Christ. Another long-winded rant from bananaboat.

How about we talk about McCain's ties to corporate lobbyists?

How about the fact that McCain consistently mixes up Shia and Sunni and can't seem to figure out where al Qaeda is?

How about McCain's admission he doesn't really understand economics?

How about McCain's desire to invade anyone he thinks is a threat?

In order to be an excellent president one must have the skills, ability, desire, and determination to do so. That is not John McCain. One mustr have an unwavering love of country. Your litmus test for unwavering love is bizarre at the least. Base on what you know of Obama is that you know nothing of Obama.

Quick response jettisons all returns so that is probably what happened.

Good luck w/this. BB hasn't presented one fact of why he's voting for McCain but can list why he isn't voting for BO? And every reason he names can come right back and sink McCain: Keating. Diamond. His divorce and what led up to it. Cindy's plane. Cindy. Iseman.

John Heartfield:

This arrogance that I sense in the Obama campaign is very evident in many of the posts I read on this forum. So, the only reason anyone would have to criticize Obama is because they are sore losers? (Even those of us who didn't support Hillary?) Obama supporters, they seem to say, are highly thoughtful intellectuals who planned and worked for their victory. Apparently, they got no help from a sympathetic media or powerful allies like the Kennedys and Oprah Winfrey, or the super delegates who put him over the top-- they did it all by themselves. The rest of us are just little children who can only have primitive feelings and should be grateful to have Obama as an alternative to McCain.

And what is this thing about Obama working so hard for the nomination? Seems to me, Mrs. Clinton-- and for that matter, Edwards and other candidates-- worked just as hard. Seems to me that the ones who spent years in the Senate developing legislation are the ones who worked hard, not the guy who just waltzed in at the last minute and doesn't have one piece of legislation to his credit.

I can see that Obama supporters are setting the stage for a third-party candidate. The circumstances are ripe for someone to have the guts to step forward and give an alternative to the millions of voters who are tired of the arrogance of the Obamanites and the incompetence of the Republicans. Can we get Bill Bradley to come out of retirement? At this point, I'd even be willing to consider Bloomberg.

The arrogance that I hear is the lumping of all Obama supporters as "kool-aid drinkers" and "elitists." Lame. It's the same argument all the time: elitism, elitism, eiltism.

What's with the victimization? You sarcastically call yourself and others like you children. Well, when people keep claiming that the nomination was stolen, or that DNC "frontloaded" Obama, media campaigned for him, etc. This is what children do, they blame others for their situation.

I'm tired of the arrogance from the Obama-haters.

Slow fingers

Adrasteia:

Here is the biggest single reason to support Obama. Iraq. Culture of war and death. If you vote McCain or actually don't vote Obama we will be in Iraq, Afghanistan and most likely Iran forever.

Right now the Iraqis are incensed over the permanent military bases the US is setting up in Iraq. Our current administration is trying to ensure that even we when the next president pulls troops out of Iraq he/she will probably leave troops at the bases.

If the ONLY reason you find to support Obama is that he isn't John McCain then that is enough.

I stood up for Senator Clinton many times on these boards although I did not intend to vote for her. She's smart, tough, ambitious, and quite capable of being a good president.

What steams me, though, is she praised McCain and drew a parallel between her and him. She allied herself with McCain to point out that Obama was inexperienced. Was this necessary?

I can actually deal with all the rest understanding that you have to be twice as tough as the competition when you're a woman. After all, she merely misted up once and the blogs were alight with how she burst into tears. But my values tell me you don't cut your party-mate off at the knees and ally yourself with someone as militant as McCain just to win.

I think ,she thought he'd wash out, and so it would never get a chance to matter in the GE.

She saw this as a battle between her and McCain and didn't really think much about the collateral damage.

But to be fair, Clintonian politics in the past was quite often a case of "full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes". And Bill usually got away with it. It turns out Hillary does not quite have Bill's teflon coating. But then I've rarely ever seen any politician that does..it may be some genetic super-power of his.

“Yeah, I'm comfortable with the FACT that in America people get to disagree, have free speech (even speech I don't agree with) and freedom of religion - whatever that means to them.”

We’re not talking about free speech here, which I fully support, but rather active and aggressive terrorist actions against the United States and her allies. If you’re unaware of this then you have not been paying attention.

