JJB Blog

Go Obama! Vote Obama! He would be a great asset to all Americans!

Posted by ELECTIONREFLECTION on 9 February 2008 @ 10pm

Go Obama! He is the next president of the United States.

Posted by john on 9 February 2008 @ 11pm

Barack Obama for Google Government

Posted by iwantchange on 9 February 2008 @ 11pm

Hillary Clinton IS THE ONLY HOPE WE HAVE !!!

PLEASE UNDERSTAND WE DO KNOW THE 100% WORLD OF CHANGE FROM THE WAY IT WAS IN THE Clinton YEARS
NO ONE AND I REPEAT NO ONE CAN TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT USE MORE THEN HALF A BRAIN THAT THE Clinton YEARS WERE GREAT FOR EVERY WORKING CLASS AMERICAN AND THERE families !!!

WE are 27 VOTING family MEMBERS STRONG (ALL FOR Hillary ) AND WORKING TO INCREASE THIS NUMBER WITH FRIENDS

WE WOULD LIKE SAY THIS ONE THING WE DO BELIEVE THAT IF OBAMA WINS AND IS ARE ONLY CHOICE
WE WILL NOT ONLY NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA BUT WILL CHANGE ARE VOTE TO McCain
AND JUST BECAUSE ALL THE NEWS SHOWS TRY TO NEVER TELL THE COLD HARD TRUTH IF ONLY 10% OF THE VOTERS FEEL THE WAY WE DO McCain WILL BEAT OBAMA EASELY

Hillary Clinton PLEASE DONT QUIT !! WE NEED YOU TO SAVE US !!!

THANKS FOR THE TIME !!

Posted by ROD on 10 February 2008 @ 12am

Let me first say I also support Senator Obama. His approach is a very fresh change from the Bush/Clinton/Bush years. I do agree that the Clinton years were better than the past 7 years of Bush/Chaney. However, I am ready for change.
In 1968, I supported the greatest man never to be elected president…Bobby Kennedy. Since then I have looked for a candidate like Bobby but we never had one…UNTIL now. Barack will bring change.
Unlike the previous person whom would take McCain over Hillary, if Obama does not get the nod, I will support Clinton. We’ve had way too much of the repubs. It is time for change.

Posted by Bill on 10 February 2008 @ 2am

I have some bad news for you, Rod–Hillary Clinton is NOT Bill Clinton. Much as we may have loved the man (the country WAS better off, I agree) and how well he (arguably) balanced the budget, and weathered a unimaginable and completely disgusting impeachment, he can no longer be the president of the United States. Again: Hillary does not equal Bill. Fear not: Bill will contine to be a player in US politics, and when all is said and done he will be there to back Obama up.
As far as “threatening” Obama supporters with McCain support: by all means vote for whomever you deem fit. If you believe in McCain and think he would be the best leader, please vote for him and enjoy your current healthcare system, corporate tax cuts, and limitless occupation of Iraq. Along the same lines, if you (and your 27 family members) believe that politicians taking money from corporate lobbyists is NOT a form of bribery, by all means vote for Mrs. Clinton, as this is her take on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isi6c2s353c&feature=related

The rest of us will vote for Obama. One question: why would you turn around and vote for McCain…someone who stands against most of the policies Mrs. Clinton is for? Vote for your favorite haircut if you want, but it all sounds pretty childish. Please think about things a little longer.

To John–I actually just decided on Obama right before “Superxtremeextravaganza Tuesday”, or whatever it was. I’m from Chicago and have watched him in action many times–he’s a great communicator and is liked across all party lines for his fair play and willingness to hear all sides of an issue. On foreign relations alone, I’m voting for him. He’s actually the very first candidate I’ve ever given money to.

GO OBAMA!

