Good for you! Now we have an issue to discuss, and this is one that Obama should answer for. In various speeches at the time he gave partial answers that really didn’t make a whole lot of sense, so perhaps he has some perspective on it now that can help him explain his position.
To be honest, I think the bill in question opens up a can of worms. If the unborn child survives the abortion attempt but is too deformed to survive on its own outside the womb without extensive surgical procedures (as in a case of spina bifida), who is required to pay the medical bill for this child? I would assume that the state would take custody of the child since the mother attempted to kill it…how could they rationally return custody of the child to her with her having just tried to have it killed?
Are the taxpayers of the nation ready to take on the financial burden of providing medical care to these persons? And if that baby has a life-long disability (aicardi syndrome, for example) is the state liable for the long-term care of the child? Or do we go after the mother in these cases? Or maybe the father?
Obama’s opposition to the bill deserves an explanation from him, and I hope he is able to bring one together. But proponents of the bill should also explain how these persons, with their 14th amendment rights, are to have those rights protected once they leave the womb alive?
That is important, isn’t it Michelle?

ds0490, his excuse was that he thought it would clash with Roe vs Wade so the points makre really shouldn’t matter. I don’t buy it but it would be a mistake for anyone but the press to bring it up without a lot of tact.

Man! You’ve got to be kidding. I thought you guys believed that once a baby is born then it’s a human being. That’s not the case with Obama and evidently you, ds0490. Pretty cold. As to what to do with the baby, I thought the left was into giving healthcare to kids that don’t have it.
The left isn’t as compassionate as their rep evidently.
BTW, you might want to read this.

Man! You’ve got to be kidding.
No, unfortunatly they are not kidding.
You initial post was in response to a charge by a user that Obama was a man who was substantive and who positions were substantive. You bring up one of his positions and get the reaction that the position lacks any real support or explanation from Obama.
In other words, his position lacks substance – either in the decision or the thought process behind it – which is exactly the point that you and others were trying to make.
There is one thing that I will say about Obama and the same basic comment on Hillary. There are going to be people out there that will vote for Obama simply because of his race. There are those who will not vote for him strictly on the basis of his race. There are those who will vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman. There are those who will not vote for her simply because she is a woman.
Voting for or against a person based on their race or gender is absurd and morally wrong.

without extensive surgical procedures who is required to pay the medical bill for this child?
This is a trumped up concern … the State takes charge of unwanted newborns regularly, no matter how unwanted.
The reference to Amendment 14 in Terence Jeffrey’s commentary conveys enough gratuitous racial irony to discredit the whole piece. The cheap shot cost him everything.

How Dangerous is Obama?
This article proves that he’s merely a tool for the world government and promoter of a tax to be paid to the UN to fuel its totalitarian control over us and to redistribute the wealth to other countries.  
“A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.”
“The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).”
“In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
An Obama presidency would be racist and a disaster for the USA.
In one of Obama’s campaign offices, there is even a flag with a picture of a murderous Marxist dictator on it!
Read the rest here:  http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/ckincaid/2008/ck_02131.shtml 

moonshadow: “This is a trumped up concern … the State takes charge of unwanted newborns regularly, no matter how unwanted.”
Actually it isn’t. As with most conservative efforts to try to restrict abortions, this bill was obviously poorly constructed. A child that survives an abortion attempt is likely to be suffering from substantial medical problems. After all, an abortion is designed to kill the child, not deliver it safely.
I put it to both you and Michelle…who is to pay for the care of these children that survive abortions? Money does not grow on trees. In your statement, Moonshadow, you seem to be saying that for these children some form of socialized medicine is suitable. How long should that medical care be provided? After all, if the child has a right to life, does it have a right to have that life sustained?
Is the bill a serious attempt to deal with the real problem of children who survive abortions, or is this simply yet another attempt by the GOP to appease the pro-life contingent of the party? If Obama is to be called to task for his vote on it (as I believe he should be), then the proponents of the bill should also ante up with their explanation on how to pay for the care of these children.

