Obama is just a little slicker, a little subtler a little smarter, in the way he gets you back. It’s subtle but good enough:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DygBj4Zw6 No&feature=related

He has some fight in him, even if it’s subtle - but granted - it quite rare for him. He’s usually busy with the issues that matter to Americans.

I’m from NY, but I spent this past weekend in NH canvassing door-to-door. I traveled there with three other cars full of volunteers. In October I will spend another weekend in NH knocking on doors. On Election Day I will be in NH driving people to the polls. I’m making calls every night from home.

What are you going to do?
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/a ctioncenter

P.S. I just donated (again) and set up my first personal fundraising page: http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/ view/main/BrooklynKevin

–
Kevin B

I’m saying it now: President Barack H. Obama, Jr., 2009 - 2017

53 Days Until Election Day!

I think that the father-son team of President George Herbert Walker Bush and President George Walker Bush should get out there on behalf of the republican ticket and party. That’s only right too.

I look forward to the upcoming debates between Messrs. Obama and McCain concerning real American problems and democrat vs. republican solutions for those problems. These two candidates need to go head-to-head instead of dancing around the issues (and around each another).

Mr. Obama should get back on message and leave any democrat dancing to Senator Biden.

Likewise, Mr. McCain should take a breather and leave the republican dancing to Governor Palin.

After all, Mrs. Palin showed her capacity for dancing around directness and openness during the interview with Charlie Gibson of ABC. As a matter of fact, she seemed very tense. Perhaps one-on-one isn’t her forte…or perhaps simply answering questions isn’t her forte…when she doesn’t have the depth & breadth of experience necessary to come up with the answers.

I was surprised that Mr. Gibson wouldn’t give Mrs. Palin all that much slack…and even lectured her (he’s 65, she’s 44) on George W. Bush’s foreign policy doctrine, i.e., shoot-first-and-skip-the-explanations. Mrs. Palin was at pretty much of a total loss on that one (or simply didn’t want to admit how reckless such a foreign policy has become).

Through the entire interview, Mrs. Palin’s physical posture was slumped and defensive, and she struck me as trying to bluff her way through most of the answers. For example, she indicated that she knows that being a member of NATO brings the cavalry running when any member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is attacked by a nonmember, e.g., Russia.

On the other hand, Mrs. Palin wasn’t sure if the arrival of the cavalry would mean killing. Perhaps she doesn’t know that Europe mobilized for World War I’s trench warfare and mass killing because of mutual security pacts similar to that of NATO. Likewise, Great Britain was obligated to declare war on Germany in 1939 because of the Brits’ mutual security pact with Poland…after the latter was attacked by Germany [the Germans (Japanese & Italians) having a shoot-first-and-skip-the-explanations foreign policy during World War II].

War is killing…and death and destruction. It is internal organs and brains being blown out of human beings and scattered about the landscape. It is the loss of lives, as well as the loss of limbs, sight, hearing and mental & physical health. It is brutal. It is something that should be hated, rather than glorified as some “onward-Christian-soldier” piece of propaganda like Mrs. Palin thinks it is. She has no idea what Our Best & Finest are exposed to. And I doubt seriously that her little trip to Kuwait and Germany was as “life changing” as she claims. If it was truly “life changing”, then she would be condemning war, and not glorifying it.

Of course, if another republican, Chuck Norris (movie/TV star), is asked about war, he conveniently ignores the killing aspect of it too (although he’s spilled more than his share of silver screen blood).

On “Larry King Live”, Mr. Norris got very angry about Mrs. Huffington’s criticism of the fiscal irresponsibility associated with the war in Iraq ($350 million a day). He stated that he has been to Iraq two times…that he has served two “tours” in Iraq (whatever that ridiculous statement is supposed to mean)…and had spoken with many young enlisted members of Our Best & Finest & “all” of the U.S. commanders in Iraq.

Based on his “experience” (i.e., his “tours”) in Iraq (and what he was told by both enlisted folks and “all” of their commanders), the only solution for Mr. Norris is the McCain solution, i.e., stay in SW Asia till the job gets done (whenever that might be).

Mr. Norris doesn’t define what that job is, however. That’s because he doesn’t know. Not even Mr. Bush knows (ditto Mr. McCain).

Basically, the present conflict in SW Asia is an unwinnable & indeterminate counterinsurgency. The last man standing is always the insurgent, not the counterinsurgent. Every major counterinsurgency in history bears that out.

While I respect Mr. Norris’ peacetime service in the U.S. Air Force (1958-62) and am cognizant of the grief he surely experienced when his younger brother was killed in Vietnam in 1970…I feel an obligation to tell him a couple of things about how enlisted folks think.

Enlisted folks don’t have a lot of free time to spend analyzing the political implications of their deployments to Iraq. As a matter of fact, they want to get the job done as quickly as possible & get the heck home to their loved ones. That is, enlisted folks have no desire to hang out in SW Asia indefinitely. As a matter of fact, “till the job gets done” talk is politician and career officer talk…not enlisted person talk.

Secondly, if “all” of the commanders Mr. Norris spoke with were colonels, generals and admirals, then he needs to know that they spend most of their time thinking about their military and post-military careers–and not about getting the job done as soon as possible, or about getting enlisted folks home to their loved ones.

As a matter of fact, a prolonged war in SW Asia allows more time for officer career building (just as it did in SE Asia)…regardless of how many enlisted folks have to sacrifice their lives or their limbs, sight, hearing and mental & physical health in the process.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Norris (being a former enlisted guy) ought to know all of this already. Well…perhaps he’s forgotten a fact or two after having been out of uniform for 46 years.

OK Jack

>1. Less American soldiers will die, because he will >withdraw from Iraq (responsibly, so that Maliki can >take over as he wants)

This is already the plan and has started before he has any influence “hooray for status quo”

>2. Obama will make longer rest periods for soldiers >between deployments -> this means less burnout and >mental problems for soldiers

This also means rather than army personnel (who are trained to do this) Air Force and Navy personnel will do the same job (aka an army position) rather than the army guys because they are on mandetory “nap time”.

>3. Obama will improve veteran benefits -> this means >less homeless veterans

This is one possible result, though “more benefits” from what money? or should I have to pay more taxes to help even more people? (BTW I am a veteran but this doesn’t make me want to pay for them anymore than anyone else)

>4. Obama will concentrate on getting Bin Laden in >Afghanistan/Pakistan -> more security for US

I laughed so hard at this comment I nearly had milk come out my nose.

Why is it that the media is only broadcasting news about republicans and dems…there are so many options out there….obviously having republicans or dems doesn’t quite work out for america now does it?

Taxes. let me give you abit of an inside info about taxes….people say that the rich don’t pay taxes…we pay through our nose trust me!If you make money working you pay more tax than if you don’t work ( capital gains vs income tax)this taxation method does not apply only to the rich (it applies to the retired also). Would it be fair to tax a retired person as much as you tax a working person? …no not really
I hate it when ppl think that the rich don’t pay taxes.

You have to remember the GOP are the same hypocrites that bash the progression of science until they need it. Perfect example is Nancy Reagan- she was against stem cell research until Ronald Reagan died of Alzheimer’s disease. Afterwards she called for more stem cell research. Why is that? Maybe because there is SO much promise to curing neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s with stem cells? Just a suggestion….

Another example is in-vitro fertilization. Did God really intend for conception to take place outside of the body? I find it quite hypocritical that the God-fearing evangelicals won’t accept that God might have different plans for them rather than children. They then seek the selfish path and turn to science.