Obama for president - Sentinel & Ente...

Obama for president - Sentinel & Enterprise

There are 175 comments on the Sentinel & Enterprise story from Oct 25, 2008, titled Obama for president - Sentinel & Enterprise. In it, Sentinel & Enterprise reports that:

When voters go the polls on Tuesday, Nov. 4, they will be electing a new president who will face unprecedented challenges in terms of reviving our staggering economy, transforming our energy system and ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Sentinel & Enterprise.

First Prev
of 9
Next Last
dan

Boston, MA

#1 Oct 26, 2008
The war in Iraq is a huge success, Obama has no idea what to do in Afganistan. he would send troops to Darfur if he could but won't support the war we have already won. WAR IS THE ANSWER. Yes our energy policy is flawed start dilling in Alaska and the prices will stay low. stop dreaming about wind power. The nimby democrats will never like the location , just look at cape wind. Since when does a person with lots of hope and no answers make the best financial adviser, that is not the kind of advised or I want. Do I love Mcstain no . But, he is clearly the far lesser of two evils. NOBAMA NOT EVER.
Stamos

Plainville, CT

#2 Oct 26, 2008
The amount of cognitive dissonance in the electorate this year is highlighted within your endorsement of Barack Obama. In this endorsement you demonstrate the amount of intellectual detachment required to support the candidate with no foreign policy experience, whose legislative career amounted to a mediocre part-time state senator for six years, whose close personal and political associations the last 20 years includes the leaders of the worst anti-American radical groups in the U.S.:
William Ayers of Weather Underground fame; Rev. Jeremiah Wright of the Black Liberation Theology movement; Louis Farrakhan, head of the black Nation of Islam; Raila Odinga, a Marxist cousin of Obama’s in Kenya who last year tried to overthrow the pro-American Kenyan government and whose radical Islam supporters were responsible for burning alive more than 50 women and children in a church fire after Odinga lost his presidential bid; and Khalid Al Mansour, a radical Islam leader who helped Barack Obama get into Harvard.
These are just a few of the people with whom Barack Obama has surrounded himself, none of whom are mainstream, patriotic Americans. The thing all these people and all these ideologies have in common is their hatred of America and of Americans and their desire to overthrow the United States government “by any means necessary.”
Stamos

Plainville, CT

#3 Oct 26, 2008
In the words of Malcolm X. That includes voter fraud, it includes corruption, and it includes subverting election laws, especially campaign financing from foreign sources, all of which we’ve seen in this election cycle.
Unfortunately, it also includes violence. Yes, violence. In America. Read the manifesto’s of all these disparate groups with ties to Barack Obama. Their common goal is the violent overthrow of the government of the United States, the death of American citizens identified as “enemies” of their ideologies, namely the wealthy, whites and Jews. That’s about 250 million people, by my count.
All the clues and evidence are there and yet, it seems so incredulous that something like this could happen in America, especially when the media isn’t paying attention to it and when questioned, Barack Obama explains it away. The effect of a negligent media and the “aw, shucks” denials of the candidate is the equivalent of being told the sky is purple when you know it is blue, but after hearing it enough, you begin to question yourself and believe that your eyes must be lying and the sky must be purple after all.
That’s cognitive dissonance, a state of suspended disbelief, where logic no longer makes sense, where reason gives way to emotion and emotion becomes the conduit for decisions. Without good reason and based entirely on emotion, millions of good Americans are lining up like sheep to the slaughter, blindly following this handsome, young, smooth-talking new leader.
I wish this were just another election between Democrats and Republicans, about taxes and spending, about health care and energy. Unfortunately, it is not. It is something more sinister. It is the “change” these groups have been planning for 40 years converging in the personality, charisma and career of one Barack Obama, born of an atheist mother and Muslim Kenyan father, immersed in the communist ideology of Frank Marshall Davis as a teen in Hawaii, mentored by Ayers and Wright as an adult in Chicago, allied with Rashid, Odinga and Farrakhan, made possible by the Democratic party whose ideals of diversity and inclusion created the perfect Petri dish for the candidacy of Barack Obama.
So, on Nov. 4th, I am fully aware of the danger of electing Barack Obama and will be casting my vote for John McCain. I believe it is my patriotic duty to try and save my country which I believe is under siege. In doing so, I fully understand the consequences of my vote. Like anyone who has dared to disagree with Barack Obama (Bill and Hillary Clinton during the primaries, millions of Hillary supporters, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Cindy McCain, and even Joe the Plumber), the punishment will likely be more severe than the belittling, savage smears these good Americans have had to endure.
Stamos