Let’s look at the language of this bill. Here is the relevant text from paragraph B of the federal bill that it was modeled after:
——
(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
——
Note the phrase “at any stage of development.” This means that a child that is pre-viability (prior to 23 weeks gestation) that has a beating heart or movement of voluntary muscles (arms & legs) is considered to have been born alive, and under this bill would be a person.
This means that the child at 18 weeks gestational age with severe spina bifida that survived an abortion would become a person, and the hospital would be required to administer any and all necessary medical care in accordance with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).
Are pro-life conservatives ready to appropriate the funds necessary to cover the costs of this bill, or is it going to become yet another unfunded mandate? Several pro-life websites cite anywhere from 200 to 1000 children per year in the US survive abortion attempts and are left to die. Under this bill the medical care for these children would be mandated.
Where does the money come from for that? The stork?

Is the bill a serious attempt to deal with the real problem of children who survive abortions, or is this simply yet another attempt by the GOP to appease the pro-life contingent of the party?
Yet a similar thing can be said of Obama. Was his vote an attempt to appease the “abortion on demand” part of his party?
Or does Obama’s poition state his belief that a living, breathing baby outside of the womb not qualify as a person?
who is to pay for the care of these children that survive abortions?
So now the decision on whether a person should live or die is based on money? Isn’t that the calling card of the left that big business sees health care in the terms of dollars and cents and not in the terms of patient care?
The answer to your question is the same as every other botched or screwed up surgery. The doctor should pay. If a doctor caused harm to a child in the womb to the point where the child is born with health problems, the doctor and their health company should be held accountable. The fact that the doctor intentionally caused harm to the child is another nail in their coffin, and not a mitigating circumstance.
Obama’s stance on this is illogical and if you agree with him, so is yours. First, what are the qualifications for being a “person” and guaranteed protection under the Constitution if not being born? Secondly, while you may think that your argument on the costs of raising a child with health issues carries the day and gives some sort of depth to Obama’s stance, it doesn’t.
It opens to the door to allowing babies to die based on the projected health costs. A child has a deformed leg and will require operations to fix the leg. Too much money….. let’s kill them. A child has Downs’ Syndrome and will require aid and assistance throughout their life. Too much money…. let’s kill them. A child has allergies and will have to take medication their entire life. Too much money…. let’s kill them. A child is a male and will require more incur more medical costs in his life than a female. Too much money. Let’s kill him.
If that is Obama’s (and your) belief, then I wish you well.
There will come a day when you may be in a crash and need radical medical assistance.
Then you may hear “this is going to cost too much money…. let’s kill him.”

Moe: “It opens to the door to allowing babies to die based on the projected health costs. A child has a deformed leg and will require operations to fix the leg. Too much money….. let’s kill them. A child has Downs’ Syndrome and will require aid and assistance throughout their life. Too much money…. let’s kill them. A child has allergies and will have to take medication their entire life. Too much money…. let’s kill them. A child is a male and will require more incur more medical costs in his life than a female. Too much money. Let’s kill him.”
So I gather you would oppose a law that permitted hospitals to take children off life support simply because their parents could not pay…right?
Have you read about Baby Sun?
http://www.click2houston.com/news/4285371/detail.html?rss=hou&psp=news
Or about Emilio Gonzalez?
http://www.progressiveu.org/114449-texas-law-let-baby-emilio-die
Under a law signed by (then) Governor George W. Bush, hospitals, not parents, get to decide when enough is enough with regards to treating children with medical issues. Of course this law doesn’t apply to parents who can afford to pay for their own children’s care. It only applies to those parents who cannot afford life-sustaining care for their children.
Two babies, Sun Hudson and Emilio Gonzales, were allowed to die by the hospitals charged with their care simply because Texas law permitted them to do so.
I take it from your prior post that you would find this law repulsive. I agree. It’s too bad President Bush didn’t agree back when he was governor and signed the bill into law in Texas.
Real life situations…and if the Born Alive Infant Act were to be in effect we would see more and more of these instances.
Do you think the Act should have language in it preventing hospitals from discontinuing life-sustaining care in cases where the parents cannot afford to pay for it?

