<p>Well, back to the original topic... </p>
<p>McCain 17
Obama 36
Barr (possibly 3)
Other 4
Ron Paul 1 (possibly 1)
Ralph Nader 1</p>
<p>McCain 17
Obama 37
Barr (possibly 3)
Other 4
Ron Paul 1 (possibly 1)
Ralph Nader 1</p>
<p>DBate is dead wrong: </p>
<p>Obama</a> says he will listen to generals about the war :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama</p>
<p>Barack</a> Obama | Change We Can Believe In |</p>
<p>
[quote]
And the funniest thing, is he stated in the campaign that he didn't vote for the iraq war, but the truth is he did not vote against it bc he was in the State Legislator. So somehow a person who wasn't even qualified to be a senator when the war started is somehow qualified to be the president to guide our policy in iraq.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He publicly opposed it when he could've just sat on the sidelines and played both sides of the fence. That is courage. In retrospect, it seems like it was the obvious thing to do, but if that was so, why did all but 14-or-so Democrats give Bush military authority?</p>
<p>And if McCain is so qualified, then why was he so dead wrong on the most important foreign policy issue of our generation? No Republican ever answers this! Ulysses S. Grant was really experienced. So was James Buchanan. Throw in John McCain in there as well.</p>
<p>Neither McCain nor Obama are qualified.</p>
<p>Both McCain and Obama are qualified.</p>
<p>Whew, I'm glad that's settled! ;)</p>
<p>What qualificatons do either candidate have?</p>
<p>I'd be delighted if you shared your knowledge with us.</p>
<p>My knowledge:</p>
<p>
[quote]
U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1</p>
<p>Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All the rest is opinion!</p>
<p>Peter Griffin for president...</p>
<p>Anyway. Back to the tally?</p>
<p>McCain 17
Obama 37 (not 378, as I had originally typed...)
Barr (possibly 3)
Other 4
Ron Paul 1 (possibly 1)
Ralph Nader 1</p>
<p>Personally, I hate the way elections become ridiculous propoganda-fueled character attacks... and in this respect, I worry that Obama might have his work cut out for him. "Terrorist fist jab?" I mean, come ON.</p>
<p>It hopefully will be 378 on Election Day... electoral votes for Obama, that is.</p>
<p>NbaChris you are wrong. Even the article you sighted gives evidence to this. The article is dated from March 12, 2008, so that is when he announced he would listen to generals, oh good except for the fact that it was after super tuesday where most ppl vote in the primaries. In fact wiki, tells us that Super Tuesday was on Februrary 5th and that 52% of delegates were decided that day alone. So that means that ALL those ppl were voting for an Obama message that did NOT include listening to generals but rather ending the war in 16 months. Thereby his position was NOT what he presented in the primaries. Therefore a flip-flop.</p>
<p>I am not stupid, every person who watched him in the primaries, saw him get on a stage and say how he was going to end the war.</p>
<p>Vossoron, Republicans don't have to place Obama in a double bind, he did it to himself. NO republican made him repeatedly state that he was going to end the war in 16 months. Oh and publicly opposing it is not what he advertised during the primary, he said he did not vote for the war, which is true, but he fails to mention that he was not even ABLE to vote for or against the war. And if ppl listened to McCain, McCain said that a troop surge would work, even though Obama didn't and voted against it, but oh wait the surge worked to lower violence and lend more stability in Iraq. Looks like the ONLY time his judgement was actually tested he made the wrong choice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
NbaChris you are wrong. Even the article you sighted gives evidence to this. The article is dated from March 12, 2008, so that is when he announced he would listen to generals, oh good except for the fact that it was after super tuesday where most ppl vote in the primaries. In fact wiki, tells us that Super Tuesday was on Februrary 5th and that 52% of delegates were decided that day alone. So that means that ALL those ppl were voting for an Obama message that did NOT include listening to generals but rather ending the war in 16 months. Thereby his position was NOT what he presented in the primaries. Therefore a flip-flop.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Keep digging your hole. Look at the second link I provided. It gives proof to statements Obama made back in 2007 when he was known as that dude that political junkies saw and loved at the 2004 convention. He has been entirely consistent with his Iraq position: he's firmly committed to withdrawal, but not at the expense of sound military procedures. The Republican effort to try and pigeon-hole him as "Peacenik-or-Bust" is pathetic indeed, and their desperation stems from the fact that McCain has an unbelievable amount of flip-flops that is only semi-masked by the public stupidity surrounding his so-called "maverick" image. </p>