Plainville, CT

#4 Oct 26, 2008
A Note From Uppity Woman: The following diary entry was composed by No Quarter reader CRAIG. I am posting this worthy information under my name as a courtesy to him:

I’ve read recent reports of the Obama campaign receiving donations from dubious names and foreign locales and it got me wondering; how is this possible?

I run a small internet business and when I process credit cards, I’m required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the customer making the purchase. Also, the purchaser’s address must match that of the cardholder. If these don’t match, then the payment isn’t approved. Period. So how is it possible that the Obama campaign could receive donations from fictional people and places?

I decided to do a little experiment. I went to the Obama campaign website and entered the following:

Name: John Galt
Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane
City: Galts Gulch
State: CO
Zip: 99999

I then checked the $15 donation box and entered my actual credit card number and expiration date. The website did not ask for the 3-digit verification code on the back of the card. Instead, I was sent to the next page which displayed:

“Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift.”

This simply should not, and could not, happen in any business or any campaign that is honestly trying to confirm the legitimacy of its donors. Furthermore, I don’t see how this could possibly happen without some kind of help from a credit card company. Card companies as a rule simply do not alow any business to process credit card transactions where the name on the card doesn’t match the purchaser’s name.

In short, under the current Obama contribution system setup, any eager friend from any country can contribute unlimited amounts of money by simply making up fake names and addresses.

And Obama’s system is set up to facilitate this fraud. This is truly scandalous.

It took a few days to confirm, but as of this morning, four charges have posted to my Credit Card account under four separate names. I used following names:

John Galt

Saddam Hussein

Osama Bin Laden

Bill Ayers

Below is the screen shot of my credit card account activity that corresponds to these four donations:

http://uppitywoman08.wordpress.com/
Stamos

Plainville, CT

#5 Oct 26, 2008
Facts About the Obama “Tax Refund”
On the stump and in debate, Senator Obama frequently trumpets that his economic plan would give 95 percent of all American workers a tax cut.

Here’s what this really means: Under Obama’s “Making Work Pay” plan, every worker would receive a $500 refundable tax credit, and every working couple would receive $1000.

Sounds good, right?

The key word here is “refundable.” According to the IRS, nearly one third of all tax filers– had zero tax liability after taking credits and deductions allowed by the IRS.

So what this really means is:

Under Obama’s proposal, these individuals - who have no tax liability - would receive a “tax cut” on taxes they never paid!

And guess who pays?

Is sending tax refund checks to people who already pay no taxes the right policy to encourage savings and work, or is it just another welfare program cleverly disguised as tax policy?

Some facts about just who would pay taxes under the Obama plan:

According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, 62 million Americans – about 43% of all tax filers – would have zero income tax liability. Under Sentor Obama’s plan most of those non-taxpayers would get a check at tax time.
By calling these payouts “tax credits” and “tax cuts,” Obama has created focus-group friendly language that muddies the rhetorical waters and forces opponents to go on record against “lowering taxes.” The fact is, what Obama is advancing is wealth redistribution – sending tax dollars to people who pay no taxes, with higher-income (not wealthy) individuals footing the bill.
http://www.rightchange.com/
Stamos

Plainville, CT

#6 Oct 26, 2008
Obama's socialist, redistributionist ideology:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too.... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Contrary to the Obama narrative, however, it is not free-market capitalism at the root of the current mortgage industry crisis, but rather the very socialism Obama hawks. The historical record makes this fact unmistakably clear.
Smarter than Stamos

