With a week to go until Election Day, do you expect rumors to change the outcome of the presidential vote?

It is easy to have 50% of the vote if you have ACORN working for you. And if he gave me 830,000, I might work for hime too. Not!

McCain is TOO OLD this year ... do you REALLY want a president to be 76 when he takes office for the first time?  This is McCain's last dance.

The Republican motto appears to be :  Do unto others worse than was done to you especially if the "others" didn't "do unto you in the first place."

Sure hope McCain is proud of what he's done ... I know I would go back to my ranch and NEVER show my face in public again!  But the I have ethics!

Hey Doesn't Anybody,

I completely agree.  I'm not sure if you thought I was hoping that McCain would try again.  I hope he buries himself in the Senate until he croaks (jeez, imagine the possibility of President Palin -- DEFCON 1 here we come). 

Anyway, I should have been more clear;  the hypocrisy of McCain's candidacy was apparent and should have been displayed for everyone to see, instead of a bunch of lies and rumors.

You're right about the Republican motto though.

Charles, the point you bring up is something that has baffled me about McCains campaign against Obama. It is almost like he has turned into the campaign that he ran against in 2000. This truly isn't something I expected of McCain, particularly because I thought that the unfair and vicious tactics used against him by Bush and company would still be fresh in his mind. I think McCain has compromised himself in order to win this election and has tarnished his brand and image in the process. I was thoroughly behind McCain when he ran in 2000......I can't say the same thing now.In this case, he has put winning at all costs first.

In order for something to be unfair and only a tactic, it would have to be false. Everyday more and more info, especially Obama own words, have been coming out to verify these so called "unfair and vicious tactics." When it comes to a Presidential candidate, the people have a right to the TRUTH so they can make and intelligent, informed decision about who would be best qualified to run this Country. Obama obviously doesn't feel that way as he has proven each time he tries to tear down or silence ANYONE who does not agree with him. Sounds quite fishy to me. Mc Cain is not trying to tear Obama with lies he is just trying to get Americans the TRUTH they deserve. Quite honorable I'd say.

When you view a candidate as an opponent, you become increasingly incapable of looking at the information provided objectively. The problem isn't exposing the TRUTH as you put it. It is taking the truth and distorting it to turn it into something it is not. It is apparent that the "Truth" for you  is anything that will further villify Obama and confirm your views (whether warranted or not). I find it rather laughable for people such as yourself to castigat Obama for his "association" with ACORN and the fact is that McCain has had a close "association" with them. Participating in their activities and giving a speech at one of their events. That is is not "honorable" it is "hypocrisy".  

Isn't that exactly what the msm has done in its reporting of this election. They report 90% favorable news for Obama and 90% negative news for McCain. There are very few news outlets that have reported the FACTS instead of trying to further their own agenda. Look at the LA times right now that won't release an interview with Obama for one of two reasons: it damages Obama beyond belief or they are scared to for fear of being shut out of reporting on a possible President as has happened to media that has asked the "wrong" questions of Obama. I believe we have a right as a people to know this info of a man who wants to represent us. I think the hypocrisy here is blindly believing what comes out of Obama's mouth is all truth. ALL polititians lie, yes even McCain. The question is how damaging will the TRUTH be to the American public. In Obama's case it would be the MOST devestating to this Country and the freedom we all cherish. I hope I am wrong. If Obama does become the next President and proves me wrong, I will be the first one to admit it. But what if he proves me right? God help our Country if I am right. We just don't know enough about this man. I for one am not willing to GAMBLE with my vote. I would rather vote for the safer of the two choices than throw my vote to the wind and see what floats. I may not agree with McCain on many things but at least with him there will still be checks and balances in our Government. It won't be one way or NO way!

Lets get it straight. Negative reporting does not equal Factual reporting. Look, if you hate, dislike, resent, distrust,...Obama, thats no skin off my back....its your choice. But don't try to blindly suggest that there is somehow some "left wing conspiracy" and that the "right wing" is sitting around with halos above their heads. Lets be real. You can point to the supposed LA times interview that has been kept from the public, fine. An Obama supporter can point to the supposed records, regarding an accident in which McCain is believed to have caused death or injury to someone at a military base, which are being deliberately kept secret. Throw as many accusations at your opponent, to justify your leanings, as you want.......but fact remains, you actively seek any and all negative info about Obama and present it as the truth all the while ignoring your candidates skeletons and highly questionable activities.
With regard to the negative reporting.Unlike McCain, Obama went through a very long and gruelling primary season in which any and every possible "negative" thing about him was revealed. He has already been through the msm mud. He was after all going up against the "inevitable" candidate.