“Yeah, I'm okay with the FACT that Ayers is a professor at a well-respected school and has a sketchy past that he has moved past.”

“Sketchy” is a monumental understatement and if you believe that he’s moved on from his past then you have not been paying attention to what he’s been saying. Rather than actively bombing government buildings he’s simply teaching dissension and hatred for the United States in our young people. The UIC may be well respected, but not because he works there. It is a liberal school and many liberals tend to overlook and excuse unacceptable behavior.

“Yeah, I'm okay with the FACT that neither Farrakhan, Ayers, or Rezko is running for President nor are any of them considered by reasonable people to have any influence over anyone who is running."

Farrakhan, Ayers, and Rezko are his friends and whom someone picks to be their friends is a strong reflection on who they are as a person. Since these men have had such a strong influence on Obama up to this point it is only natural to assume that this will continue.

“Yeah, I'm totally comfortable with Rev. Wright - see above as to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion.”

I wasn’t referring to Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion (which I fully support), but rather the fact that what someone says reveals how they truly feel. The fact that Obama attended Rev. Wright’s church most of his adult life and picked him as his spiritual advisor reveals that he shares his racist, subversive, anti-American views. A person simply does not attend a church for that long and pick them as their spiritual advisor unless they share the same values and standards. Doing so is against human nature. We do not stay where we are not comfortable if we have a choice.

If Obama was white and his list of friends included members of the KKK, Richard Girnt Butler, August Kreis III, Robert Jay Mathews (if he was still alive), William Luther Pierce, Wesley A. Swift, Gerald L. K. Smith, Timothy McVeigh, or Theodore Kaczynski would you be ok with it? Would you write it off as simple free speech and freedom of religion? After all these people are of the same quality of character as Obama’s list of friends.

“Yeah, I'm totally comfortable with the love of and loyalty to the US that SENATOR OBAMA has displayed and declared throughout his life.”

A love expressed by befriending, keeping company, and accepting campaign contributions from people that are well known for their racism, dissention, hatred for the United States, and full support of Islamic terrorism against the united states and our allies? How does that work? His wife wasn’t proud of her country until now. Do you consider that an expression of love?

“Yeah, I'm completely fine with the rule of law that will convict Rezko and has cleared Obama of any connection with the criminal acts of another.”

I never said that Obama was guilty of any of the crimes committed by Rezko, but rather pointed out his friendship with such a man. Again, we are judged by the people we keep as friends because they are a reflection of who we are.

“Yeah - see I’m a REAL American who believes in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the strength of both I'm not living large on the fears of others.”

Does this mean you believe that I’m not a real American? I believe in the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the strength of both as well. I am not “living large” on the fears of others, but rather I’m a private business owner that works for a living.

“I don't worry that some Islamic terrorist is going to attack my country, kill my children or kick my dog.”

I don’t either, but only if a conservative Republican is in control of the White House. We have not been able to count on the Democrats to protect the country, our allies, our people, or our interests since Kennedy was elected. In fact the last quality Democrat that we could count on in office was Harry Truman. If you believe that the Islamic terrorists are not a threat then you have not been paying attention. You have not read their history. When they say they want to kill someone then they do what they can to do just that. You either stop them, or you die. Ask the Israelites if you doubt this. Ask anyone that has ever come into prolonged contact with them.

“I don't live in fear that someone who is darker or has a different religion from me is going to tear apart the fabric of my life.”

That’s funny since my complexion is actually darker than Obama’s as well as most Islamic terrorists. I do not live in fear of them, but I am well aware of what they are capable of. Only a fool closes his or her eyes when the enemy is lurking around trying to slit your throat.

“I also don't believe that I have to tear apart the character and personality and AMERICANISM of an opponent in an election.”

Taking the time to point out the monumental character flaws of a Presidential candidate is not the same thing as tearing apart their character or personality. If that candidate has shown that their love of country is in question, and he has, then it is every American’s responsibility to be aware of that.

“But I do believe that you are a reactionary, neo-conservative, bully. Have a nice day with your children and your life.”