Posted by tastytone on 10 February 2008 @ 2am

Media Matters and Clinton Supporters have been after MSNBC Network for weeks, even posting their email addresses on their site; trying to censor Hardball and Morning Joe for saying anything at all that was not complementary about the Clintons, trying to make them impotent and Clintoness puppets by just reporting favorable things about the Clintons. They finally got lucky with Shuster making this remark which has been taken out of the context that he meant to deliver it in. Do not let Media Matters and the Clinton supporter get away with trying to censor the Media, which will throw us back to the Bush years after 911. America we want Change!

And finally, if Media Matters and the Clinton supporters had put this much energy into contacting TV/Radio programs which are allowed to broacast smut, violence and sex to our children, may be we would have cleaner and more decent broadcast programming to watch and hear.

Posted by Ann Mack on 10 February 2008 @ 8am

I’m not even a US citizen and I’m donating to Obama.

Posted by WeC on 10 February 2008 @ 9am

I don’t think non-US citizens are allowed to donate for any candidate (at least as not through Obama’s website). Though it doesn’t specifically says so, it does state on one of its condition as along this line: “a US national or permanent resident”.

As much as i want to donate to his campaign (due to his “openness” foreign policy promises), i don’t want to jeopardise his campaign’s credibility by accepting “foreign” donations if it is not allowed by law or by his own desire.

Obama’s admirer from Brunei.

Posted by Buj on 10 February 2008 @ 10am

Hi ,

I’m an Irish citizen whose visiting the US and only US citizens or permanent residents can donate. The best thing you can do as a foreigner is HOPE, be supportive and polite and perhaps give your perspectives.

Americans I talk to want to know how they are viewed abroad and are assured when they are not associated with the present administration. Personally I think Obama presents such a clear contrast from what has gone before, that it will create a shift in mindset. Though I am a woman myself I am nearer in age to Obama and can identify more with him than Clinton.

The US is that it was the first country to embody the ideals of a truly free society and its heartening to see that this ideal has not died.

an O’Bama supporter

…..btw…..isn’t it interesting that Clinton’s background is in corporate law, whereas Obama’s is in Constitutional law.

I rest my case

…and Rod …stop shouting at the top of your voice.

Posted by Maeve on 10 February 2008 @ 11am

To “ROD”:
Actually most polls show Obama is more electable than Hillary against McCain. And what kind of Democrat are you if you changed parties just because “your nominee didn’t get picked”… Grow up already.

Posted by john on 10 February 2008 @ 12pm

I have decided I will not rule out voting for Clinton if Obama doesn’t get the nomination, but it will be difficult if she gets the nomination by forcing the Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated. Anyway that is another book, will cross that bridge when it comes.
I do feel sorry for the embarrassing situation the Clintons went through and I don’t blame them for being overprotective of their daughter. In my memory I think those were good years, but maybe it cost Al Gore an election, and if he had been president we may not have had 9/11 and we certainly wouldn’t have had this Iraq war.
But that’s the past and we have to move on and Barack Obama is the agent of change to take us to the next step up on the spiral ladder.
I agree with the other commenter that I would vote for Obama for foreign policy alone, if that were the only difference (he would most likely be more successful with domestic policy and in way that Independents and Republicans are not just waiting to roll it all backwards). He is not as anti-war as I would like but I trust his foreign policy more than the other two.
I can see a time that we are more connected to the rest of the world as equals.

Posted by iwantchange on 10 February 2008 @ 12pm

to Meave and to all americans,

IMO at least here in Brunei, americans are still viewed favourably. What i thank them most is the sacrifices that their soldiers give to keep this world free especially during WW2.

What alarms us, being a malay muslim myself, is the religious neo-conservatives that currently is on the rise (forgive me for these following remark.)

But to use their own labelling, to me these people are “christian extremist”. Just as i despise muslim extremist, i fear these people the same as they are so close-minded.

To win the heart and mind of muslims, the next US president need to stop labelling terrorist or extremist by their religious affiliation. All it does is alienates the rest of moderate people.

If Al-qaeda kills, call it as it is = al-qaeda terrorist or al-qaeda murderer. if its hamas, call it hamas terrorist. Generalising it is just irresponsible.

this is the reason i admire Obama. He says it is TIME TO CHANGE THIS MINDSET which i think will benefit the US as the people of the world will once again see it as THE JUST and CAPABLE LEADER it used to be.