See this is where you assume something about me you don't really know. I do not look for only negative info, I look for truth. I find what I find. Just because something is negative does not mean it is not TRUE.

You know honestly IndependentVoice, I would LIKE to be wrong. I pray I am wrong so if Obama gets in things will not go as I believe they will. McCain is not my best choice and yes there is much about him that bothers me too. This election has come down to choosing the best of two bad choices. So for me with all the info on both of them I have to choose the one I feel has shown in the past he CAN make a difference and that I know far more about. With McCain I know what we will get, with Obama I fear what we will get. I for one as I have said am not willing to take the chance with my Country.  Oh and by the way you don't exactly sound like an independent voice to me. You sound more like a democrat.  

It is time for the truth. You "fear" because McCain told you to be afraid. Never in my life time did I think that there would be a black president. Obama is going to be remembered throughout history & McCain will be a footnote as his campain did their best to convince you that he is a Socialist & a terrorist. Please grow up, evolve, educate yourself and welcome to life outside the dark ages.

Now see there you go making assumptions about me. McCain had nothing whatsoever to do with my thinking. I found my questions and doubts about Obama all on my own. I had never even heard of the man until this campaign so I wanted to know about him to see if he was worthy of my vote. The more I learned the more I questioned. I do hope for our Country's sake you are right but I remember all too well the old adage "What appears too good to be true...usually is too good to be true" That is what I believe I have found out about Obama. And by the way, I bet I could teach you a thing or two about being grown up and it would start with common courtesy. I am very well educated and I take voting in this Country as a very serious responsibility and that includes not making assumptions about someone just because their opinion differs from mine.
And I do believe Obama has socialistic views solely based on what I have heard leave his own mouth and nothing else. He can't deny his own words evn though he tries.
As far as a Black President goes..I do believe we will see the day, and also a woman President, it is not about race or gender. It is about who is most qualified. Powell would have been a better choice.

ps, that last part is not directed to anyone personally, I just read it & did not mean for it to sound malicious

Well then we can both agree that negative does not equal truth, in the case of EITHER candidate. The issue that I have with people who point to the "TRUTH" about their opponents is that they do not equally point to the "TRUTH" about their preferred candidate. I tend to take all that I read and hear about any of the candidates with a dose of salt and I make sure to point out the good and the bad on BOTH sides. That is objectivity to me. If McCain is the "lesser of the two evils for you" thats well and good, but for all the promises on either side I don't think for a second any one of them can claim that they are ready to be the next U.S. President. Only time and opportunity will make that determination for us. I don't think I can safely say I "know" what I will get with either McCain or Obama coz they have both shifted their positions to suit their aspirations at one point or another. That is a matter of record. Oh and by the way, notice how I chose not to assume or label you as Republican or Democrat, even though you sound like a Republican to me. I sound like a Dem to you coz I chose to counter your arguments, not because I am a Dem, but to demonstrate that McCain can be accused of the same things you accuse Obama of. The same can be said about Dems slinging factless mud at McCain. So I AM an independent voice, whatever your perceptions about me may be :)

Then I will apologize to you for my wrong perception. You distinctly sounded to me like you were for Obama. So I do apologize and hope you are able to weigh all the facts and come to the conclusion that is right for you.

Look timefortruth if you want to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket or some other ticket then do so, but we have done our research too we don't need you to tell us what we know about either candidate.

One could say the same about Obama supporters. Ignoring the Facts doesn't make them any less FACTS. The problem with this election is SO many people are voting from their emotions and desire for change, rather than asking the tough questions and believing the FACTS when those questions get answers. You can change the oil in your car, but if you use dirty oil, have you helped your car or created a worse situation? Think before you vote. Don't let a desire for change make you ignore the FACTS. Rumors are only rumors if they are not true. The evidence against Obama grows everyday, and it is a little hard to deny when the words come straight out of his own mouth.