Reactionary would apply in some situations, but overall I am a moderate-conservative. A neo-conservative is someone that used to be a liberal and/or a socialist and has grown weary of the weak-kneed approach to foreign policy typical of the Democratic Party. While they’re hawkish on foreign policy they remain quite liberal on social issues. Since I have been a conservative for my entire interest in politics (starting at the age of 5 when Bush Sr. was running against Dukakis for the 1988 Presidential election) and I’m diametrically opposed to socialism and most forms of liberalism I could never qualify as a neo-conservative. In case you’re unaware, “neo” means new.

I’m not sure whom you think I’m bullying. Can you elaborate?

I hope you have a nice day as well.

Cassandra

"A neo-conservative is someone that used to be a liberal and/or a socialist and has grown weary of the weak-kneed approach to foreign policy typical of the Democratic Party. While they’re hawkish on foreign policy they remain quite liberal on social issues. Since I have been a conservative for my entire interest in politics (starting at the age of 5 when Bush Sr. was running against Dukakis for the 1988 Presidential election) and I’m diametrically opposed to socialism and most forms of liberalism I could never qualify as a neo-conservative. In case you’re unaware, “neo” means new."

Again, like most posts from certain sectors, they tend to gravitate toward the literal, denotation, rather than the nuanced, connotation.

You are right Cassandra. Neo-cons were liberals who felt that the liberal way had failed and switched their loyalties. A lot of them came out of the New Left and Radical Left of the 60s. A good example is PJ O'Rourke, once a leftwing firebrand who was blinded by the light that was Reagan's hair gel.

But I think what you are missing is that terms evolve. But being a conservative, I can see where you may a problem with that. A neo-con now is someone who feels that liberalism will fail and thus turn away from any liberal thought. That includes now, social policy.

I do like your definition of "neo". Given your vague description of "neo-con" which more than likely came from a quick glance at wikipedia, you could have easily said "neo" is the main character of "The Matrix" trilogy. Good job. You picked the right one.

As to bragging about the fact that everything you feel about politics, you felt in kindergarten. I don't think it helps your case at all. Growth. It happens to a lot of people.

For those bored to tears with bananabread's pontifications and self-absorbtion, let me provide a synopsis.

----

Culture of FEAR and WAR. I'm afraid of everything. I want security at any cost. I will follow anyone who says they will provide it and I don't care in what manner.

And, oh yes, I'm so stuck on myself I will vote against someone who is more articulate, educated, intelligent, ambitious, and capable than me.

Guiltar:

Female_Engineer has legitimate beefs with the business world and it is pretty well documented in the patterns and practice of business today. It is further evidenced in the associated economic data. Men do not have to be smooth and well dressed to succeed over women, they just have to be men in many instances. You took her post out of context and twisted it.

Clinton has had many successes and failures over the last 20 years that have been thoroughly dissected and brought to the forefront by the media, by her detractors, and by the Obama campaign. Clinton is less of a gamble because of her known failures and successes. Beyond Obama's education, his party participation, his state positions, and 1 year in the Senate; what do we know about him?

And yet he rises to the top so quickly? It does give cause to wonder why this should be for some people and especially those who may be female. If you ever hope to soothe the waters between the two groups, you are going to have to lose the attitude and also recognize the compliants of those who have been maligned because of gender.

“This guilt by association stuff is crap. I'm not voting for Rezko, or Khalidi, or Farrakhan, or whatever other baddie the Republicans or Clintons dig up who may have been on the same bus as Barack Obama when he was five years old.”

Since when is the absolute truth considered "bullshit"? That is a severe understatement of his relationship with these people. They are his current friends, associates, and campaign contributors. They helped him as he grew up and have continued to do so to this day.

“I voted for Barack Obama and I'm going to vote for him again in the general election.”

You are of course free to do so, but I believe you will lose.

“I'm going to continue to donate to his campaign and I'll volunteer if it looks close in November.”

You’re free to do this as well.

“Until someone provides evidence that OBAMA embezzled, cheated, murdered, slurred, or whatever, I'm sticking with the best candidate, Barack Obama!”

None of this fits anything I said. If you're not angry then you haven't been paying attention.

Cassandra

3 1/2 years in the Senate. That just shows you haven't been paying attention. Which also means you have seen any news story or read one piece on him in the past year.

In fact, I just saw a piece where to win in the State Senate, he worked the system like a pro and got all the competition off the ballot. And he did it legally. The man is a politician who gets what he wants done. and he knows how to do get it done.

