This is an interesting point.  Yes his choice was not a "Maverick" move it was a move to make the far right wing of the Republican party happy.  Hardly sounds like a maverick to me.  If he was a true maverick he would have picked the person he has said he really wanted there.....lieberman

And the drug companies:)

Yes paperwork amounts to alot of our increased healthcare costs.

Obama has strengths?

But you are partially right.  McCain has no core other than power.  And I dont trust him.  I only trust Obama to do 2 things.  Appoint Liberal Jurists and be the 2nd coming of Jimmy Carter.  In that, he will serve some good.  Everyone will forget about Bush in 4 years if he is elected (do people still vilify Nixon?  Not many and mostly just the loons).

Do you think mandatory health insurance coverage is not going to make insurance companies MORE rich?

LOL, I didn't know Bush was running again.

Hmm, makes you wonder if so, why all the fuzz with Palin? Hypocrisy anyone?

Probably right, but then isn't that what anyone would do in his position? Kinda funny how some point out these things as something bad when it's the opposing party who does it.

You forgot to add Obama and Biden to that list. But that's OK, we all make mistakes, not that Democrats will admit to it.

Yes, more free stuff to the lazy and the "helpless". One would think those who need help and can't afford it don't get any.

Hmm, that's kinda funny to say, considering Obama said this in Florida a while back:

“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,”  and “If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”

Link

So Obama is willing to compromise if necessary to drill yet you criticize the Republicans for wanting the same? Shame on you.

LOL, as if Clinton did any better, but sure he is not running either so who cares right? This country is screwed up because of the idiots in this country who should have not bought things they could not afford and are now paying the price for it.

Yes, and the answer to this is to make friends with our enemies and let them set the rules. This from a guy with very little, if any, foreign policy experience.

Good try though, I give points for effort, but the gollup polls don't seem to be agreeing with you.

So my father is a loon?   He remebers Nixon well, and has a bumper sticker that reads "And I thought I would never miss Nixon"

Obama has strength?

Change your blog's title. It should have a prefix "In" infront of it.

I actually agree with you here.  My belief is that there is no experience that can prepare you to be president.  Many former presidents have said so, repubs and dems.

I dont think any real democrat would want this.  But I can tell you from first hand experience that there are MANY people who are poor or very poor and are hard working and would continue to work hard if given health ins.  You are right though in that their are people out there like that.  I have one in my family and those people we should "weed out" and they should not be allowed if they are scamming.

I think his point is that this is about all they want to do, that and maybe the hugely expensive nuclear option which no one wants the waste from.

Well its hard to disagree too many people bought stuff on adjustable credit, but the government did see this problem coming and didnt do anything to stop things like predatory lending.

Believe me I know what it's like to be poor. But I have always made it my choice to do what it takes to get as good a job as I can with the purpose to move up. I have been without insurance for short periods of time, but I busted myself to make sure I got a job ASAP. I, at least, want to. My mom would be considered by many to not be able to work, she has all kinds of pains and problems. So does mt father, that does not stop them from working and making a living. If they can do it, most people on welfare can. I should know, I helped a lot of them as an interpreter at the age of 8.

I am a firm believer that "you do the crime you do the time". I have put myself in some really bad financial situations, I don't blame the govt for nt stopping me, I don't blame my parents for not teaching me, I don't blame my job for not paying me enough. I blame myself for being irresponsible, for not trying harder and for knwing what not to do but doing it anyways. I am man enough to admit I was wrong and am currently working on fixing my mistakes. If I can do it, so can many others.

This is an interesting point.  What isn't being talked about much just now is that what has come to be called 'predatory lending practices' were actually forced on the banks (the main purchasers of FM/FM securities) a number of years ago by Congress, led by Democrats.  There was a great outcry and much public teeth-gnashing over the practice of what was called 'red-lining' by banks: the use of risk-management models which identified geographic areas where the lending risk was high.  Because, not altogether surprisingly, these areas were more predominantly inhabited by minorities, this was construed as a 'racial' and 'discriminatory' practice, rather than a financial risk-management practice and was for all intents & purposes outlawed.