you speak in tongues timefortruth. You have yet to speak one truth or state one fact. You should back up your silly statements with facts if you are going to accuse others of ignoring them. baa

timefortruth I don't think you would know the truth if it hit you in the back of your head,,, you should do some research before you try and play the informed role. I believe Obama has rebuffed Ayers, and has said so many times, maybe  you just missed them..He also gave an explanation about his house purchase,,maybe your just waitng for the one "you" want to hear...Also, he has explained the Acorn connection allong with other people backing what he has explained, again, maybe you just missed it,, Like you, i could go on but what's the point, you will say what you want with the hope of getting the answer that suits you, don't hold your breath!   C'mon Nov 4th  Obama/Biden 08

timefortruth -- if you are going there with Obama you better "go there" with Palin as well.  Definitely time for more truths to come out about Palin's true relationship with that seccessionist organization he "first dude" was a member of.  It would be most interesting if we elected a president whose vice couldn't be given a security clearance because of her husband's affiliations.  What happens then, when the president can't continue and the VP takes his place without a security clearance?  I REALLY don't want to go there!

This is my first time on this discussion but I can tell you I HAVE been researching this for MONTHS. Just because Obama opens his mouth and says something is a lie or he explains something away, DOES NOT mean he is telling the truth. You REALLY don't want me to start posting ALL my FACTS here as there are PAGES of them from reliable sources not just words from someone on one side or the other. I am willing though. I am always happy to share.

timefortruth(lies)....please...do post what ever you want...you probably got your truths from shun handily, flush limpdog, and shrill o'really...you should also know that most of what mccain says really are either lies or 1/2 truths....98% of his campaign has been smear the other guy....please...do us a favor....post ONE THING in which mccain has explained ANY of his so called policies....or what he ACTUALLY plans to do....I don't want....I've been there.....I'm gonna do this and that....I want HOW ARE YOU GONNA DO IT....

Obama did just that in his explaination to joe the dooshbag....who calls himself a plumber....who operates ILLEGALLY in his state as a plumber and was a shill for the republicans...he can barely afford rent on his trailer let alone afford to buy a company....especially after the 8 yrs of republican rip off administration....

so yes....please do explain to us.....geezzz....and while you're at it...have some more coolaid...

doesntanybodyread.....BAM! 10000% correct about palin and security clearance....she wouldn't be able to get cleared to go to an outhouse....

McCain's campaign is being run by Neocons this time around, while it was not in 2000.  I really think that he wants this so badly that he has just allowed Rove and Schmidt to do whatever they wish, but he should remember what those same people did to HIM in 2000.

And if Obama could aswer questions like:

Why won't you condemn Ayers actions?

What was the real deal with the purchase of your house?

What is your connection to the Acorn fraudulent voter registration?

Why won't you salute the flag during the national anthem, thereby disrespecting all those who have died in support of this flag?

You call yourself a Christian, but then how can you approve partial-birth abortion or any abortion for that matter?

Why would you deny babies born alive in an abortion procedure, lifesaving measures?

How are you REALLY going to pay for your proposed tax credits as you have admitted that your "sharing the wealth" from those making over 250,000 won't cover it?

I could go on but I think you get the point.

Ayers - he did condemn

house - what? lol

Acorn - they flagged most of the registrations they felt were erroneous & are required BY LAW to turn in ALL registrations in most states

flag - don't only the military "salute" the flag?

Christians - roe v wade (look it up)

tax credits - of course it won't add up, but what is McCain's proposal again?

Here's one of the FACTS you requested...the shortest one to address:

In regards to appropriate behavior during the singing of the National Anthem.
"There's a CODE?!" you may ask. Yes, there is indeed. On June 22, 1942, Congress passed a resolution that was later amended to become Public Law 829, 77th Congress, 2nd Session. In it was contained specific rules and conduct in regards to the use and display of the American flag, and proper conduct during the National Anthem and the Pledge of Allegience. It is actually a federal law! From USFlag.org:

Flag Etiquette

STANDARDS of RESPECT The Salute To salute, all persons come to attention. Those in uniform give the appropriate formal salute. Citizens not in uniform salute by placing their right hand over the heart and men with head cover should remove it and hold it to left shoulder, hand over the heart. Members of organizations in formation salute upon command of the person in charge. The Pledge of Allegiance and National Anthem The pledge of allegiance should be rendered by standing at attention, facing the flag, and saluting.
When the national anthem is played or sung, citizens should stand at attention and salute at the first note and hold the salute through the last note. The salute is directed to the flag, if displayed, otherwise to the music.