Leominster, MA

#7 Oct 26, 2008
Stamos wrote:
Facts About the Obama “Tax Refund”
On the stump and in debate, Senator Obama frequently trumpets that his economic plan would give 95 percent of all American workers a tax cut.
Here’s what this really means: Under Obama’s “Making Work Pay” plan, every worker would receive a $500 refundable tax credit, and every working couple would receive $1000.
Sounds good, right?
The key word here is “refundable.” According to the IRS, nearly one third of all tax filers– had zero tax liability after taking credits and deductions allowed by the IRS.
So what this really means is:
Under Obama’s proposal, these individuals - who have no tax liability - would receive a “tax cut” on taxes they never paid!
And guess who pays?
Is sending tax refund checks to people who already pay no taxes the right policy to encourage savings and work, or is it just another welfare program cleverly disguised as tax policy?
Some facts about just who would pay taxes under the Obama plan:
According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, 62 million Americans – about 43% of all tax filers – would have zero income tax liability. Under Sentor Obama’s plan most of those non-taxpayers would get a check at tax time.
By calling these payouts “tax credits” and “tax cuts,” Obama has created focus-group friendly language that muddies the rhetorical waters and forces opponents to go on record against “lowering taxes.” The fact is, what Obama is advancing is wealth redistribution – sending tax dollars to people who pay no taxes, with higher-income (not wealthy) individuals footing the bill.
http://www.rightchange.com/
Everyone who works pays payroll tax.

Why do you keep drinking that right wing Kool-Aid, Stamos?

“Defeat Marxism”

Since: Oct 08

Defeat Obama in '08

#8 Oct 26, 2008
Barack Obama ought to be one of the most un-electable men in the United States. His record of consistently voting against energy, against pre and post natal babies, against support for our troops in Iraq, against the taxpayer time and time again. His associations with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayres, Tony Rezco, Khalid Al Mansour, Father Pflegler, Saul Alinski Jr., Frank Marshall Davis, Railla Odinga should send a clear signal to Americans what his ideologies are. His wife's anti-American, anti-success rhetoric... his own mocking of Joe the Plumber and his plans to take money from the rich to give to the poor which is WHOLLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL should instantly disqualify him from office. His obfuscation of his college record, of his State Senatorial record, of his community organizing record should serve as a warning that he is not the candidate open and honest people want serving as their President in America.
Stamos

Plainville, CT

#9 Oct 26, 2008
When Barack Obama talks about giving the middle class a tax cut by raising taxes on the wealthiest what he's really saying is...

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

When Barack Obama says he wants to spread your wealth around what he's really saying is

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

When he proclaims that the last eight years has created an income gap that he will resolve what he's really saying is.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

What's the Obama economic philosophy?

What do you think it is when someone thinks that "when you spread the wealth around that's good for everybody". Of course, it's as Karl Marx said.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS
Stamos

Plainville, CT

#10 Oct 26, 2008
Smarter than Stamos wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone who works pays payroll tax.
Why do you keep drinking that right wing Kool-Aid, Stamos?
Let's examine just how much economic thought has been perverted. First, the center piece of Barack Obama's defense of his own tax increases is that he'll only raise them to the levels under Clinton. Democrats will point out that the economy flourished when tax rates were that high and so they will flourish again. Of course, my response is that unless we have something of the magnitude of the internet revolution brewing the comparison is totally fallacious. Unless, we are all convinced that the environment is set up for another economic revolution on the magnitude of the internet revolution, the comparisons are totally apples and oranges.
In my opinion, the reason that the Clinton years were such good ones economically is because he came into office right at the beginning of a technological boom that saw the explosion of the transformational ideas of both the cell phone and the internet. Keep in mind that when Clinton got into office, both the cell phone and the internet were used regularly by less than ten percent of the population. By the time he left, that number was over 90%.

Furthermore, this revolution was, in my opinion, the direct result of the Reagan tax cuts. The Reagan tax cuts spawned innovation, and much of that innovation was laid into the field of technology. Companies like Microsoft, AOL, and IBM all benefitted from his tax cuts and they, and many like them, laid the groundwork for what occurred in the 1990's. In fact, if anything, Clinton tried his best to slow down the economic explosion that occurred on his watch with his ill conceived tax increases.