Once again accept my apology if the above comment is controversial.

Posted by Buj on 10 February 2008 @ 1pm

I agree with this because part of the Declaration of Independence was to support a separation of church and state. Some people from Europe came this country to escape religious persecution and wanted to be free to practice their religion (unfortunately we tried to Christianize Native Americans afterwards). We are a country of muliple religions including Islam. It is kind of sad to hear some people supporting one candidate or another trying to out Barack Obama as a “secret Muslim” because I would be offended if I were Muslim, since we are supposed to treat every religion and race equally in this country and not fear each other. There are new Al-Queda recruits that are white or other races and not even Muslim. And moderate Islam is suffering so much from Al-Quada right now. So we should be careful in our labeling. I think there is a war on terror and we should be protecting ourselves and others around the world but listen to other countries to see how we can help.
Anyway that’s my 2 cents.

Posted by iwantchange on 10 February 2008 @ 1pm

Barack the Vote 2008
http://www.cafepress.com/123vote

Posted by 123Vote on 10 February 2008 @ 1pm

To Buj: Your comment is not in any way controversial. It was honest and thoughtful.

Our govt. and our news media have both been VERY irresponsible in using generalizing language in the wake of 9-11. Generalizing and stereotyping is an easy and effective way of making your enemy appear larger, therefore justifying a larger response/attack. You can fight a focused campaign against “Al-Qaeda”, or you can mount a huge war without limitations against “Muslim Extremists” and all those who support them.

I’m with you–things HAVE to change.

Posted by tastytone on 10 February 2008 @ 2pm

Hey folks. Nice to see such lively, civilized discussion on my blog. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

I just made a new website that some of you might like:

http://yeswecanhas.com/
enjoy

Posted by John on 10 February 2008 @ 7pm

Here’s why I support Barack:

http://ajaxian.com/archives/super-tuesday-ajax-endorsements

Posted by Jonathan on 10 February 2008 @ 7pm

hahahaha, thanks Jonathan

Posted by John on 10 February 2008 @ 8pm

Any Democratic candidate who cannot win California and
New York should call it a day.

Obama could not win a single Electoral College megastate vital for
any Democratic candidate, with the sole exception of
his own home base of Illinois.

OBAMA TROUNCED IN THE MEGA-STATES

He proudly lists Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North
Dakota, and Utah. What do these states have in common?
They are states which a Democrat could never win in a
general election.

Delaware is a perfect state for Obama ­ ri h
Volvo-driving, chablis and brie elitists in the
Philadelphia suburbs, but it does not look like
America. Colorado is another Obama state where the
well-off suburban voter can be decisive in a
Democratic primary. True, Obama won Connecticut, which
has some union voters, but it looks like Greenwich,
Cos Cob, and Yale carried the day. Missouri might fall
to Clinton on a recount; in any case, the race was
very close. Minnesota is a special case because of the
Democrat Farmer-Labor Party; this was in any case a
state that went for Mondale, for various reasons ­ not
a good bellwether.

Love your liberty? Why add amendment to the constitution?
Love your liberty? Why support warrantless wiretapping?
And a smoking ban.

Shalom,

— Prof. Leland Milton Goldblatt, Ph.D. ®

http://drgoldblatt.blogspot.com/

Posted by Leland Milton Goldblatt on 10 February 2008 @ 9pm

Yes Buj,

It is all about perception and “mindset” .

Where I’m from (Ireland) we have had our share of violence in our history. When Margaret Thatcher had an aggressive policy with no discussion violence escalated in Northern Ireland. There was wrongful imprisonment, internment without proper trails. Also many ordinary Irish people were treated with suspicion- even our Southern government. It didn’t help that some fanatical Irish Americans were sending guns over with no real understanding of the situation.

It wasn’t until a change in regime with an open and willing diplomatic intent did solutions start to happen.

