₦airaland Forum

Just wondering, which of this guys should get the award of the best political analyst on Nairaland

Yemmyse,

Before I respond with a vote, please clarify what you mean by "political analyst".  Given the people in your list I need to understand your request.

The strength of a wikipedia page is backed by the strength and number of its references. Please visit the page again. When I did google search on Bush Doctrine, I found many academic papers on it and even modules on Political Science degrees. Guaranteed, it is a new theory, but I expect a web analyst to understand how Page Ranking works even if he graduated in 1995 and Page Ranking came out in 1998-2000.

From a mathematician, wrong answer! The strength of reference materials are supported not in their strength of numbers but rather, by the credibility of its source. The individual must determine if their search for information and reference is to gain truth or to acquire information. Your repeated mention of wikipedia, even on issues that philosophically lack merit is disturbing. Example is the Bush doctrine.

What doctrine of Bush, if any is worth learning for enlightenement? His atrocities are many _ illegitimate war, systematic torture, wholesale distabilization of the middle east region, etc, For what he has done, many other leaders would have been labeled war criminals and probed for possible prosecution. I know on that point you are going to google and wiki and tell me US is not on the treaty. Yeah, I know that! Still, it does not absolve him of committing those crimes.

I would not be surprised that there are academic papers and teachings of the doctrine in universities. Bush has no legacy. What are you going to put in his Presidential library? He needs a tangible legacy and what better way to formulate one than to coin a friendly term for a criminal action and deploy it internationally by his stooges _ Karen Hughes; Paul Wolfson; Richard Perle; Zalmay Khalilzad; Robert Gates and the rest of them. The universities where it is taught got some grant for it, I bet you! It is being sold, not researched! You bring information but you dont probe for truth. Thats unnatural for a scientist. Maybe you should become a Politician where google and wiki can better serve your opinions.

Newton introduced the term 'gravity'. However, if you ask any fool on earth they know that whatever goes up must come down. Even a dog knows this. That is why when you throw a stick, he knows he must catch it because it will come back down. However the difference between a dog and a scientist is that a scientist can define gravity whilst a dog cannot. Therefore we must call him what he is - a dog! Even if he wears lipstick!

Newton was not the first to write on gravity. Newton developed on works that was already begun by philosophers and astrologers and astronomers. Long before Isaac Newton was born, Astronomers had already standardized the effect of the pull of one body against another and also established how to invert that force of pull. They studied magnetism and relational laws of bodies both in static and in motion and concluded mathematically a relational formula; mc².

I am sure McCain, Obama and Biden know exactly what the Bush doctrine is. Sarah Palin simply doesn't belong in this category. It is her academic history that rankles with me more than anything.

Again, here you go equating Bush doctrine as an academic work. Bush himself is far from academic scholarship, let alone establishing academic principles. You are right Palin does not know the answer but that laxity should be attributed to the fact that she is not aware or lack information on the policy, rather than a question of academic ability or aptitude.

Bush doctrine is nothing more than a Bush's goverment policy, period, no more no less!

Ibime,

You and wikipedia! Let me clear some misconceptions for you before I respond to the points you made. Anybody can create Wiki article. I have a subscription in it and I can go there and creata an article and call it "IBIME - An African Astronaut". Before you know it, the internet will be bombarded with blogs about your mission to Pluto. Lmao. So calm down about wiki. Ok?

Now, Sudan was hit because of speculation that terrorists were hatching a plan to attack US interests in the Gulf of Aden. It was not hit for what happened in Kenya but for what they thought was getting ready to happen. We will never know if the intelligence was right or not because an American military asset was indeed hit around Aden, only that the bad noys came out of Yemen and not Sudan. But who is to say that they did not shift base to evade surveillance?

If you don't know why Somalia was hit, why then did you contend what I said?
Do me a favor, file for Freedom Of Information release on Somalia and you will get the picture.

Preemptive strike is not a Bush Doctrine. Calling it that will be like saying white man started slave trade.

You are sounding as if Bush Doctrine is an academic "must read".

Admit it, you didn't know what the doctrine was before that question. Agreed, you know a lot about it now that you have been on the internet and researched it. If you didn't know that preemptive strike existed before Bush, then hardly true that you knew about the Bush doctrine.