Finally, the technology boom lead to an internet bubble and most of the spectacular growth that happened on Clinton's watch occurred as a result of nothing more than a speculative market. For most of Clinton's second term, internet stocks were soaring out of control. At one point, AOL had twice the market cap of GM and Sears COMBINED. Amazon was gaining 30% per month in market cap even though the lost $5 dollars each and every book they sold. The economic growth of his second term was built on the back of this sort of obscene speculation.

Then, Bush took over right after this bubble burst and inherited the aftermath of the speculative market going bust. As a result, the first two years of Bush's administration wages declined significantly, and the surplus, built on the back of speculative market, turned into a deficit. Of course, it did. The government isn't going to take in nearly as much in tax receipts when it is cleaning up the mess after a speculative market crashes as it did during the speculative market. If you look at wages, they grew from 2003 through 2007 at a healthy rate. In other words, once the economy recovered from dealing with the aftermath of the internet bubble bursting, wages increased in a manner befitting a healthy economy. The budget deficit was caused by out of control spending not the results of the tax cuts.

It's unfortunate that such detailed analysis of the dynamics of the Clinton and Bush years are rarely done. As a result, it has almost become a fact that Clinton's tax increases expanded the economy and Bush's tax cuts shrank it.
Stamos

Plainville, CT

#11 Oct 26, 2008
[QUOTE who="Oh **** "]Barack Obama ought to be one of the most un-electable men in the United States. His record of consistently voting against energy, against pre and post natal babies, against support for our troops in Iraq, against the taxpayer time and time again. His associations with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayres, Tony Rezco, Khalid Al Mansour, Father Pflegler, Saul Alinski Jr., Frank Marshall Davis, Railla Odinga should send a clear signal to Americans what his ideologies are. His wife's anti-American, anti-success rhetoric... his own mocking of Joe the Plumber and his plans to take money from the rich to give to the poor which is WHOLLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL should instantly disqualify him from office. His obfuscation of his college record, of his State Senatorial record, of his community organizing record should serve as a warning that he is not the candidate open and honest people want serving as their President in America.[/QUOTE]XXYOUTUBE-wPEo zzsVxosXX
Smarter than Stamos

Leominster, MA

#12 Oct 26, 2008
Stamos wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's examine just how much economic thought has been perverted. First, the center piece of Barack Obama's defense of his own tax increases is that he'll only raise them to the levels under Clinton. Democrats will point out that the economy flourished when tax rates were that high and so they will flourish again. Of course, my response is that unless we have something of the magnitude of the internet revolution brewing the comparison is totally fallacious. Unless, we are all convinced that the environment is set up for another economic revolution on the magnitude of the internet revolution, the comparisons are totally apples and oranges.
In my opinion, the reason that the Clinton years were such good ones economically is because he came into office right at the beginning of a technological boom that saw the explosion of the transformational ideas of both the cell phone and the internet. Keep in mind that when Clinton got into office, both the cell phone and the internet were used regularly by less than ten percent of the population. By the time he left, that number was over 90%.
Furthermore, this revolution was, in my opinion, the direct result of the Reagan tax cuts. The Reagan tax cuts spawned innovation, and much of that innovation was laid into the field of technology. Companies like Microsoft, AOL, and IBM all benefitted from his tax cuts and they, and many like them, laid the groundwork for what occurred in the 1990's. In fact, if anything, Clinton tried his best to slow down the economic explosion that occurred on his watch with his ill conceived tax increases.
Finally, the technology boom lead to an internet bubble and most of the spectacular growth that happened on Clinton's watch occurred as a result of nothing more than a speculative market. For most of Clinton's second term, internet stocks were soaring out of control. At one point, AOL had twice the market cap of GM and Sears COMBINED. Amazon was gaining 30% per month in market cap even though the lost $5 dollars each and every book they sold. The economic growth of his second term was built on the back of this sort of obscene speculation.
Then, Bush took over right after this bubble burst and inherited the aftermath of the speculative market going bust. As a result, the first two years of Bush's administration wages declined significantly, and the surplus, built on the back of speculative market, turned into a deficit. Of course, it did. The government isn't going to take in nearly as much in tax receipts when it is cleaning up the mess after a speculative market crashes as it did during the speculative market. If you look at wages, they grew from 2003 through 2007 at a healthy rate. In other words, once the economy recovered from dealing with the aftermath of the internet bubble bursting, wages increased in a manner befitting a healthy economy. The budget deficit was caused by out of control spending not the results of the tax cuts.
It's unfortunate that such detailed analysis of the dynamics of the Clinton and Bush years are rarely done. As a result, it has almost become a fact that Clinton's tax increases expanded the economy and Bush's tax cuts shrank it.
Green energy has every measure of potential that the internet revolution had, and with proper market regulation, volatility can be stabilized. Regardless, you are blind to the fact that the economy historically has always done better under Democratic stewardship.