We will have to see what whoever comes in after the B**h regime will have the courage to have a different attitude. For me, Obama has the best chance, I also think with such a fresh clean slate there has to a chance.

and Jonathan……Obama’s site is the best, too…though i don’t understand the techie stuff

Posted by Maeve on 10 February 2008 @ 9pm

Nice, Dr. Goldblatt…I especially love the “registered trademark” status. Good thing you did that: I was just thinking about starting a blog about boobs and photos of Obama with KFC, but you stole the best name. Get some sleep, Doc: there’ll be more boobs and Obama to get excited about tomorrow (I love that these two things seem to hold equal prominence).

Posted by tastytone on 11 February 2008 @ 12am

GO GO JJB!

How can we help Senator Obama win the nomination?
WE MUST TAKE ACTION!!!

In the last week or so, Hillary’s supporters have caught fire. They are working aggressively to get Hillary a win—very hard.

Hillary’s supporters know that this is their last chance. You can bet that they will give the next primaries all they’ve got. The short of this is, if we slack-off one bit, one single iota, they’ll pounce.

The truth is that Barack has not won this thing YET. But the good new is that if we all chip in–TAKE ACTION– we can win this.

So, here are some actions that we can take:

1. Superdelegate: This is one of the easiest ways to provide the most support to the campaign. The campaign is collecting stories from supporters like you and I. Your stories will be combined with others to help persuade undecided superdelegates. Ultimately, this election may turn on who has more superdelegates. Hillary is working hard to lock-in as many superdelegates as possible. In fact, she currently leads in number of superdelegates. Take a moment to chip in.

To help, Go to http://my.barackobama.com/superdelegates

2. Donate: We need to keep fighting Hillary on TV, Radio and everywhere we have to if we intend to win. This requires $$. I read somewhere that the $5M Hillary donated to her campaign is more then the Obama family’s entire net worth. Ladies and gentlemen, we have to pitch in.

To chip in, Go to https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/abamt25rn?source=mainnav

Or go to the main page and click the red donate button http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

2. Make some calls: We are targeting 110,000 calls before polls close on Feb 19 (see http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/Cs2k%29). We won the Potomac Primaries because of calls people like you and I made. We have to get back to making calls. For the Potomac primaries, we made 100,000 calls. Let’s do it again. Let’s make 110,000 and win another one for our team. Please, stop by and make some calls. We won’t win if we (you and I) don’t do our part.

go to http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/phonebankmap

3. Call people you know: Many of us have friends in states that have yet to vote. Call them. This may be an opportunity to catch-up with an old friend. Take the opportunity to call them and talk to them about Barack Obama. Tell them why YOU are voting for Barack Obama and ask them not only to vote for Barack Obama but also to get involved locally with the campaign. If you know people in or near states that will be voting in the next few weeks who are already Obama supporters, consider calling them and asking them to get involved in our grassroots effort.

See http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/friend

4. Volunteer: Remember, this is a grassroots campaign. That means we have to step-up during the next few weeks. Those of us who have already stepped-up will have to do it again. We are almost there, but not quite. We have to make sure we make it to the end victorious. Please consider volunteering.
Go here http://action.barackobama.com/page/s/volunteer

5. Personal Fundraising: Consider personal fundraising for Obama. If you have (or create) an account at BarackObama.com, you can start your our personal fundraising drive. You can then solicit others to contribute to the drive for the Obama campaign. This is a great opportunity. Please take advantage of it. This is a great way to help ensure we prevail in the coming primaries.

Go to http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/actioncenter/personalfundraising/

Again, remember. Hillary’s supporters are working 26 (yes, 26) hours—attempting to ensure she win the coming primaries. We have to match their efforts. And to do so, we must redouble our efforts. Every little bit helps.

Please, chip in.