If I was a Republican strategist I would throw a party tonight and invite each and every one of you to attend. If you live in Europe I will send you flight ticket and give you diplomatic immunition to bypass customs. Here is why, . . .

In her first major interview as the Republican vice presidential nominee, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was stumped when asked about the so-called "Bush Doctrine," unable to answer whether she agreed with the six-year-old US. policy of military preemption

Oh really? Bush Doctrine? Mint and package it as "Bushism" make it admirable; a new strategy in global politics. You are unintelligent and unlettered if you have not studied and understood what Bush Doctrine is. Vindicate Bush for invading Iraq pre-emptively.

Palin couldn't say, offering an answer that didn't even mention preemption. "I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent in destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better."

Palin had no clue. Don't candy-wrap it, dont spin it, dont give it lip service, she is like me and millions of other Americans, we had no clue there was something called Bush doctrine, period!

Gibson, who clearly felt he had not received a sufficient answer to the question he had asked, proceeded to define the Bush Doctrine for the governor. According to Bush's National Security Strategy from September 2002: "While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.
Thus, Gibson pressed Palin. "The Bush Doctrine is we have the right to self-defense, pre-emptive strike against any country we think is going to attack us," he noted. "Do you agree with it?"

How did that become Bush doctrine? Thats what American forces did when they went into Sudan and bombed out a pharmaceutical plant. Thats what they did when special forces were air dropped into Somalia. Thats a standing Pentagon policy and has always been implemented long before Bush became President.

By calling it Bush doctrine is a setup! Watch out!! If Obama camp allow that question and particularly that term to gain momentum, then they will be caught in the trap. It will be hard for Barack in his official capacity as a Senator to vote NO if Bush went to congress for support to attack Iran pre-emptively. If you believe in it and your campaign used it as a talking point against Palin, then how much are you willing to risk to be portrayed as "All Talk, No Action" candidate? If I were Obama, I would steer clear of that Bush doctrine shyit. Yeah she gaffed but hey, its a gamble to touch on it. Let it be!

I can't help but ask why you will think Hillary will be interested in seeing Obama get to the White House

Personally it does not benefit her but ideologically she sees it as a benefit. Look, because of the sentiments involved in this political season, there are some truths that ought not to be given voice. They should remain sealed within the chest and not brought to surface, period!

I mean, Obama's Presidency is a death blow to Hillary's aspirations to be President for another 16 years or thereabout (Obama's 8,and Biden's . She has a fighting chance with McCain becoming Pressident than she does with Obama becoming President.

If Obama wins it will be a one term win, you better believe it. Bi-who? McCain, if he wins will make it to second term but his party operatives will visit with him shortly afterward and . . . . look, let me just say they will visit him. After that visit Palin will succeed him and run out that term and then go for her own 8year run. So Clinton has best chance with Obama going in than otherwise.

And forget all these recent talk and the convention speeches. Bill and Hillary are very furious with Obama. Bill for Obama's supposedly accusation of him as being racist and Hillary for the fact that sexism was brought to play par excellence by the Obama camp. I'm sure you've seen Bill's interview where he lasched out he is no racist and Katie Courie's statement that sexism was employed by the Obama camp throughout the campaign.

Again, there are some things I wont say here. I dont know how long you have followed American politics. It is the dirtiest and most brutal in the world. They won't kill you but at the end of the competition you would wish you were dead.

Tayo,

Interesting! I'm on the phone and server is timing out on me causing me to post narratives duplicate times. I will respond when I'm on pc. Later, . .

RichyBlack,

The President of America is the Commander in Chief of American forces, not the CiC of NATO. General Wesley Clark, who once was a Commander of NATO ran in 2004 in the Presidential primaries of the Democratic party, beside the mention of that leadership as a resume material there were never any claim of credit on his popularity amongst European military leaders and this was at a time when Iraq was a very hot bed and Americans were getting killed by the dozens a day. So if a NATO commander ran away from such credits, do you not know that it will be foolish for Obama to claim it.

