Let's do what Obamabots don't like to do; compare issues and look at who is more in line with the public.

1) Energy - he's from the fanatic left that wants to ignore drilling, and continue to decrease our supply while demand goes up. Palin and the public -- want more drilling and cheaper energy. -----

2) Iraq War - when 80% of the public AND DEMOCRATS wanted to take out Saddam, and 90% of the world's intelligence said he was a threat developing WMD's (and he murdered an average of 100K people per year), Obama was against the war. Not public opinion has changed, but Obama was still from the fanatical left. (Obama was also against the surge, that has worked). Palin is more in line with he public. -----

3) Foreign Policy - Obama is an isolationist extremist (catering to his labor special interests) -- this will drive up prices of goods, which costs jobs. Palin is a more moderate on trade, unlike the erudite Obama, she and her husband are moderate union members -- like the public. -----

4) Second amendment -- an obstruction in Obama's mind and voting record. She's a more moderate outdoorsman, hunter, realist. Like more of the public.-----

5) Military - She's been commander-in-chief of the Alaskan National Guard, has a son in Iraq, and supports out military. Obama has catered to anti-war and anti-military fanatics, has a lousy voting record according to the military. He went on a fact finding mission to Iraq where he admitted he made up his mind before he went (about 5 years ago), and he couldn't be bothered to visit injured troops in hospitals. She's more like the public or better fit. -----

6) Spouses -- Her husband is a fisherman and supervisor in energy, who likes outdoor sports like snowmobiling. Obama's is a hospital administrator making $400k (currently on leave while campaigning). She got a raise and special consideration after he got elected and gave her hospital million dollar earmarks. Obamas have made millions off his self-promoting book -- while criticizing McCain's houses. She's not into class-hypocrisy, being all the things Obama pretends to be. The public will see that. -----

7) Record -- she has a history of accomplishments in corruption and reducing waste/graft. Obama has no verified claims of anything he's ever accomplished as State or National Senator. (Note -- no legislation or action backing his words). So she is substance, he is hollow words. She aligns better with the publics desires.-----

8) Abortion -- 70% of the public wants to protect 1st trimester abortions. She's definitely not in the majority, but has lived her beliefs. Republicans don't support activist judges, and the Democratic Senate has the power over that decision. So little power on the issue, little consequence. 70% of the public wants more limits on 3rd trimester and limiting partial birth abortion or forced deliveries. Obama's voting record is far more fanatical than hers, and he hides from his beliefs (hypocrite). He wants to work with the Democratic Senate to force activist judges on this and other issues. So more power on the issue, on the worse side of it, and more fanatical. She aligns better with more of the public. -----

9) Independent/reformer -- she challenged HER party to get elected. Obama is a Chicago politician that voted 97% with his party on the most partisan issues. She comes from Rural Alaska, he comes from Harvard and Chicago. He has no supported cases where he crossed party lines -- no major laws/legislation he can point to. The one where he worked with McCain ended in disaster when he went all partisan. -----

10) Earmarks - she stopped them. Obama gave them to his wife's hospital, and his own campaign bundles. -----

So who aligns better with the common man and standard public opinions. I'm not a republican, I'm a moderate that crosses party lines. But I vote to the middle -- not those saying they're in the middle, but voting from the extreme fringe.

Yeah, you sound like a real populist, Suzy.

Why don't you try not cherry-picking data and miring yourself in gross over-generalizations next time you post here, huh? It might lend a little more credence to your claims to moderation.

Also, the Iraq War? Really? You're going to bring that up? Palin didn't even have a passport until last year. She knows dick about foreign policy. The execution of that war has been a colossal cock-up, start to finish. Public support has aligned with the war's detractors for a far greater amount of time than for its supporters. And enough with the "Obama didn't even have time to visit foreign soldiers crap. Two seconds of research into THAT Republic spin nonsense will tell you all you need to know about how a simple, NON-political decision was recast as a slight by the GOP slime machine.