But don't believe your own lying eyes when there is right wing propaganda to parrot.

Carry on Stamos.
**** Patrol

Plainville, CT

#14 Oct 26, 2008
Stamos & Smarter than Stamos (not a stretch) Enough is Enough.
Reality

Leominster, MA

#15 Oct 26, 2008
I'm a little surprised that the S&E Ed Board would endorse Obama after reading their conservative viewpoints for so many years.

It reminds me of so many other conservative endorsements Obama has earned in the last 6 months.

It's clear that the ramifications of this election are more important to some than partisan loyalty. This fact somewhat restores my confidence in the ability of America to restore its former status in the world.
AwJeez

Leominster, MA

#16 Oct 26, 2008
Obama when no one s Watching


"Malia Obama probably wasn’t sure if her Dad would make it home from work to watch her soccer game this past Friday night.

He’s been pretty busy lately. But her Mom and her little sister would be there.

The flow of the kids moving the ball down the field, under the lights of a chilly night in October. The families chatting on the sidelines. The starlight glow of downtown Chicago rising up from the north.

Malia Obama at mid field shouts “Mom!” And the smile, grace, and presence of the woman whose eyes never once leave her daughter---no matter who else she speaks to, waves back and sends a radiant smile.

In that one wave and smile, you see hope come alive before your very eyes.

Then just a few minutes after eight; something like a shift in earth’s gravity occurs. To the casual observer, nothing in this scene has changed. That pull of the earth’s power must have been imagined.

The true city dweller will feel it first, before they even see it. Blink your eyes and they appear.

Ringing the shadows of this soccer field are people with guns. Serious people with guns. Like oak trees that move. The phrase,“Not on my watch” flashes through your head.

You have to look hard to make sure they are even there. You never really see a gun. You’re not even sure they are moving. But when you blink your eyes, somehow their positions have changed. Something about the way they just appear calms your breathing. Instinctively you know.

These are the good guys.

With that feeling of true safety pressed firmly in your very soul; you can remember the real secret at the heart of the city: we of the city are just a million small town kid's soccer game scenes all strung together.

So the kids laugh and kick the soccer ball.

Then some guy in a blue cap walks out of the gym next door. Hands in his pocket, face down, by himself. He walks over to Malia’s Mom, who has 3 conversations going on simultaneously with folks on the sidelines.

The quiet guy in the blue cap puts his arm around Malia’s Mom. Shakes hands with a couple of the people. Talks with Malia’s Mom for a minute or two.

Just then a small miracle occurs. The quiet guy in the blue cap who nobody in the crowd of really paid all that much attention to; scrunches down so he is face to face with Malia’s little sister Sasha. He lifts up the brim on the cap.

And then, standing 15 feet behind Sasha you see what she’s seeing up close. You see that smile. That smile that resounds with the very power and the glory of the city lights behind it.

That smile now almost ready to take it's place in American history.

You can’t hear, and are happy not to hear, what he’s saying to his youngest daughter. But you do hear her giggle.

Then the father takes the daughter’s hand. The younger daughter. The one who is not in the game. The one who by all rights and purposes and measures any of us know at this time in our history---was destined not to get a lot of attention tonight.

They move back in the shadows, behind the sideline crowd. Seen only by that quiet show of force here to keep them absolutely safe.

Then the miracle: they have a foot race.

While the soccer game is still going on. Just the two of them. Sasha and her Dad take off together, both running at full speed, as fast and then faster than either of them could ever imagine. Sasha laughing, and laughing at the finish line. Her Dad swoops down and picks her up.

Then that smile. This time only for his daughter.

No one else was looking. It was just for her.