But oh, I forgot you are democrat, you all don't review past performances for improvement opportunities. You accumulate liabilities in every election season! Go ahead and put that European favorite liability on Obama so we can vote him, go ahead!

@topBanana,

First, I only trade jibes like "oloshi" with people I'm familiar with. Beside meeting you on this thread you and I are not that close to trade such words with one another and if you are someone I know, then your name here is not a familiar one and until you reveal who you are I'm going to ask you cut out the insult!

The pattern of minorities voting for certain politically labeled parties as evidence of reasoning is embarassing and insulting to the brain. A party can call itself anything it wants. Ideology is what matters - is it conservative, is it libertarian or is it independent. Sometimes parties change their ideologies but not the name. So if you remain with a party because it is liberal or because a large number of its members are people that look like you then that's far from thinking. Minorities are always in a struggle for rights and equality and freedom and etc so social movement of any kind appeal to us and if a party has all the appeal of a movement then we drift to it believing it will elevate us and deliver to us the equality, freedom and rights we yearn for. That's kool! The dimension I'm adding is that these days political endorsements by a bloc is a negotiating tool and blacks are not using that tool. We are still voting by default of the movement appeal in a party.


Now, to people that have been in politics a long time and understand electoral process, I do not need to repeat what I just clarified for you. They understood my first response on the question. Some people like you are new into politics, introduced to it by the appeal of Obama's movement for change. You are following Obama by default and its not that I did not answer the question, the problem is yours, you are not understanding the principles I inferred in my principles in any case, I hope my break down clarified it for you.

RichyBlack,

The President of America is the Commander in Chief of American forces, not the CiC of NATO. General Wesley Clark, who once was a Commander of NATO ran in 2004 in the Presidential primaries of the Democratic party, beside the mention of that leadership as a resume material there were never any claim of credit on his popularity amongst European military leaders and this was at a time when Iraq was a very hot bed and Americans were getting killed by the dozens a day. So if a NATO commander ran away from such credits, do you not know that it will be foolish for Obama to claim it.

But oh, I forgot you are democrat, you all don't review past performances for improvement opportunities. You accumulate liabilities in every election season! Go ahead and put that European favorite liability on Obama so we can vote him, go ahead!

@last poster asking me to answer if blacks think or not.
First, I only trade jibes like "oloshi" with people I'm familiar with. Beside meeting you on this thread you and I are not that close to trade such words with one another and if you are someone I know, then your name here is not a familiar one and until you reveal who you are I'm going to ask you cut out the insult!

The pattern of minorities voting for certain politically labeled parties as evidence of reasoning is embarassing and insulting to the brain. A party can call itself anything it wants. Ideology is what matters - is it conservative, is it libertarian or is it independent. Sometimes parties change their ideologies but not the name. So if you remain with a party because it is liberal or because a large number of its members are people that look like you then that's far from thinking. Minorities are always in a struggle for rights and equality and freedom and etc so social movement of any kind appeal to us and if a party has all the appeal of a movement then we drift to it believing it will elevate us and deliver to us the equality, freedom and rights we yearn for. That's kool! The dimension I'm adding is that these days political endorsements by a bloc is a negotiating tool and blacks are not using that tool. We are still voting by default of the movement appeal in a party.


Now, to people that have been in politics a long time and understand electoral process, I do not need to repeat what I just clarified for you. They understood my first response on the question. Some people like you are new into politics, introduced to it by the appeal of Obama's movement for change. You are following Obama by default and its not that I did not answer the question, the problem is yours, you are not understanding the principles I inferred in my principles in any case, I hope my break down clarified it for you.

Ibime,

Where did you get all that information you put here, give reference to the web site or the publication. Your analysis is a mix of apples and oranges. You take budgetary analysis and lumped it together with market projections on trade index. C'mon! Give reference to the website please.

One of the reasons that Hillary completed the primary calendar and did not drop out early even when it was obvious that Obama would win the primary was because she wanted to prove a point that experience had taught her. Hillary realized the importance of electoral votes and where they mattered most and she repeatedly reminded her party leaders and the super delegates that come November 4th what mattered was electoral votes and she was the best candidate on that term to win against Republicans.

