Obama before this came out because he is a sexist….and my instincts have been confirmed for other reasons…. he is on the take!

    Go Sarah 2008!! Hillary 1012!!!

  • mbander

    just_an_observer’

    As the ostensible heads of their parties, and facing perhaps the biggest piece of legislation in my lifetime (which is over a half a century!) they need to be back in Washington working this out. And for several reasons. First of all, it is their job – the one they were duly elected and are being paid for and took an oath for.

    More importantly they are each asking us to support them for the most important job in the country. We deserve to see where they stand on this, what they have to offer. When McCain misses a vote, Obama is quick to criticize. When McCain decided to take a leadership position on this one, knowing he will be on record when the results are seen, Obama is still critical, claiming a president should be able to do 2 things at once. I don’t see where he is doing but one thing himself – just trying to talk us into voting for him. Taking the easy road. Putting the election above country. I can listen to a debate on foreign policy days or weeks from now – Congress is working on the bailout right NOW. A president can’t choose the timing of his crises.

    If his presence and vote on this HUGE bill is unnecessary, then he needs to stop touting his Senate experience on his resume. If we don’t need him in the Senate, we surely don’t need him in the Whitehouse either.

  • hillaryc12

    On the View today, Whoppie said that it was probably more important that McCain go back to Washington because he is a leader of the Republicans. I know that McCain has a history of warning and trying to pass legislation about the problems with Mae and Mac. Maybe his experience is a factor. I think Whoppie was homeless or close to it once. Maybe her experience told her this is important.

  • just_an_observer

    mbander- i don’t think it’s mccain’s job or obama’s job to go and work out the bailout plan. it is part of their job to vote on the plan – but that’s different than hammering out the details. as i said previously, neither of them serve on the relevant committees that are vetting the plan. obama never said that he would miss the vote, as far as i know, but he did refuse to suspend his campaign.

    congress has been working on the bailout plan for one week, not right NOW. that’s why i’m suspicious of mccain’s motives (as i would have been if obama had done the same thing). why wait 3 days? if his presence and leadership is that important, why did it take him 3 days? as i stated previously, i don’t think it was presidential. i thought it was opportunistic (which means, if you’re keeping score at home, that the opportunistic scale is still tipped strongly in favor of obama, i think).

    i’m sure that both mccain and obama have been appraised of the details of the bill by members of their party. i think a strong argument can be made that both candidates should be back in washington if their help is needed. i trust that both candidates would respond if their party leaders in the senate (reid and boehner) called them to seek their support. based on news coming out today, it seems that mccain’s influence might be needed to convince some house republicans of the merits of the bill. if he’s useful, more power to him – stick around and do what you do best. but does that require him suspending his campaign? i don’t think so (but, i don’t know so).

    is obama’s presence unnecessary? in regard to the process of hammering out details, it doesn’t seem like the democratic leadership needed him in washington. and it seems like more democrats are on board with the plan, so they don’t need obama to spend time trying to convince people of the merits of the bailout. is his vote unnecessary? i don’t think so and it seems to me that obama will vote on the bailout plan. and if he votes on it, i can only assume that it’s consistent with the “6 principles” that he has advocated on the campaign trail. similarly, i can only assume that if mccain votes yes on the bill that it includes the same provisions that he has spoken about on the campaign trail (that is, prior to his suspension).

    in any case, i am unconvinced by the “election above country” argument. i think you can run an election, do your job (i.e., vote on the bill, raise hell with fellow party members as need be, etc.), all the while serving your country.

  • just_an_observer

    WasHRCnowPalin,

    am i understanding your post correctly? are you suggesting that the economic fallout is the fault of the DNC elite (e.g., Dodd and Obama) because of the campaign donations they received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac employees? please clarify.

  • just_an_observer

    earlier i wrote that boehner was a (republican) party leader in the senate. i was incorrect. he is the house party leader. senator mcconell is the republican party leader in the senate. my apologies.

  • mbander

    Well, like I said before, if he doesn’t bring anything to the writing of the bill and a little bipartisan negotiating (he is the Great Uniter after all) than what good is he. By his own admssion then (and yours), he adds nothing to the issue. And its a good thing everyone in the Senate doesn’t feel that way – or who would write the bill. He talks about action – but I am not seeing any. I don’t find his positions defensible.

    By the way, you must be aware of Dodd’s constant cheerleading about how stable Fannie and Freddie were, even after the accounting fraud was found. He is either an idiot or a crook – you make the call.

  • just_an_observer

    can’t you be an idiot and a crook?! what’s up with all this either/or stuff? :)

    you won’t find me making any excuses for dodd. there are bunch of jokers in the congress (in both parties) and in the administration who have fumbled over themselves regarding the stability of the economy. some errors, i recognize are more egregious than others. i’ve said it elsewhere though, the lion’s share of the blame is likely to go to the republicans … which i think is unfair. but it’s going to happen.

    anyhow, i didn’t intend to imply that obama adds nothing to the issue. the scope of obama’s job in the senate, based on the committees he serves on, does not require him to take part in the development of the bailout plan. neither does mccain’s though. it is within the scope of both of their jobs to offer recommendations, debate the aspects of the bill, and knock heads when need be. based on what i’ve read (which isn’t exhaustive, mind you) there are no heads to knock on the dems side. how would it look if obama usurped the role of the republican leadership and tried to convince republicans of the merits of the deal? now that would be unpresidential and opportunistic (that said, never under-estimate obama!). regardless, there is no way that obama could convince me that he is needed to talk with house or senate republicans regarding the deal.

    ultimately, mccain took a calculated risk to suspend his campaign. i perceive it as a forceful insertion of himself into the debate/discussion and i think it will backfire. i admire his guts and his willingness to take the risk … but i wouldn’t have done the same if i was a senator running a hotly contested presidential campaign. maybe his intention is altruistic and he really wants the deal to get done … but i remain unconvinced that suspending his campaign was necessary.