Posted by Anonymous on 16 February 2008 @ 10am

This Photo is not such a bad thing

It shows among other things a GREAT TOLERANCE for others, something
no other candidate has shown. It’s my guess that this would stir questions in
the Mid-Eastern world as to what your views are and your stand is or will be,
and make it easier to approach PEACE RESOLUTIONS in a way not
possible before. Embrace your heritage with much INTELLECT, and not
your heart as it is your right to know who you are. What I’ve witnessed in
the past is representatives even Presidents go abroad to these countries and be
hood-winked by the play of words that were exchanged at the time. It seemed
so easy in those times for Mid-Eastern diplomats to say one thing and mean
something else and our representatives would fall for the agreement and then
find that the agreement was intended to be broken. History may have been
paying back for all the broken promises and treaties proposed to the Native
Americans. I think that no one else can relate as well to the turth of
Mid-eastern thoughts and Philosophy, and still hold the integrity of office as
an American as YOU. It could stop the war and cause a laying down of
weapons, unless I am being naive.
All I see at most is a gesture of peace by this photograph, and at the least a
person trying to make himself whole, and balanced …this is what AMERICA
NEEDS…RIGHT??? It does not serve that AMERICAN interest will be
undermined, or done away with. No other candidate or woman at this time in
the race for the OFFICE, the OFFICE of PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, can bridge the gap and bring change not only to this country for
good , but to the world also. I hope you will read this in time and feel
encouraged to point out the many other reasons that this photo is not a bad
thing rather than point fingers at those supposedly responsible and thereby
actions as such make it a derogatory thing. I am compelled by truth to write
this and I think truth is good for the soul and mind , and this country could
use a little more as well …GOD BLESS YOU IN YOUR ENDEAVORS.

Posted by Aaron Thomas on 27 February 2008 @ 1pm

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has officially has morphed into Machiavelli’s “Prince”. The picture circulated was a small deal only because Mr. Obama did what he always seems to do: took the high road and let it go. He did not take the bait. He wins even more in my book.

I am not as strong. I get pissed-off.

Of COURSE the photo is not a bad thing in and of itself, as a previous post points out. But the ideas behind the photo being circulated are so nefarious on so many levels (which Mrs. Clinton denies involvement in, to be fair to her personally, but it is HER campaign). It is an attempt to appeal to the basest of human emotion in her voters–fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of association with terrorism, fear of African Americans and a reminder of how different they are from us “whites”. It was an attempt to tap into the ugliest part of the human soul, and to gain access to the voters in Ohio & Texas who still have misgivings about African Americans. (By the by: I am from the midwest, and grew-up in Southern Illinois, and believe me, this is a very real and very prevalent attitude among even Democrats. It is the “good black, bad black” syndrome. You’ll hear statements like “Not ALL blacks are bad”. Point being, racism is better than it has been, but it has a long way to go).

In a response from one of her supporters in Ohio, an African American woman, she kept referring to the outfit as “his native clothing”. Yes, of course she ‘misspoke’, obviously he was not born in Somalia or Kenya or any other African nation, but she keeps going back to it, reinforcing the notion that Somalia (Africa) is his “native land”:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/180147.php

Innocent or not, this is where it truly get shady: In true Machiavellian fashion, the Clinton camp let this story run ALL DAY, before deflecting, and then spinning with:

“If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed.”

Now, if nothing is afoot, wouldn’t you simply say something to the effect of: “We had absolutely nothing to do with it. We see the intent behind the move and find it abhorrent”? No, they suggest that the Obama campaign is divisive by saying the photo is divisive!! What kind of schoolyard crap is this?

Politically speaking, who suggested it was a good idea to take he campaign to this new low, even after it’s been proven that when she takes the high-road she wins?

I know I’m going on and on, but it’s worth pointing out to those who feel that the use of someone’s skin color is a tactic reserved for the far right.