As evidence, she called upon those leaders to look at her results and compare with Obama's; Hillary had collected all the states where Democrats would need to win to get 270 electoral votes, of course if you counted Michigan and Florida. Her claim and warnings were dismissed as an attempt to move the goalposts and do anything by any means to win.

The election is only 7 weeks away. Predictions in this election season has been shattered many times and it is no longer reasonable to hold on to hope based on projections alone.

First it was predicted that Hillary Clinton will win the primary election and become the Democratic Party Presidential nominee. That Rudy Giuliani will be the Republican Presidential nominee. At one time John McCain, who ended up clinching the nomination for his party had started to fold up his campaing operations and was expected to announce his withdrawal from the primaries. There were rumors that John Edwards was a potential for Obama's VP slot. Mitt Romney was favored to VP for McCain. You have all witnessed these shuffles and dissapointments in projections.

Obama is currently projected to win the electoral votes. Can he? Will that projection come true?

Your views, . . . . . .

Really? Clinton was handily winning that bloc before the DNC primaries began. This same bloc has consistently voted all white democrat candidates.

Do they know why they voted for those candidates? Blacks were going to vote against Obama and treat him like thay have done Jesse Jackson and Sharpton. Their change of heart came about when he won Iowa. They saw him as a liability, only changed sides when they realized he could be an asset. But they never asked in what ways his resources could benefit their dienfranchised needs. In case you haven't noticed, Obama's platform is all mainstream focused. He is yet to visit one ghetto to campaign beside familiar grounds of southside of Chicago. He has not gone to HBCU to rally. It is symbolic! In addition, it delivers the promise from which his acceptance speech was resucitated.

Are you in essence saying the black electorate can't think?

C'mon David, look around you man. Look, the whites set up establishments in the black neighborhoods and ran their businesses and made the black man a consumer but he has no political voice in the management of his community. Then the whites left and sold those businesses to the jews and they did the same thing. Meanwhile the black communities continue to deteriorate but he keeps spending his dollars in the stores buying liquor, getting drunk and committing crimes, violated his household and then his community and he goes to jail and thus loses his voting rights. Then the jews sold it to the indians and pakistanis and they did the same thing, took that black mans money on payday and set up check cashing places for him in the liquor store so it makes easier to spend it right inthere, . . then the asians are leaving and are selling it to mexicans,

I willlet you answer your own question. How do you have political independence in your own community when the economy of your community is controlled and the power of influence is ruled by dollar that you have given away to those that are foreign to your community and have no vested interest in your development?

no they didnt foresee this. That's true . . . one thing they have no control over though is the fact that race is the REAL unseen force that will determine this election. All this hoopla about "issues" is just a smokescreen.

In an ideal world, republicans wont win the white house. But of course we are in a real world not an ideal one.

Obama can win this election, its not late. But in order for thatto happen, DNC must make some quick and dramatic changes. Hillary Clinton is the only right now in that party that understand how to squeeze Republicans balls and make them bend on their knees. She does not look for friends and her utterances are not measured when she is ticked off. Put her in a role that will afford her a voice to fire verbal missiles at Republicans. Once she is there in that position, then you instigate Republicans to piss her off and then stand clear and let her do her thing. Trust me, Obama will be in White House on January 20th, 2009.

In fact on the $57trn I gave him a response without going into the specifics. I hope he was not asking for specifics or I may have to refer him to OBM - Office of Budget & Management.

McCain is well known were? Every single poll in Europe shows NATO leaders would rather deal with Obama than McCain.

I don't think I need to answer that one. But if its not already apparent then I will give it voice.

In a world that is continously changing and small nations are suddenly amassing stockpiles of armaments and alliances and axis of pilitical and military treaties are unpredictable; I am not sure that any of these candidates would love to highlight a foreign based opinion that favor their camp as a credit for their qualification to be Commander in Chief. I hope DNC does not put that out in the news and I hope the file and rank of democrats will not herald that as a claim or support thereof for why Barack should be the President. No candidate when it comes to American security wants their popularity to be earned in the streets of foreign nations, regardless if its an ally nation or not.

they are only in "contention" with racist whites and their deluded sidekicks who can't imagine a black man in office. If he were white the only thing we'D be debating would be by what margin McCain would lose.