As for the rest of your list, well--it barely merits a point-by-point response. Suffice it to say that you would be better received as an open shill for the Republic Party than as a self-proclaimed voice for the common man. You're about as credible an authority on Obama's accomplishments as Michael Moore on George Bush's.

You sound like Obama -- vague accusations and no specifics. (All air). Please offer examples and details where I'm wrong and why. Instead of addressing the points, you make vague attacks, hoping that your constituents and the public is as ignorant as you are (and won't know better). But I offered points, you offered ad-hominem attacks in the name of bipartisanism and "the one", the great uniter -- that so far has only driven wedges between democrats and republics, between men and women, blacks and whites, between pro-national security people and pro-head-in-the-sand lefties, between those that want a reasonable energy policy and the democrats, and so on. And did you do anything to address the point that she's more towards the middle than he is? I didn't see it. I saw only attacks against the messenger, kinda like you're scared of the truth.

Thank you Suzy--a good hearty laugh was just what I needed. If you were any more hypocritical, you'd be masturbating with one hand and selling chastity belts with the other.

Your original post was a veritable wasteland of "vague accusations and no specifics." Take the following, just for starters:

"Obama has no verified claims of anything he's ever accomplished as State or National Senator."

Really? You're going to claim that with a straight face? Now tell me, when you say "unverified," does that mean you've heard claims and have gone about trying to substantiate them, only to find yourself unable? Does that mean you've scrutinized his legislative record? Or are you--*gasp*--making a vague accusation with no specifics? Nah, you wouldn't do that....

OK, you accuse me of making vague attacks, as opposed to your "points," so I guess I'll just follow your method:

1) McCain has never won a war.
2) McCain has been partisan on more occasions than he's been bipartisan.
3) McCain is far less often a maverick than he is a political insider and party-line follower.
4) McCain has no executive experience.
5) McCain is a flip-flopper on immigration
6) McCain is a flip-flopper on energy policy
7) McCain is a flip-flopper on George Bush
8) McCain is a flip-flopper on torture
9) McCain is a flip-flopper on the importance of experience in presidential candidate tickets
10) McCain is a flip-flopper on right-wing religious extremism
11) McCain is a flip-flopper on Mitt Romney
12) McCain is a flip-flopper on abortion.
13) McCain cheated on his wife
14) McCain is out of touch with the middle class, i.e. the 98% of Americans who make less then 250K a year
15) McCain is old
16) McCain's wife had several abortions, at his insistence (prove me wrong)
17) McCain is inarticulate
18) McCain is inordinately wealthy
19) McCain is temperamental and intolerant
20) McCain can be bought*

And if you really saw me only making "attacks against the messenger," I suggest you re-read my post, as well as my responses to your other posts about Palin's "courage" in another thread before talking to me about being "starry-eyed" and "worshiping The One."

Don't know if it's occurred to you, but I haven't said I'm voting for Obama. I just can't stand hypocritical and lazy thinking.

*satirical list. If you insist on taking it seriously, then you've missed the point.

Again with the personal attacks, mixed with dodges. How very O-bah-ma like -- the wolf leading the sheeple. Let's try a more Socratic tack, since you aren't responding.

A) Please name Obama's great Senatorial accomplishments, in detail.

To date, he has not. And being a politician, if he had them, he'd have crammed them down our throats like McCain's POW experiences. So I question his legislative accomplishments with a straight face, because none of his rabid fanboys has offered any, nor has he. The one he mentioned was a vague reference to reform with McCain that went down in flames. McCain has dozens of examples of crossing the aisles, or things he got passed.

B) You didn't address my points, you tried to distract from them. Nice job, if your trying to hide from the truth. Address my points, and I'll address yours. A reminder --

1) Energy, is it really a plan to decrease supply while demand increases?
2) War record - head in sand, against the surge, pro-Saddam position? Really?
3) What is the mythical foreign policy experience of Obama?
4) He knows what private property else in the state/nation should be allowed to have?
5) Military -- who do you think the Military people are voting for, why?
6) Who's spouse is more common-man and "of the people"?
7) Accomplishments -- we've been told hers, what's his?
8) Abortion -- equally extreme. Why do you think his fanaticism is better than hers?
9) Reform -- she's done it, he's talked about it. Explain where you disagree.
10) Earmarks -- she fought to stop them, he used them for personal gain.