How did Clinton do on the Health care bill? Or does she have any major legislation that has come out of the Senate that she introduced? No. She does not have the support.

And McCain, his closet ally in the Senate is running away from the candidate he has become.

It's ok, the Fray sometimes messes up my posts by putting huge spaces between my paragraphs that were not there when I typed my post out. :-)

Cassandra

Yes, sometimes when I post my words come out all wrong and I sound like some raving lunatic that doesn't know what I'm talking about. It's almost like the editors are grabbing my post and moving sentences around and making my points pointless like they took out all the context.

Ms. Bananaboat, maybe that's what happening to your post as well. Those big gaps could be those same editors taking stuff out of your posts. Like when you're making a point but it's missing the support, to weaken your argument. I hate it when they do that. Don't you, Cassandra? I can call you Cassandra, can't I. I feel like I know you already through your post and what is left of your biography that you may or may not have given us? See, I think it's happening right now.

And you know why, Cassie? It's because we speak our mind. And it just comes out no matter how it sounds or looks on the page. We're fine with that because we're not about being judging, but about judging. Am I right, CB? Or is it CBB. CB.

Anyway, from what I could gather from all you redacted posts, I could get behind a person like you. Or not. Maybe. That thing about a dark complexion . . . that's tanning right? Not that there is anything wrong with that. Except if it isn't about tanning. MOthers wouldn't approve.

Good luck, C-Boat. and you should really talk to the editors about them messing with your posts.

I am a woman, not a man. Cassandra is a female name.

I haven’t stated why I’m voting for McCain because I wasn’t asked. But since you mention it I can explain why I am.

I’m voting for McCain because I believe that is the only qualified candidate of the (now) 2 candidates left. He served in Vietnam with distinction, courage, and honor. He has experience fighting the type of war we’re currently engaged in. He has a level of discipline and fortitude that can only be gained from serving in the military.

He has served in public office with distinction on the federal level since 1982. He has served in both the House and the Senate under Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton, and now Bush Jr. while a conservative at his core he has shown repeatedly that he has the ability to break away from partisan politics if and when he feels the Republican Party position is wrong. He has shown the ability to reach across the political aisle and work with his liberal counterparts. He has voted according to his heart regardless of how his fellow Republicans might feel about it.

He is pro-small government, pro-states rights, pro-war when necessary, pro-life, pro-Israel, pro-gun control, pro-death penalty, pro-patriot act, pro-affirmative action, pro-free trade, pro-school vouchers, pro-welfare reform, pro-border security, and pro-lower government spending. These are positions that I agree with.

McCain is conservative to moderate on the issues and while there are things I do not agree with about him, his beliefs are close enough to my own for me to vote for him. In sharp contrast I am opposed to virtually every position Obama has expressed. While McCain is a flawed candidate I believe that he is the best qualified of the two and would make a much better president.

The Keating Five was in fact the Keating Four. McCain’s only involvement was that he accepted donations from Charles Keating. Once the scandal was revealed McCain sent the donations back. The Senate Ethics Committee only included McCain so that it wouldn’t be all Democrats under investigation. John Glenn was reelected because of his celebrity status while McCain was reelected because he was innocent. The other 3 crashed and burned.

McCain’s relationship with Donald Diamond has been purely business. McCain helped move things along like he would for any citizen. In most cases he refused Diamond’s requests if he felt they were inappropriate. His association with Diamond, who is a legitimate businessman, is quite a bit different from Obama’s friendships with known domestic and foreign terrorists, racists, and radicals.

McCain went through hell during his 5-½ years as a POW. That is a very long time to be away from your spouse and like many marriages it simply did not last through the war. By the time he was released and came back home he was a broken shell of a man that needed to pull himself back together. Him and his first wife had simply grown apart and couldn’t put the pieces back together. Unless you have been through what he went through you have no idea what you are talking about. It is a private matter between him and her and should remain that way.

What about Cindy’s plane? When you marry someone what belonged to him or her and what belonged to you becomes yours together. At least that is how it should be. Cindy’s money became their money. Of course he uses the plane to travel with. That’s what it’s there for. If you marry someone and they own a plane are you going to fly commercial?

The alleged relationship with Vicky Iseman is a lie. If it were true then the sources would come forward.

As I did in 2000 and 2004 I will vote for the best candidate available.

Cassandra