They are not in contention amongst blacks because that the bloc is a default electorate that does not ask question before it claims side.

Palin and Biden at par? You must be joking.

Political experience, NO; but electoral status, YES they are at par. This is why Obama has been rebuked for going after Palin instead of McCain who is his par. Biden should face Palin and Obama should face McCain. Although, Biden or Palin could attack the top of each other's party - that is allowed.

the mark of leaders is the ability to plan against the unforseeable. McCain has shown us the opposite.

Democrats sure are showing us Leadership by not foreseeing that McCain could make this move he did with Palin.

. .the truth is a free market is no longer a free market when it clashes with strategic national interests. . . .just ask the Dubai Group who wanted to take over the American ports. . . . . and the economy is of strategic interest.

EXCELLENT point Sir!! Free market is free. . . . . until . . . the future of your nation and your children is at risk of a take over. High five to you!!

why Government ran a $57trn deficit

Bush ran an unecessary war and he would never be forgiven for that, and should not!  Nonetheless, he ran a wartime budget, not a peacetime treasury like Clinton.  

Thats where the disparity is, in addition to the fact that Bush's administration was top loaded with veteran Washington egg heads that for most part were suddenly alarmed at the rate at which the American social landscape was changing and were uncomfortable with the momentum of change. So they needed to reverse the gains and return America to the constraints of their myopic view that they falsely refer to as conservative values.

Conservation of culture is admirable and noble but not when it is ill defined and pursued with the thirst for blood of those that stand inyour way.

. . all this stuff you have typed does not explain why Government ran a $57trn deficit. . . .it is simply bad Governance. . . if the market crumbles, that is the markets making. . . . neither Republicans nor Democrats can do anything about that short of cutting interest rates. . . .still, Governments should have strong enough receipts to support companies in financial crises by handing out tax rebates or loans at a federal funds rate which is much lower than the LIBOR rate. . . . the American Government has handed tax rebates to the tune of $170bn, but with borrowed money. . . .all I want to know is what did George Bush spend $57trn on, to the point he even has to borrow money from Mexico?

*Government should support companies in financial crises* How is that a free market? Beside, what do you call tax exemption on exports, as well as tax incentives for business expansion, how about write offs on capital depreciation, what about tax waivers on offshore assets, ;what should we call these benefits to American enterprises?

If I am correct, regulation is more of a Democratic tenet than a Republican tenet. . . . .Republicans always favour less regulation, which is why we always have a boom and bust scenario before they see the need to tighten regulation.

True but even for Democrats, it has not been a consistent program, even though that is one of their strongest claim against Republicans. They need to consistently make it a platform theme for successive administrations.

David,

Obama is the top of the ticket. He needs the exposure. He needs more exposure in fact than McCain. McCain is well known. Obama's resume and personality are still in contention so he need to solicit and he can best accomplish that by making as many appearances as possible atthe natuional level.

Palin is not the top of ticket and should be compared at par with Biden. Biden is well known and need less exposure than her. She will need to sell herself to many people that have questions about her person and qualification.

However, you do not sacrifice political gains and squander safelanding in preference for public opinion when the subject is not the Captain of the ticket. Yes, if McCain dies she will succeed him but he has not died so that thought is a projection and not reality. Lets deal with reality.

Obama is a good man, but not a real politician.
Real politicians do not think about tomorrow; they do what needs to be done to survive today. "Tomorrow is another day".
They do not care about being sensible or being sexy or being handsome; it is a dog eat dog world, it is all about winning.

There's no better way to put it than that! A very good example is Bill Clinton. He is romanticised and worshipped; Bill could not hurt a fly. But look how Bill choked the air out of the party when it came to personal victory for his wife.

Mr Obama is very academic and professional. Politics is a romantic relationship.

You get a band to play a tune and you sing chorus to that tune and get your audience energized to dance to your song. If they don't, then you determine where the problem lies. Is it my tune or my song? If its the tune, who in this band is messing up and you fix that problem. If its my song, is it the lyrics or my voice that I need to change?