  • badlybehaved

    What does suspending the campaign involve? Just not showing up at previously scheduled campaign stops? I agree that the Republicans are getting blamed for this. McCain, contrary to what one would consider normal Republican anti-regulatory stance saw this coming and tried to do something about it. Maybe McCain thought that Obama’s associations with some of the major players in this would be ‘discovered’ and become part of the story.

  • mbander

    just_an_observer,

    Which of the Senators are needed in your opinion? This should be left to the Senate Banking Committee via Dodd?? I think they were already in charge once. If Obama weren’t campaigning should he show up – after all, he clearly isn’t needed? If debating and voting on bills in the Senate aren’t really his job as Senator, well, you’ll have to enighten me on what exactly his duties are there.

    He claims he is all about defending me – you know the cute little Main Street – Wall Street quote he loves. Wel I would almost believe him if he was there all night fighting his little heart out to be sure I didn’t get screwed on the deal instead of importantly TELLING me how much he cares – while they screw me without him.

    As to him not showing up for the vote I was just going by his campaign staff’s comment on that. However, he did say tonight, after his meeting with Bush and the Senate and House leaders, that he would stay in Washington tonight, leave tomorrow while negotiations (he assumed ) went on. He didn’t mention coming back for a vote. SOOOOO I am only assuming he won’t.

    But while we have some apparent common ground on the quality of some of the leadership in Washington, are you embarrassed, as I am, every time Harry Reid opens his mouth?

  • Anne Marie

    Great, honest, and courageous post. I agree wholheartedly with the author. Obama IS the Media’s “creation,” as much as “the creature” was an invention of Victor Frankenstein’s. Well…anyone who read the novel knows how much Victor later regretted that choice! “The creature” later turned against Victor himself! Good luck with “YOUR CREATURE,” MSM!

  • Sparky

    Ann Marie – what a great comparison – nicely done!

    Does “just an observers” also stand for “just another Obama Troll”?

  • just_an_observer

    sparky – i have no agenda here and i do not troll. to be honest, this is the only site i have posted a comment to during the presidential campaign. i have not donated a single dollar to any democratic or republican candidate during this campaign. as i’ve stated previously, i like the posts on this site. i find them interesting. i’m not here to convince anyone of anything. i simply enjoy the exchange.

    mbander – i wrote that debating and voting on bills WAS part of a senator’s job. please re-read my post to clarify. is it fair to assume that senator obama will not vote on the bailout plan because he has not explicitly said that he will? i haven’t heard` senator mccain explicitly say that he is going to vote on the bailout plan, but i am assuming that he will vote.

    regarding which senators should be involved, it should be the members that make up the appropriate committees. despite our mutual dislike of some members of said committees, it doesn’t mean that senate procedures can be thrown out or ignored. ultimately, based on the committees they serve on, i don’t think obama or mccain are in a position to play a major role in the fight to ensure that you and i are protected in the bailout plan, or as you more bluntly put it, to make sure we don’t get screwed.

    i think mccain and obama are in lose-lose positions on this issue. if they show up (like mccain) they are accused of bringing presidential politics into the mix and messing up the negotiations. if they don’t (like obama) then they are accused of shirking their senate duties. just look at us, we’re debating which candidate’s decision is more presidential!

    i’d take mr reid over ms pelosi any day …

  • Sparky

    Egad, I can’t stand Reid or Pelosi. For that matter – we need to clean house across the board and start over.

    I do agree with you on the “damned if they do and damned if they don’t stance”.

    The bottom line is that we are paying these guys to work on our behalfs, they need to get to Washington, give up a couple of days, roll up their sleeves and do their job.

    just_an_observer – I do appreciate your candor.

  • WasHRCnowPalin

    Justanobserver,

    It’s simple…. ask why Mac and Mae gave so much money to Dodd and Obozo.. why? why give any money at all… why give the MOST money to Dodd and Obozo?

    Influence…. influence to allow Mac and Mae to operate without oversight… and we see the results now…. the crooks who ran the show made off with tens of millions in salary.. same ones who gave the money to Obozo….but of course the story doesn’t end there… these same crooks who gave money to Obozo are now key components of his campaign!!!

    Another reason why the lad will not get my vote….

    Go Sarah 2008!!! Hillary 2012!!!

  • IndieDogg

    Either John McCain or Barack Obama will be President of the United States in less than 100 days. The current President, reputed to be George W. Bush, requested that they return to Washington to participate in brokering a measure to address the most serious economic crisis to hit this nation in 80 years (1928, rounded it up to 1929 and yes, I know who was President then, even if Rambling Joe Biden doesn’t). They are there not merely as Senators but as Presidents in waiting if you will, about to assume the leadership of the nation. It seems reasonable to me that they might be concerned that they have a nation to lead.

    If Barack Obama wants to reduce this crisis to an argument over the use of a speaker phone versus being in a room with the participants in a meeting, or whether John McCain is “play politics” by showing up to address a threat to this nation’s economic viability, he’s welcome to engage in that debate. Personally, I have more serious concerns than how Mr. Obama thinks it “looks” for John McCain to return to Washington. I’m far more concerned how it looks to the Chinese, who finance our debt, if he doesn’t.

    Mr. Obama should also be concerned about that. But, then again, I understand that he doesn’t have any foreign policy experience. Wait, was that Governor Palin? Senator Obama is the foreign policy guru, right? Wait, what am I missing?

    I’m missing the punch line to this national joke. If this man is serious, and his supporters are serious, we have a lot more to worry about than the current crisis.