His youngest daughter’s giggle. It’s the music of his promise to make sure that everyone’s included.

And this past Friday night in Chicago: Malia Obama’s team won the game."

http://open.salon.com/content.php...
Stamos

Plainville, CT

#17 Oct 26, 2008
Reality wrote:
I'm a little surprised that the S&E Ed Board would endorse Obama after reading their conservative viewpoints for so many years.
It reminds me of so many other conservative endorsements Obama has earned in the last 6 months.
It's clear that the ramifications of this election are more important to some than partisan loyalty. This fact somewhat restores my confidence in the ability of America to restore its former status in the world.
“Restore America's former status in the world". You must be kidding, what a joke.
You really are way out in left field. Maybe Obama will invite Osama to the white house for some crumpets if his cult of lies pulls it off.
This rag is still worth nothing more than a fish wrapper.

Rick Thurman, "another black vote" became publisher and sold this rotten bark mulch to the Messiah crowd back in August.
http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/contactu...
http://www.fitchburgpride.com/News/2008/0808/...

You have this fantasy that there is a perfect future out there for people like you who are filled with hate against this imperfect country who blames its status in the world from within and not on its defense on terrorism. But in order to create your perfect world you first must destroy it from within by creating dissention among those who disagree with your “hate American” philosophy. Therefore you anti-American creeps are all willing to join forces with and encourage genocidal terrorists like Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in their war against this country.

In his address before Congress on September 19, Bush reminded us: "We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies."
President Bush was talking about the terrorists and their sponsors. But he might just as well have been talking about all you hate America **** at home.
Friend of Dino

Shrewsbury, MA

#18 Oct 26, 2008
Obama = the next anti christ
Stamos

Plainville, CT

#19 Oct 26, 2008
AwJeez wrote:
Obama when no one s Watching
"Malia Obama probably wasn’t sure if her Dad would make it home from work to watch her soccer game this past Friday night.
He’s been pretty busy lately. But her Mom and her little sister would be there.
The flow of the kids moving the ball down the field, under the lights of a chilly night in October. The families chatting on the sidelines. The starlight glow of downtown Chicago rising up from the north.
Malia Obama at mid field shouts “Mom!” And the smile, grace, and presence of the woman whose eyes never once leave her daughter---no matter who else she speaks to, waves back and sends a radiant smile.
In that one wave and smile, you see hope come alive before your very eyes.
Then just a few minutes after eight; something like a shift in earth’s gravity occurs. To the casual observer, nothing in this scene has changed. That pull of the earth’s power must have been imagined.
The true city dweller will feel it first, before they even see it. Blink your eyes and they appear.
Ringing the shadows of this soccer field are people with guns. Serious people with guns. Like oak trees that move. The phrase,“Not on my watch” flashes through your head.
You have to look hard to make sure they are even there. You never really see a gun. You’re not even sure they are moving. But when you blink your eyes, somehow their positions have changed. Something about the way they just appear calms your breathing. Instinctively you know.
These are the good guys.
With that feeling of true safety pressed firmly in your very soul; you can remember the real secret at the heart of the city: we of the city are just a million small town kid's soccer game scenes all strung together.
So the kids laugh and kick the soccer ball.
Then some guy in a blue cap walks out of the gym next door. Hands in his pocket, face down, by himself. He walks over to Malia’s Mom, who has 3 conversations going on simultaneously with folks on the sidelines.
The quiet guy in the blue cap puts his arm around Malia’s Mom. Shakes hands with a couple of the people. Talks with Malia’s Mom for a minute or two.
Just then a small miracle occurs. The quiet guy in the blue cap who nobody in the crowd of really paid all that much attention to; scrunches down so he is face to face with Malia’s little sister Sasha. He lifts up the brim on the cap.
And then, standing 15 feet behind Sasha you see what she’s seeing up close. You see that smile. That smile that resounds with the very power and the glory of the city lights behind it.
That smile now almost ready to take it's place in American history.
You can’t hear, and are happy not to hear, what he’s saying to his youngest daughter. But you do hear her giggle.
Then the father takes the daughter’s hand. The younger daughter. The one who is not in the game. The one who by all rights and purposes and measures any of us know at this time in our history---was destined not to get a lot of attention tonight.
They move back in the shadows, behind the sideline crowd. Seen only by that quiet show of force here to keep them absolutely safe.
Then the miracle: they have a foot race.
While the soccer game is still going on. Just the two of them. Sasha and her Dad take off together, both running at full speed, as fast and then faster than either of them could ever imagine. Sasha laughing, and laughing at the finish line. Her Dad swoops down and picks her up.
Then that smile. This time only for his daughter.
No one else was looking. It was just for her.
His youngest daughter’s giggle. It’s the music of his promise to make sure that everyone’s included.
And this past Friday night in Chicago: Malia Obama’s team won the game."
http://open.salon.com/content.php...
Obama when no ones watching..
Bassett