 Guess Obama prefers to ignore the law and he wants to represent our Country. You would think he would show respect even if just for all the fallen soldiers who have given their lives in support of that Flag and what it represents. I saw that picture and there is no denying the message. His actions are inapropriate especially because he wants to REPRESENT this Country.

In regards to Obama's "tax credits"

From Obama's own site:

 He will: Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.

Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.

Ok so read those statements VERY carefully. First off he says he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Well only 60% of Americans actually pay taxes. So how can you cut taxes for the other 35% who DON'T EVEN PAY TAXES. Well they will get a nice little refund for something they didn't even pay, from people who did. Yea that's FAIR.

Now read the second of his statements VERY carefully. He admits right there on his own website that "his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000" so tell me how he is going to PAY for all of this when we already have a HUGE deficit. Perhaps instead of the 250,000 tax level it will be the 150,000 tax level Joe Biden mentioned in his speach yesterday. And when that is not enought to pay for his "share the wealth plan, then who will he decide is at his "new level" of sharing the wealth? If you have a $1500 mortgage and you only bring home $500 could you pay your bills? Obama's plan is unrealistic at best.

You don't want to get into where Obama's money has come from: Read this!

Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama CampaignMonday, September 29, 2008 9:23 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman '"More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose. And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate. Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report. But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet. The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money. But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret. Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark. Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold. “Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.” The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified. It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002. Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting. But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money. “We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax. But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors. Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers. “We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.” The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud. But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse. “While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center. Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum. FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign’s finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor. Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to “redesignate” contributions in excess of the finance limits. Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books. In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.” A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25. In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375. Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit. There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375. In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election. Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done. But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by “VCX” and that his profession was “VCVC.” Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600. Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date. In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later. In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each. Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965. Foreign Donations And then there are the overseas donations — at least, the ones that we know about. The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” which the FEC often uses as an abbreviation for "information requested." Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom. More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680. But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France. Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted. With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners. In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners. At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000. The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter. Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities. In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign. “All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..." Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign. The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200. Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to “root out fraud,” including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online. One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store. In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store. Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza. The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign. A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show. Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign’s year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned. The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30. The Edwan brothers listed their address as “GA,” as in Georgia, although they entered “Gaza” or “Rafah Refugee camp” as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms. According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made. Many of the Edwan brothers’ contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups. The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December. A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million. But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date. Many of the small donors participated in online “matching” programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs. The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive. “Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight,” campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. “And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate.” FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, “the two people must agree” to do so. This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said. Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, “We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program.” Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous — and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out. "

if you'd like, I can start posting articles from the "Onion" for the equivalent accurate reporting of "facts"

Hadn't heard of that one yet, I'll check it out. Are they a FEDERAL WATCHDOG AGENCY too?

lol, no, but they take facts from the Federal Wathdog Agencies & other sources & jumble them all up until they from the message that they want you read. Only they do it for humor and with a disclaimer that it's not entirely true. Mr. Timmerman, by the way, was one of the advisors that convinced our government that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. HE should use disclaimers on articles, but does not.

So tell me how do we really know there weren't weapons of mass destruction. They had more than enough time to move them and we know they are not stupid. If someone were coming to your house to take something you didn't want to give up, wouldn't you move it where it couldn't be found?

Why do you keep butting your head against this wall? No one cares about your conversation. As with the Country; move on!

From CNN:

“Barack Obama can’t name a single issue or philosophy on which he’s opposed the Democratic-controlled Congress – not one. John McCain opposed President Bush’s wasteful spending policy, his Big Oil energy policy and his efforts to grow the federal government by 40% - Obama supported Bush on all three," Bounds said.

I just don't get it...You say you don't want more Bush and yet many of the Bush advisors who HELPED him make his decisions are going for Obama and ALL of the democrats that helped get us into this mess are going for Obama. If you want CHANGE from Bush and foolish spending, why are you so eager to vote for a man who is obviously closer in Bush's administrations way of thinking. Why do you suppose they would choose him over McCain if McCain holds true to their policies as you say? Seems to me the one they think will REALLY hold to their way of thinking is Obama. Thats why they are endorsing him. They know McCain is gonna clean house!

Kenneth R. Timmerman is a Neo-Con GOP member. That's the same as asking for Rush's opinion. Unfortunately you will always be confused because reality favors the liberals in modern history because the Repubs want to make there money over seas...especially McCain. Therefore "cleaning house" would mean McCain resigning from the Senate

And CNN?