obama is not pro-abortion. he’s pro-choice, just like the majority of people polled in the u.s. for more than a decade.
if you don’t like the pro-choice position, then i suggest that you reconcile that within your political party. nobody expects that many on the religious right would vote for a democrat anyway. the anti-choice few are outside of the mainstream on this wedge issue and a majority of you will vote on this and this alone.
i’m quite sure that we could similarly boil down republican candidates accomplishments:

Here are Obama’s accomplishments from the Library of Congress website: thomas.loc.gov:
During the first (8) eight months of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law), **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law), **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.
In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record. . . .

In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record. . . .
Hush now – can’t have inconvenient facts get in the way of a good rightie diatribe, now, can we?
It ain’t the beliefnet.foxnews.com way!
If this was on TV, your comment would have been shouted down or you’d have had your mike cut.

So I gather you would oppose a law that permitted hospitals to take children off life support simply because their parents could not pay…right?
Yes I would. As that is not what happened in your examples, your point is moot.
obama is not pro-abortion. he’s pro-choice, just like the majority of people polled in the u.s. for more than a decade.
Try again. The majority of people are not pro choice in all cases, as Obama is.
In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record. . . .
Prolific in bills is not the same thing as a substantive legislative record.
If this was on TV, your comment would have been shouted down or you’d have had your mike cut.
Do you realize how ridiculous this comment is? You are complaining about being allowed to post?
Good grief.

Not complaining about being allowed to post, o paragon of rightly virtue. Just saying that we who operate in a world unfettered by fox-colored-glasses shouldn’t expect any of you “troo beleevers” to really engage us on what we’re talking about. instead, we’ll get buzzwords, obfuscation, deliberate misreads and misquotes, all with a healthy dose of objectification (we’re not people, we’re “THE LEFT!!!111one”)
Just callin em like I’m seein em!

ds0490: So I gather you would oppose a law that permitted hospitals to take children off life support simply because their parents could not pay…right?
Moe: Yes I would. As that is not what happened in your examples, your point is moot.
Actually, that is exactly the law that was used to justify the actions of the hospitals in both cases. The committees that reviewed the cases were formed in the wake of the adoption of that law.
Might I suggest that you actually look into matters before you spout off simplistic answers from the Conservative Book of Soundbytes?
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/lifesupport_sto.html
“But in this case, the judge wasn’t writing on a blank slate. The Legislature had already spoken, twice — once in 1999 when it enacted chapter 166 and again in 2003 when it amended the law to make it apply to pediatric patients. All the judge had to do — and apparently all he did do — was to find that the law authorizes the hospital to withdraw treatment over the objections of Sun’s mother, Wanda Hudson.”
As is typical with so many in the pro-life community, they only push the pro-life issue when it is convenient to attack one of their political opponents.
Updated: Michele added name to post

Just callin em like I’m seein em!
Get new glasses.

In addition to his political accomplishments (does being a Senator not count for anything?), he’s written several great books and even won two Grammies. He’s also now a member of the Red Room authors’ and readers’ community online: http://www.redroom.com/author/barack-obama

I am an Obama supporter BECAUSE his record is nowhere near as fleshy as Clinton’s thighs. He brings less baggage to the table and his campaign isn’t being financed by Dubai. Although I don’t view things this way, you might want to just choose the lessor of two evils. And the Clinton’s are EVIL.