And while we’re on race, and heritage, and playing-up ethnic differences, let’s look at the Louis Farrakhan question in the debate last night. The question, at it’s root, is: “are you one of THESE Blacks, or are you a good Black”. For those who think I’m just suffering from “white man’s guilt”, let’s put it this way: I’ll wager Mr. McCain doesn’t get asked any questions about Trent Lott supporting him. Would this be a question posed to Clinton if Farrakhan had announced he was backing her? I don’t think the question was nefarious, but I do think it’s worth noting from a social standpoint. And I do think it’s worth noting that Clinton leaned on the issue in the debate, trying desperately to keep it going. But Mr. Obama burned her once again by not playing along, and at the same time pointing to her weak argument on the use of semantics. Mrs. Clinton needs to brush-up her language skills, or at least buy a Thesaurus. He’s smarter, he’s wiser, and he simply will not take the bait and I love him for it!

End result: How does Mr. Obama deal with it all? With grace and dignity–proving once again that he is the man for the job. In an odd way, I’m glad he’s getting a taste of this on the national level. God knows he’s seen it all already, but now he’s going to see it on the news every other night.

Clinton needs to understand that passive-aggressiveness is NOT a quality that can bring this country together–people who believe real strength lies in the attack show a fundamental misunderstanding of power. I might also add that wisdom is not always a gift gained from experience.

I also want to reiterate that I, as of the end of Nov. ’07, was solidly behind Clinton. It all started to go away with the “I want to be president” attacks before Iowa.

Thanks for letting me rant.

Posted by tastytone on 27 February 2008 @ 3pm

Personally, I think that Obama is arrogant…and this will be his downfall amongst educated, well-rounded, mature and informed American voters.

I also believe that websites like the one listed below could ultimately determine why more and more Democrats will defect to John McCain’s camp.

Unfortunately, there is little about Obama that a website like the one below says that can be refuted…that is, unless you’ve flunked Philosphy 101 in college,or never got to college in the first place.

Check it out: http://www.chilkootmarketing.com/index.htm

What can be done?

Sooner or later all of us will have to reckon with our conscience and higher intellectual powers and when this occures we will invariably be forced to choose between either ‘principle’ or the physical attributes of the other candidate.

Which candidate is traveling down the wrong road on critical issues?

Which do you think will win out, come November? ‘

‘Higher principles’ or the ‘physical’ attributes of a particular candidate?

Predictably, older voters will vote in favor of ‘principle’… obviously, because they are more concerned about what happens after death and the legacy they will leave behind.

In contrast, the younger voters, since they have more time left in life to recant, are more likely to be reckless and procrastinate with any decision in favor of principle, and will likely vote in favor of ‘idealism’…

…and these are the young and youthful voters that Obama appeals to and also why a lot of us older folks see Obama as ‘the Pied Piper of the niave’.

However, (which is the next question that begs itself): ‘When does Barack’s own conscience begin to bother him?’

Personally, I think Obama needs to start thinking about what he can do to ‘remake’ his image if he wants to win this election.

I’m not sure that he’ll want to be that person he’s beginning to look like against John McCain…who today represents everything that America stands for.

BUT, if Obama thinks he can win going the way he’s headed, then let him go for it.

But, as for me and many like me who sit on the fence until election time in November, we’ll still be thinking about having to live with ourselves long after this election is over in November and maybe these are the thoughts that the new young voters haven’t entertained yet…

…and, there’s still a lot that can happen between now and November…

…and, this probably means that Obama faces a huge political swamp ahead…one that he has created for himself by being too impetuous on some very important issues…

…which has already gotten him into trouble with some of the very wise old parents of the younger generation.

- Jim Carder

Posted by Lutak on 16 June 2008 @ 5pm

Oh Jim…where do I start?

I thought all the college educated (“elitist”) folks were for Obama–? McCain has the UN-educated, uninformed vote in his corner, buddy. Let’s be clear.

What a wonderful graphic to greet me upon my visit to “chilkootmarketing”. God staying Issac’s hand? Do you not realize that we are done with this creepy religious right/government hybrid. And what the hell does Issac have to do with that rambling, unsourced, illogical statement? Is Obama “Issac”? Is McCain Issac? Are you God?