Plainville, CT

#20 Oct 26, 2008
Since there is no requirement for a candidate for high elective office — such as the presidency of the United States — to undergo a national security background investigation, such vetting is left to the voting public. Thus, the burden rests on the voters to weigh a candidate’s character, associates, reputation and loyalty, recognizing that the candidate they choose will have access to the most highly classified information, and ultimately will be responsible for our nation’s security. Unfortunately the voters have only public information, or that which the candidates choose to disclose, upon which to base their decision.

The areas of inquiry into ones background included, among others, is character, associates, reputation and loyalty to the United States of America.

In essence, a national security clearance represents the hallmark of this nation’s trust in its servants — both civilian and military.

One’s associations and relationships provide invaluable insights into that person’s judgement, integrity and loyalty. They can also provide a window into a candidate’s social and ideological comfort zones.

It is well documented that Jeremiah Wright, Obama's mentor, pastor and spiritual advisor of some twenty years has publicly engaged in America-hating and racist rants. When Wright’s extremist “sermons” first became widely known Obama denied knowledge of them. Later, he repudiated them, while continuing to express support for Wright. Finally, as Wright continued to be a public embarrassment to his presidential campaign, Obama repudiated him.

It is also public knowledge that Obama has had a deliberate, long-term association with William Ayres, an admitted and unrepentant bomb-maker for the Weather Underground, a violent anti-government group active in the 1970’s. Obama acknowledges his relationship with Ayres but provides little information as to its nature and extent, and minimizes its significance or relevance to his candidacy.

If a detailed explanation would allay public concerns, why not give it? When did Senator Obama first learn of Ayer’s violent, anti-American activities? Was he aware of them at the time his relationship with Ayres began? How long after acquiring such knowledge did Senator Obama disavow those activities and repudiate his association with
Ayers? How was it possible that Senator Obama could have been an active member in the church of Jeremiah Wright — his pastor, friend and mentor for twenty years — and be unaware of Wright’s extremist views, which were spoken from the pulpit, video-recorded and sold by his church? Once he became aware of these views, why did he delay repudiating both the views and the man who espoused them?

There are many unanswered questions that only Obama can answer.

People should expect no less when deciding who will occupy this Nation’s highest office.
dan leominster

Spencer, MA

#21 Oct 26, 2008
Smarter than Stamos wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone who works pays payroll tax.
Why do you keep drinking that right wing Kool-Aid, Stamos?
I know plenty of self employed people who pay little or know payroll taxes. self employed pay less than they should so they will slide. How about Illegals? Who knows what if anything they pay. Don't forget the yearly kiss in the mail, Earned income tax credits for those who paid in little or nothing. I'd love to pay $500.00 per year and get $5000.00 back. NOBAMA NOT EVER!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sentinel & Enterprise Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News This show won't be a drag Mar 19 FSU 3
News After running from police, Fitchburg man arrest... Mar 15 Kevin Lyn 1
News Ex-Fitchburg mayor's police job decision took t... Mar 6 Fat Stevie 2
News Family members grieve for accident victims - Se... (Jul '10) Mar 5 Lynne forever broken 22
News Wong: Letter cast doubt on council support for ... Mar 5 Bruno max 4
News Trump's infrastructure plan may hit roadblock: ... Mar 5 Texxy the Indepen... 1
News Wong to DeLeo: City will take slots - Sentinel ... (Jul '10) Feb '17 Twelve angry men 12
More from around the web