Gee, you must be a glutton for punishment!  You won't mind if the rest of the country doesn't follow you, do you?

If Obama makes it, we've turned the stupid Nation into a better nation.  We were stupid the last 8 years....yes 8 YEARS.  Smarten up folks, Obama is true change.  Look at the Campain tactics and smears.  It all states "same".  We need postive and true change....Learn by your mistakes.

AMEN Traci!

I am an ex-Republican of 30 years and ashamedly voted for Bush twice! Will you forgive me? OBAMA/BIDEN '08

The "President" is only as good as the people around him. Just look who is around McCain, and who is around Obama (not including the people Rush told you about.)

McCain has Bushies, and Obama has a collection of some smart folks. I rather give the smart folks a chance, then the Bush folks another chance.

momof2, it's not to late to change your 2's lives for the better. If you've already voted for the wrong person, you can help other stupid people vote the right way.

If the fact that McCain has chosed to use the same campaign machine that smeared him in 2000 is not a clear indicator of a "more of the same" philosophy, then I don't know what is. McCain hasn't been "Mavericky" in the way he has run his campaign, he has used tactics straight from the Republican playbook. If McCain had run his campaign more honerably I think he would have been able to get his message out more effectively and race would be tighter than it is.

hello mom of 2.  I am also a mom of 2.  That is probably all we have in common from what i read of your post, though.

Before you cast your ballot, think of the following:

1.  the McCain camp is already in disarray and arguing AMONGST ITSELF.  Is this a good indicator they stand together as a solid backbone for the nation?  Palin is already proving to be the "maverick" gal everyone initially wanted her to be, but she's run off course and isn't even elected yet.  It is pretty apparent to even the mildly retarded that this woman is self-serving with her own bigger than life agenda to "run the country", God help us.  Someone said DEFCON 1.  I concur.

2.  McCain may die and then who will be in command?  (refer to #1)

3.  The Bush years buried us.  I'm certain you voted in a way that Rush would be proud the past 2 times.  You do realize that McCain voted 90% in favor of the Bush policies throughout those years, right?

4.  McCain is short-tempered, grumpy, and doesn't come off as the most stable and innovative guy in the world.  Some people have gone so far to say "he creeps me out".  Well, it's not his appearance that creeps me out, it's his stance, his personality.... he comes off to me as a loose cannon.

5.  Palin.  (refer to #1 and #2).

btnicholas,We all have to forgive ourselves before we can heal our nation. I too am an ex-republican.  I finally had to separate myself from the republican party.  For me it was before Bush was voted in.  It took separating myself from my inherited conservative views once I had children.  Luckily my kids have learned to think for themselves. For  years our children have watched the mistakes we have made with this country.  Healing this nation is what it is all about and to do that we need a positive change.  This is Obama's commitment and that should be our commitment as a nation. Godspeed

Obama/Biden

Your a blind idiot in my opinion momof2-, dont post here if you dont read the news...INTELLIGENCE outweighs EXPERIENCE in this case. A man who has experience yet we do not realize that this experience can be bad or good...If a man has a degree of intelligence, how does intelligence be a bad thing?? Hopefully, you understand my point.

Please, if it wasn't for an idiot like momof2 or a bigger idiot like you, for telling her not to post here, or the biggest idiot, like me, for even wasting my time with you idiots, we wouldn't have anything  to communicate about, and learn.

You are as bad as them.

momof2 you are not alone so don't fret the comments above. Anyone who has to resort to name calling is not worth listening to. The whole point of an election is so people can CHOOSE otherwise we would have a dictatorship. I am also a mother of 2, a grandmother of 3 and a small business owner who does not make even close to 250,000 a year and I am voting for McCain as are MANY MANY people I have talked to.

RIGHT ON SISTER TRUTH: CHOOSING; if we can't CHOOSE, it's a dictatorship. I'm glad to hear from a Republican, McCain-Palin, Maverick LOVER who is PRO-CHOOSE. Don't let your republican, maverickies find out, they might lynch you.

What experience? Voting for wars? Thats the kind of experience I want.....yeah right
I watched all the debates and MCCain did'nt have a clue or made up stuff on the spot to make you think he did.If he wasn't good enough to be President before, what makes  him any better to be president now

Experience in age?

AMEN DONNA!!!!

from whichwayisup earlier...."Then yes, expect lots of rumours..."

What that when he drank alot?

Was that when he drank alot?