I don’t see the Clinton’s as evil. I simply do not wish to revisit all the policy failures of the ’90s. I have less of a problem with what Bill did to/with interns (heck, Bush screwed the whole nation from that office) than with what a Clinton III regime might bring in the way of policy.
If Clinton was right on policy I’d be happy to support her. She isn’t, and I’m not.

ds0490: “So I gather you would oppose a law that permitted hospitals to take children off life support simply because their parents could not pay…right?”
moe: “Yes I would. As that is not what happened in your examples, your point is moot.”
(As I am still waiting for the blog owner to approve my post, I’ll repost it here without the explicit link, to see if that gets by the ‘bot.)
The law that was signed in 1999 by (then) Governor Bush, and in 2003 that was expanded to cover infants and children, was EXACTLY the reason that the hospital was reviewing these two cases, Moe.
lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/lifesupport_sto.html
“My experience on five hospital ethics committees, and as co-chair of two, is that in both adult and pediatric cases, most futility disputes never get to this last step of unilateral withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. In most cases either the families drop their opposition along the way or the patient dies before the due-process steps required by the statute have been exhausted. Last fall, ethicists at M.D. Anderson surveyed Texas hospitals’ experiences under chapter 166; I hope they will publish their results soon. It will be extremely interesting to find out how often the statutory process has been followed all the way to the end, including withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment over family objections.
There is no telling how the Houston judge would have decided this case if chapter 166 were not on the books. On the one hand, it appears that no judge in this country has ever sided with the family in one of these treatment disputes. On the other hand, the physicians, hospital, and ethics committee appear to agree that Sun’s condition was fatal and that his protracted death was not without some suffering. (I don’t know how to square this with newspaper reports that “[t]he hospital’s description of Sun [was] that he was motionless and sedated for comfort.”)
But in this case, the judge wasn’t writing on a blank slate. The Legislature had already spoken, twice — once in 1999 when it enacted chapter 166 and again in 2003 when it amended the law to make it apply to pediatric patients. All the judge had to do — and apparently all he did do — was to find that the law authorizes the hospital to withdraw treatment over the objections of Sun’s mother, Wanda Hudson. ”
The law was the underpinnings of this tragedy, Moe. Without the law the children might not have been killed by the hospital.
The strangest part of all of this is the folks who united to support the passage of this law.
“(I hasten to add that one of the co-drafters in both 1999 and 2003 was the National Right to Life Committee. Witnesses who testified in support of the bill in 1999 included representatives of National Right to Life, Texas Right to Life, and the Hemlock Society. Our bill passed both houses, unanimously, both years, and the 1999 law was signed by then Governor George W. Bush.)”
National Right to Life?!?!?! Supporting a law that permitted an unrelated third party to withdraw treatment from an infant over the objections of the mother?!?!?!
Yep…apparently poor, black babies do not merit the same support that Terri Schiavo, a white woman, received.

No, his campaign is financed by trial lawyers who are suing telcoms for cooperating with our government to fight terrorism.

Good idea not waiting for the blog owner I’ve been out all day.

Michelle: “Good idea not waiting for the blog owner I’ve been out all day.”
No problem. The ‘bot that filters posts is simply keyed to nab any that have active links in them. It’s easy to get around that, which is why I simply reposted. It’s a minor but necessary inconvenience that prevents any kind of link-spamming.

Michele: “No, his campaign is financed by trial lawyers who are suing telcoms for cooperating with our government to fight terrorism.”
You mean those companies that are being PAID nicely for this help?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
“The three telecommunications companies are working _under contract_ with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.”
A contract…not patriotism…is at the core of this agreement. The government is paying these companies for the information. And what are they getting?
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/nsa-asked-for-p.html
“The Groundbreaker contract, reportedly worth $2 – $5 billion dollars, outsources the NSA’s IT management, but at least one lawsuit charges the project was cover for a domestic spying program.”
The companies were being paid by the government under a program that both the government and the companies acknowledge broke the law. If the FISA bill is passed with the immunity clause included, the program will continue.
That means, Michele, that if Hillary or Barak win the White House, they will be running this program. Their attorney general will be overseeing it.
Are you comfortable with that, Michele? I’m not.