Folks have wised-up thanks to Iraq. This isn’t the sixties anymore, ya’ll. Opposing a war does NOT in any way mean not supporting the troops or a strong military. If we were actually fighting a war to defend our freedoms, the article would have a point, but WE ARE NOT DEFENDING THE UNITED STATES IN IRAQ. By the way: “Democrat for McCain” my ass, Jim. I’m an independent and I can smell a right wing neocon from a mile. I’ve been defending my centrist views for too long, and unless you are a racist, you are definitely NOT a Democrat.

I would love to hear some examples (based in fact, not conjecture and outright falsehoods) of Obama’s “impetuous” takes on “very important issues”. And what exactly are you talking about when you say “physical attributes”? McCains age? Obama’s race? His large ears? What specifically should bother Obama’s conscience? Lot’s of inflammatory charges, absolutely no facts: It’s the neocon way.

Ah, the ignorance and superficiality of youth, eh Jim? Crazy kids don’t know what’s good for ‘em, do they? You’re going to have to do better than “Obama is a rascal, McCain is old and wise! He was a POW, therefore he is the best choice for president…Come to us, ye disgruntled Hillary supporters”. All they need is a wrinkled, jaded hand to guide them, right? Give me a break. Seniors are seniors, but they’re not mentally handicapped, and women know McCain is against everything from family planning programs to accessible mammograms…not to mention the whole voting against the equal pay measures:

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=213&sid=1392352

The fact that this is the first post since FEBRUARY, and it is out of the blue, leads me to believe that this is the blogging equivalent of spam email from right wing morons. I say “keep it up”: the more you folks flail, the more ridiculous and desperate you look.

I thank McCain for his service to his country. I’m sorry he endured years in a POW camp. Many of our soldiers did/do. Many did not (and DO not) come back at all. But a good soldier, and a good American knows NOT TO WASTE LIVES ON UNJUST WARS. The blood of our soldiers in Iraq, and the blood of the thousands of innocent Iraqi men women and children (not combatants–civilians like you and me and our children) are on the hands of ALL those who supported Bush in his lies that got us into the war.

In every way: foreign policy, healthcare, the economy, homeland security, ethics…McCain falls short. The more he panders to Hillary’s supporters, the more desperate and Janus-like he becomes.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/McCain_mingles_with_Clinton_supporters.html#comments

Troll on, big guy! But since you’re obviously a God-fearing man, I will remind you of Exodus 20:16…the ten commandments. #9: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

And Exodus 23:1 “You shall not bear a false report; do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.”

But like most neocons, I’m sure you’re fond of pointing out the “Godlessness” in others, but fail to follow the rules yourself. Didn’t Jesus say something about taking the plank out of your OWN eye…? But what do I know, impetuous 38 year old that I am?

Posted by tastytone on 16 June 2008 @ 6pm

I support McCain because he understand the rights of artists. The creative community should be supporting John McCain. Barack Obama has given direct support to Shepard Fairey, a visual artist who is a known international copyright violator. Obama has had direct contact with Shepard Fairey and has sent Shepard Fairey letters praising his activity and art even though dozens of art organizations are against artists like Shepard Fairey and others who support the Orphan Works bill. This connection needs to be exposed. Where does Obama stand on the rights of artists when he supports Shepard Fairey who has violated the work of Mederos and others?

The media keeps trying to paint McCain as being a copyright violator by the songs his campaign has played, but McCain is not directly behind the choice in the songs and in every case so far the campaign bought the rights to use the songs and were nice enough to not use them upon finding out the thoughts of the artists behind them. Obama continues to use the service of Shepard Fairey even though artists have demanded him to stop and to be clear on his position with the Orphan Works bill. Obama has been silent. He won’t answer!

How is it out of touch to stand against Obama and Shepard Fairey when dozens of art organizations have spoken out against artists like Shepard Fairey and the potential of the Orphan Works bill being passed. Seems to me that the Obama campaign is out of touch with the needs of the creative community and that certain people in the creative community are going along with it just because they can’t put their politics aside in order to honestly support the rights of artists.

You want truth?
http://lgwilliams.com/obama/obama_poster_challenge2.html

Posted by Artist for McCain and Artists Rights on 9 October 2008 @ 1pm