Obama has done well, in fact very very well with his voice and his lyrics. Now his band is fuccking up and the lead band man is the problem. Howard Dean should step down from the stage. Put Hillary there so she can have voice to be his attack dog against, not just McCain and Palin but the whole RNC institution; and trust me, if any can do it, Hillary is very well tempered for that, she will be in her element.

I hear words like "chaperon", "approved", "guide". to make reference to RNC's management of Palin's public interview.

Shame on Democrats! Thats what your party should be doing with Obama's public appearances if you want him to win. It is brutal out there and you have to channell his course through less stormy waters not just leave him to go solo into unfamiliar territories, he is bound to make errors and you definitely do not have the luxury of time to allow for learning curves. Republicans are doing what is right by closely managing and guiding and chaperroning and approving her appearances and speech in the public.

Let's roll back to August and replace Biden with Hillary. Would Palin have been the VP for McCain? If the answer is no, then the root cause of the problem, ; our anxiety over Palin must be attributed to the DNC failure and not to the RNC's smart move.

I have no doubt in Obama's abilities and intelligence. He is not politically matured for what is aboutto happen to him.

Anybody seen Mitchell lately? Any report on her makeover? She has not been appearing beside her husband lately. You guys planning to run for office in future, learn from this. Find a woman that is beasutiful inside but do not sacrifice the outer beauty, it carries weight and could give you an edge and there are women out there with admirable personality and outward charm and appeal. Make you no go marry wowo woman o come dey expect to get my vote, e no go happen,

Mitchell is beautiful, tall, curvy and dark skinned but just few symmetrical balances with the expression and she will be hot!

“I think there’s a really good chance Sarah Palin could become president, and I think that’s a really scary thing… I don’t know anything about her and in eight weeks, I don’t think I’m going to know anything about her. I know that she was a mayor of a really, really small town and she’s the governor for Alaska for less than two years. I just don’t understand. I think the pick was made for political purposes… Do the actuary tables and there’s a one out of three chance, if not more, that [John] McCain doesn’t survive his first term and it’ll be President Palin… It’s like a really bad Disney movie. The hockey mom, you know, ‘oh, I’m just a hockey mom’… and she’s facing down President Putin (of Russia)… It’s totally absurd… it’s a really terrifying possibility.”

What is Absurd is veteran Democrats, people who have been lifelong members and whose fathers and grandfathers were lifelong members, to suddenly stand back, in a very competitive and historical election year, and allow rookie politicians and fresh college graduates with no tempered political story in their resumes, , you know, allow those people in their impulsiveness and lack of prudence to deselect the most qualified candidate for Pesdiency and then, to add salt to injury, take that damage a step further and totaslly eliminate her from the VP slot in favor of a candidate that is as weak in personality and fury as John Kerry, their last defeated candidate in 2004.

I cannot find words vulgar enough to label DNC with for this collossal failure in vision. I dont blame RNC for capitalizing on the opportunity, I blame Democrats for failing to learn from past failures and applying vision to how RNC may respond if A,B,C and D were to happen in the DNC camp.

O’reilly did not demean Obama

Kobojunkie, please watch that interview again. It is worse than what he experienced with the saddleback interview.

Interview is not a demand for your subject to account. It is a opportunity to express views. O'reily did not interview Obama, he scrutinized him. Thats disrespectful for a politician at his level.

You scrutinize John Edwards, you scrutinize Mark Foley, you scrutinize Ted Stevens. You scrutinize politicians that have squandered their public trust, not politicians that have upheld theirs.

I am glad you used the word volatile, unlike Sean Hannity who falsely claimed that Bill Clinton left in a recession. . . . the cause of such volatility was from the burst of the dotcom bubble and nothing to do with Government. . . . even the slowest idiot knows that Financial markets control their own cycles, not Governments. . . ,  . infact, the US economy only entered the recession in 2001 after September 11th. . . . yet, the least one could expect is that the Government is prepared for a recession when it hits. . .  

. . no one here is blaming George Bush for the subprime collapse and the credit crunch which followed. . . . we are blaming him for not having enough cash to protect American industries having spent it all on the war and God knows what elseif the Republicans could run up a deficit during a time of plenty, what will they do during a time of recession?