“No, his campaign is financed by trial lawyers who are suing telcoms for cooperating with our government to fight terrorism.”
to fight terrorism? more like colluding with the bush administration break the law outright by spying domestically without a warrant then trying to get away with it. obviously “amnesty” is something that bush promised these telecom companies as part of a deal prior to the deed.
your willingness to give up our rights is disheartening.
letting the government spy on our phone conversations without probable cause and without court oversight is a false promise of security. if the bush administration (namely rice) knew how to read the briefings that she is handed, we wouldn’t have been duped into giving up our privacy.

“Try again. The majority of people are not pro choice in all cases, as Obama is.”
i’ll give you the benefit of the doubt in that i don’t think that your intent was to twist my words and try to spin the facts to your favor. i didn’t say that the majority of people are pro-choice in all cases.
however, to emphasize my point, no matter how you want to break it down, there is a larger majority who want to protect a woman’s right to choose than those who want a constitutional amendment to make all abortions illegal without exception (like the huckster who would make a woman give birth to a baby from incest and/or rape).
the beauty of being pro-choice is that YOU can choose not to have an abortion because you are morally or otherwise opposed to it. it is the minority who want to impose their moral/religious view upon the majority through legislative restrictions. no wonder you oppose obama.

Senator Obama has ten years of senate experience: eight years in Springfield, and two years in Washington, D.C.
His signature bills while in Springfield were: (1) expanding Kidcare (health insurance for an additional 20,000 Illinois children);(2) welfare reform (a bipartisan bill passed in Republican controlled senate, generating major headlines); earned income tax credit (tax relief for working poor families);(3) and death penalty reform.
(He supports the death penalty in exceptional circumstances, but wanted all interrogations to be videotaped. Initially viewed as a highly controversial proposal and opposed by the police, Republicans and other special interest groups, the senator was able to get this bill passed 58-0 and signed by the governor who also opposed the bill.
He was also responsible for Illinois passing the most ambitious campaign finance reform bill in 25 years and was lauded by good government groups for his efforts.
He also took the lead on opposing bills he believed were unconstitutional or poorly written, even if the vote could later be used in misleading 30 second commercials against him. He opposed a bill to toughen penalties for violent crimes committed by gang activity, because the bill didn’t clearly define a gang member, and
seemed targeted at Hispanics and Blacks. He, of course, also opposed the Iraq war.
When Democrats finally achieved a majority in the state senate, Senator Obama was elevated to Chairman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. During those two years, he sponsored 780 bills, and 280 of those were signed into law.
He sponsored laws against discrimination of gays in employment and housing. He worked on a ban on assault weapons. He supported a bill to allow retired officers to carry concealed weapons. He worked for legislation to expand health insurance coverage. (He proposed a study on how to provide universal health care to everyone in Illinois
backed by a single payer health care plan run by the state.) He helped pass bills to increase aids funding. He sponsored a bill to investigate racial profiling by police, essentially second guessing police officers yet still won the endorsement of the state police officers union when he ran for U.S. Senate.
In his first two years in the U.S. Senate, Republicans tightly controlled the U.S. Senate. During that time, Senator Obama sponsored 152 bills and resolutions, and cosponsored 427 more. Senator Obama thus far has two bills which became law, that have his name on them. The Lugar-Obama bill and the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act. Both Lugar and Coburn are Republicans.
When the Senate passed a major ethics/lobbying reform bill. (Senator Obama had voted against a prior ethics reform bill that he said wasn’t tough enough.) Newspapers give Senators Obama and Russ Feingold significant credit for insisting that this latest ethics bill included tough measures.
Senator Democratic leader Harry Reid has designated Barack Obama as the Democrats’ point man on ethics, citing three reasons for his selection: (1) whenever Obama walks into a room, everyone stops talking and listens to what he has to say; (2) Obama is known for having unquestionable ethics and integrity; (3) Obama’s expertise on ethics and campaign reform while in Springfield made him a leading expert on
those same issues in the U.S. Senate.
Senator Obama is on the senate committees for foreign relations; homeland security; veterans affairs; health, education, labor and pensions.