Because every American 'deserved the opportunity to own a home' (sounds great, right?), lenders were forced to abandon this practice and required to engage in 'equal opportunity' lending.  Thanks to low interest rates, Federal loan guarantees (hey, no downside there - we've got our hands in the taxpayers' pockets if the shit hits the fan) and the requirements to extend credit to homebuyers with a high risk of default, we ended up where we are today.  This was all done in the name of 'helping the poor'.  Now look at who is hardest hit - the poor and the taxpayers.  The lenders & banks had little incentive to avoid high-risk loans - they knew that the Feds (you & me) would back them up if they rolled craps, which is exactly what's happened.

One man's gift is another man's predation.  And for the Democrats to 'blame Bush' is, in the kindest term I can use to describe it, disingenuous.

For the good or the bad of it, the US Constitution disagrees with you here.   The president was always meant to be an administrator, not a leader.  The only Constitutional leadership authority the President has is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, which I grant you is a huge leadership role, but he isn't the Commander in Chief of the United States of America.

Seriously, if you look at what a president does, there is very little leadership involved.  The fact is, the Founding Fathers wrote to Constitution in such a way that no one person would ever be the leader of the United States of America. 

It is my opinion that, when we look back in history, the biggest mistakes made by any president was when they tried to be leaders instead of administrators.  Why?  Because no president knows enough about enough things to be an effective leader.  What they do is appoint people who do know (at least we hope) enough about their area of expertise to advise the president on the issues of the day.

Please don't be so short sighted that you are willing to throw out the definitions, authorities and limitations specified by the US Constitution simply because you want to make the case for one candidate or another.

Why?

No, I said vilify, not remember.  YOur father remembers him well.  As do many.  Nixon was many things, but he was also the one who went to China.  I should have added historians to the list as historically it was a very significant time (if for the wrong reason) in American history.

Good point! The current lending and housing "crises" (it is not, is is a correction) is the result of good intentions! By the democrats of course (although to be fair, republicans did not fight it hard if at all). The correction will take care of the problems, but like all corrections, real people will be hurt in the process.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are perfect examples of the failure of socialism, and believe it or not, the ones who ran them into the ground were democrat insiders! The magnitude of the scandal at Freddie Mac dwarfs Enron (by a factor of 10) yet you do not hear anyone demanding their heads like Ken lay.

Yes, Obama is going to be different. Instead of enron (actually another Clinton Cronie and the disdaster happened under his watch), we will have Enrons x 10! under obama.

Though I was intrigued by your article, I think we're all kind of missing the point.  And I'm not talking about just the bloggers here that are all about hating on the Democrats.  I think everyone in America is too busy with the political side of things to find the best representative.  That's waht is broken in our country.  So instead of saying, "Republicans=good, Democrats=bad" or vice versa, why don't we look at the individuals running, and not the party they're running under?

P.S. Vote Nader in '08! 

But I am doing that, I think.

Some of the most objectionable people for me are Republicans: David Duke (because he is a racist), Pat Buchanan, all those paleo-conservatives and their ilk, the crazy uncle, those people.

And I like the people they hate: George Bush, John McCain; as well as Ronald Reagan and even Richard Nixon, also George Bush Senior.

And there are people among the Democrats I strongly dislike: Barack Obama (because he is a racist), the treehuggers, the anti-Semites and their ilk, today's Kennedies, and most of all Jimmy Carter (because he was an ineffective president who claimed as his accomplishment the work of Anwar Saddat and called his friends the murderers of Anwar Saddat).

And there are people among the Democrats whom I like: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, the old Kennedies.

Good, I prefer John McCain over Hillary Clinton, but they are totally in the same league for me. That means that for both of them I know what they stand for and respect their opinion and can see why people would vote for them.

And yes, please do vote for Nader.