Its complex and there is no one rule that can fix it all.  Here is the problem - the government will love to regulate all companies, private or public, however the constitution says that privacy of individuals and entities must be respected and the government cannot intrude into it.  

Well, if I set up a private company like a ABC.com, then I am expecting that my dealings, outside of declared and published profit and loss reports are completely out of reach of the government.  So there is a loop hole and what I choose to do in the privacy of my business and how I run it can be legal-proofed against the intrusion of government.  I can scam the public and use legal language to legitimize what ordinarily is a fraud.  

When you have companies from ABC.com to XYZ.com decend on the free market with false claims smartly wordsmithed to evade consumer scrutiny, then you have to wonder who is looking out for the consumers?  This is where consumer advocate groups come in and the news media and the community faith based organizations to educate and raise awarenes.

I agree with you to a point, the government cannot be blamed.  This is free market at play.  But again, tehre are ways, without intruding into company privacy that government can regulate them and protect consumer.  

Ibime, I applaud your interest in that subject. This is an issue that the politicians must talk about but what they are doing is lying to the populace.  They say too much regulation will suffocate economy; lie, lie, lie!  It will shift the powers of demand and supply and the consumers will have the upper hand in demanding what they want,  how they spend, where they spend, and can collectively boycut a company that doesnt meet their needs by using dollar power to shut it down.  In all of that there will be a lesson for producers to give us what we want for its value, instead of enslaving us to their greed for profit and unaccountability.

On the issue of media coverage, I have an open question and would love to get a rational response on this.  

Why in the world did Obama go on interview with Bill O'riley?  Obama has attained a status that forever will be inhistory books all over the globe.  He is an international celebrity and at his new found level he does not need people like Bill O'Riley to validate his political career.  That was a mistake on his campaign part to field him in front, of all people, Bill O'Riley!

You will never see Bill Clinton or Hillary in front of O'Riley and if they do go on an interview with him, he dare not, I repeat, he dare not, demean their personality like he did with Obama.  Trust me, Rupert Murdoch himself will hand him his pink slip if he disrespected the Clintons.

Obama does not need politically biased news media to validate who he is, Bleep them!  There are far many other Republican news outlet that would respect his person and his career inspite of the ideological difference. Those outlets is what he needs, not some stupid racist masquerading hatred behind journalism.

Bill Clinton left a $400bn surplus and America now has a $57trn deficit. . . . . what happened to Republican rules on fiscal spending?

I love the Clintons.  But to say he left $400bn surplus is misleading. To the ordinary, this would seem like "oh America had a capital surplus of $400bn at the end Clinton's administration".  Without knowing how much of that surplus was projected revenue, then it would be difficult to credit him in relation to Bush's $57trn.  

The economy was already volatile when Bill was ending his term and no one at our level would know how much of its base was buoyed by undeliverables.

So why would McCain hire the same man who smeared his 2000 campaign?

He took a lesson from his past defeat and applied it for strategic push into the future. There is a eye opener there for Democrats.

By the way, I am still awaiting response on how your candidate will convert his senatorial accomplishments into administrative policies.

How does Obama voting record relate in merit to the role he has to fulfill as Commander in Chief?

A politician only has 2 jobs:
1. Get elected
2. Stay elected

JeSoul, You are revealing the secrets on winning elections.

Dems are looking for cordial relationships on the ticket. Ask Cheney who he would most love to aim his double barrell at and he will tell you his Boss. Thats how far their cordiality goes. You gotta wonder why Bush dont take Cheney hunting with him.

Ibime, how do you see it? Tell me.

I see, each life is equal but some are more equal than others

There is nothing like equality in life. Okay? People that go around looking for equality are disillusioned. In life, there should be fairness and thats what we ought to struggle to achieve - fairness, not equaslity. But hey, thats a discussion for another day another thread. Let me stay focused here on election.

It would definitely give Obama the ticket but then would that[b] fit into the message of change Obama was singing all through the primaries[/b]?

Where is his principle on change when you overstep a 12yr congressional senator on accusation of being Old Washington to go grab a 30yr congressional senator on the prospect of change coming to America. What change?

They have been looking for means to penetrate his security and inject syndrome bearing culture into his blood, they finally succeeded.