And that’s just a few reasons why its Obama 10 straight victories to Hillary’s 0.
OBAMA 08 !!!!!!!

This is just one of the glaring things that I question about Obama.His push for Amnesty for Illegal Aliens and promoting getting them in line for Social programs, so us taxpayers can support them, and then tout that he is pro labor in the US ? I would call that an oxymoron, wouldn’t you ?? How can you be pro union, pro labor and want illegal aliens to get a free pass when they should be nothing less than arrested and deported? Go Figure? He is a smooth talker, kind of like a snake oil salesman!

Obama’s biggest accomplishment is getting America to Unite towards a common cause of “doing better” . I am so sick of the hatred, hypocrisy, and lies.. Don’t we want all Americans to do better and do right ? Who do you think can lead us in that direction? An old war veterean who has been in the government for years and hasn’t changed anything. An ex president’s wife who is so bought off by special interests? or an inspiring senator with a young track record? If accomplishments really mattered where are Biden and Dodd?
OBAMA 2008 – finally hope

If Abortion is your main issue, as your post indicates, then it would serve better to focus more on fighting poverty and ignorance. I believe Obama will work towards reducing both. There has been no Republican running that has helped reduce these root causes of abortion. The Pro-Life movement has such a maladaptive approach towards reducing or ending abortion. By supporting the neo concervitive party they are aiding bad domestic polices that will only increase unwanted pregnancies. Take a good look at some of the countries that mix religion with government that have outlawed abortion. You will find an unbelievable number of homeless children and even higher abortion rates.
I just want someone who will clean up Bush’s “accomplishments” but that may take half a century.
Updated: Michele added a name because anonymous comments are not allowed on this blog.

The root cause of abortion is convenience, people have abortions because it’s convenient to do so. How do we address that issue through government? We can’t. There is no easy answer for this problem and not even Obama will be able to do it.

President of the United States is the most powerful position on the planet! Our founding fathers wanted to make sure that anyone could run for president as long as they met a few criteria (From the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
1. natural born citizen. 2. Must be at least the age of thirty-five years.) so the fact that Obama is young and “fresh” is a good thing but the issue I have is that being truly qualified for this job requires some much more than being young and “fresh”.
Probably the most qualified person was Richardson. Take a few miutes and google him and see all the stuff he has done. He is a true patriot but he never stood a chance. Right now, the MOST qualified person still in the race is McCain. If you are truly looking for real “Change” McCain represents the best chance of this happening.
Let’s face it, if you are a democrat or republican, you can’t get anything done without crossing over party lines and getting the a few on the other side to go along. The only person who has show any ability to do that is McCain. (McCain/Feingold, the gang of 14, etc.) The radical conservatives spew venom at McCain for daring to not toe the party line with GWB but it is this true example of a member of the Senate attempting “Change” that Obama supporters must consider. Am I telling anyone how to vote? Absolutely not! Just think!
Forget the ‘War Hero” rhetoric and look at the fact that McCain has dared to cross the isle and did so in an attempt make our country better. I like Obama and think that by 2012 or 2016, he will have had time to build the experience necessary for this job. In the mean time, McCain is the most qualified for the job.

Um…you do know that Bush signed McCain/Feingold and was in support of McCain/Kennedy. In fact Jonah Goldberg wrote a great article comparing just how much McCain was like Bush. I should post it because it makes for interesting reading.

As far as Bush signing McCain/Feingold and his support of McCain/Kennedy, what does that have to do with the discussion of how a US Senator reaches across the aisle? Comparing Bush to McCain and citing an article by Goldberg? Goldberg has written many articles blasting McCain also.
I guess I was mistaken and thought this was a chat about real politics and qualifications. I am an independent looking for constructive discussion vs. the tired old “we hate Bush” or “we hate Hillary” rhetoric.