<p>McCain flip-flops:</p>
<p>1) Bush tax cuts
2) GI Bill
3) Agents of Intolerance, aka Rev. Falwell and Rev. Hagee
4) Statements regarding his lack of knowledge about the economy
5) Stance on torture
6) Stance on his own military experience (he himself said previously that his Vietnam experience in no way qualified him for the presidency)
7) Whether or not Obama is trustworthy
8) Whether or not he loved his first wife "in sickness and in health" (okay, that's a cheap shot)</p>
<p>
[quote]
And if ppl listened to McCain, McCain said that a troop surge would work, even though Obama didn't and voted against it, but oh wait the surge worked to lower violence and lend more stability in Iraq.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Stop saying that as if it were a fact. Many people believe the surge to be a failure. Here's one: US</a> surge is failing, says UK's Iraq envoy - Telegraph</p>
<p>It does not matter if Obama was able to vote for the war or not. The fact is that he was firmly opposed and McCain was firmly in favour. Unless you're going to try and argue that McCain was a liar and secretly opposed the war and yet still voted for it, Obama wins this one hands down. McCain, despite his so-called experience, was spectacularly wrong on the most crucial foreign policy issue of our generation. It must be quite embarrassing that a young whippersnapper of a state senator had more sense than the Great American Hero.</p>
<p>Good job except for the fact, that it was not included in his campaign for the primaries, which I am sure was not in 2007, when ppl say he flip flop they are speaking to the position he stood in front of cameras and said repeatedly. And moreover you see that he is actually refering to stability after the military has been removed. </p>
<p>November 2007: Obama: "If The Commanders Tell Me They Need X, Y And Z, In Order To Accomplish The Very Narrow Mission That I've Laid Out, Than I Will Take That Into Consideration." "You raise a series of legitimate questions. [b/]As commander in chief, I'm not going to leave trainers unprotected. [\b]In our counterterrorism efforts, I'm not going to have a situation where our efforts can't be successful. We will structure those forces so they can be successful. We would still have human intelligence capabilities on the ground. Some of them would be civilian, as opposed to military, some would be operating out of our bases as well as our signal intelligence…But listen, I am not going to set up our troops for failure and I'm going to do something half-baked. If the commanders tell me that they need X, Y and Z, in order to accomplish the very narrow mission that I've laid out, than I will take that into consideration."</p>
<p>In it he states "As commander in chief, I'm not going to leave trainers unprotected." He is not talking about listening to commanders as to whether or not to withdraw, but rather listening on how to stabilize after the fact. And even states to accomplish his "very narrow mission" well since it is narrow i hope he tells what it is..oh that's right he said he would have all our troops out in 16 months period. That is what he said in the primaries that is what everyone else is talking about noone cares what he said before, if when he was actually running for president he told something else.</p>
<p>And if anything your post is self defeating:</p>
<p>September 2007: Obama Said He Believed "That We Should Have All Our Troops Out By 2013, But I Don't Want To Make Promises."</p>
<p>Last time i checked 16 months from 2009 was not 2013.
Also:</p>
<p>In</a> Fargo, Obama renews promise to get U.S. out of Iraq</p>
<p>"He left the impression that his talks with military commanders could refine his promise to remove U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office."</p>
<p>But he doesn't want to make promises.</p>
<p>McCain 17
Obama 38
Barr (possibly 3)
Other 4
Ron Paul 1 (possibly 1)
Ralph Nader 1</p>
<p>is there a hidden reason that CCer's have such a preference towards obama? maybe.</p>
<p>I think it's the general lean-to-the-left of higher ed, the general result of research changing existing beliefs (conservatives would prefer to keep things as they are). Wondering: Do conservatives think there is a different explanation for the two-to-one tally?</p>
<p>yes, a younger population perhaps? The education arguement is dumb, as anyone who knows anything about cognitive ability would tell you that one's opinion on things has no bearing on intelligence, that would be like me stating that Christians are smarter than Hindus, it is just wrong.</p>
<p>Good question: What is the median age of CCers? I don't have a clue. I have two kids in college and lean left.</p>
<p>What education argument? Is there one that says the more one learns, the more one tends to discard beliefs based on ideology instead of observances? What does education have to do with intelligence? Perhaps the more intelligent are better able to absorb education?</p>