Examples please. I offered them, you have not -- only attacked and dodged and distracted. You may or may not be an Obama voter, but you're acting like one -- dodge the truth, sell the dream. It's like watching a used-car salesman sell a lemon. If you want to change my and others views, it's easy -- offer something that backs up the salespitch. After 6 years, I've seen none of that from Obama or Obamabots.

Thanks for the decidedly-unSocratic response to my post. More reassurance that I'm up against a lightweight. Please read some Socrates before you throw that term around.

You're asking to be spoon-fed answers to questions you've clearly spent no time researching. Do I really need to show you how to look up a legislative record? Do I really have to explain to you what a committee is? Socrates would have laughed in your face at your challenge to spoon-feed you the answers.

My point from the beginning was never to stump for Obama, but rather to point out the flaws in a poorly-thought out list--err, I mean argument. I've done the same against so-called "Obamabots," and I will continue to do so until my dying day. Ignorance is a contagion.

And for the record, when you hammer me on "getting specific," you undermine your credibility with phrases like "she's done it," "she fought to stop them," "who is more common-man" (although I did have a good laugh at that one, read: Cindy McCain), "[obama is] pro-Saddam," "dozens of examples" (none cited), "I've seen none of that" (head in the sand?), and the completely non-sensical "He knows what private property else in the state/nation should be allowed to have?".

It truly is a delight watching someone offer arguments that completely dismantle his/her own. You do all my work for me! (Sorry I can't offer you the same treatment.)

Nice personal attacks. Also FYI the Socratic method means asking questions as a way of teaching someone to think for themselves. Since you couldn't come up with any answers, it proves who the real lightweight is. Thanks for playing. Since you obviously have nothing to value (as demonstrated by your dodge and attack methods), I'll try to communicate with people willing to contribute.

1) Energy, is it really a plan to decrease supply while demand increases?

-Not sure what you mean here. Obama actually supports drilling in Alaska, a position Palin supports and McCain opposes, though I'll bet you $100 he supports it this time next month. Obama also supports limited offshore drilling, but the key difference is that he accknowledges the fact that we simply don't have enough oil to meet our energy needs and at best drilling can only buy time. McCain would rather keep you confued on the issue which speaks to more than his energy policy.

2) War record - head in sand, against the surge, pro-Saddam position? Really?

-This one's great. The war ended up being a financial and political disaster. No one is pro Saddam, but some are wise enough to see that we can't go around starting wars with everyone we don't like. He's extreme because he went against everyone in Washington (his party included) to oppose the war before it was an obvious mistake. And people say he's never gone against the fray based on principles? We wouldn't want someone with a depth of foresight leading us would we?

3) What is the mythical foreign policy experience of Obama?

-Um, Foreign Relations Committee in the US Senate. The only foreign policy positions that are more pretegious is the President and Serectary of State. He walked into Iraq and walked out holding Maliki's hand and announcing their acceptance of his timetable ideas. Then he went to Germany and a quarter million people came out waving our flag. Palin just got her passport last year. But that's not even the main issue. Obama has spent time thinking intensly about foreign policy, Palin is not interested in it.

4) He knows what private property else in the state/nation should be allowed to have?

-I don't understand you, but somehow I feel whatever you meant was incorrect.

5) Military -- who do you think the Military people are voting for, why?

-They, like any other group of americans, are a mix of those supporting Obama and those supporting McCain. I won't speak for the McCain supporters, but the Obama one's believe simply that if they are to be asked to risk their lives for our security, they deserve an honest leader who has thought hard about the reasons for war and has exhausted all other avenues. "Military people" are the least likely to want a "common-man" in charge of them, because they know the stakes.

6) Who's spouse is more common-man and "of the people"?

-Depends on what people you are talking about. Although I'd think you have a hard time finding many people who related to Cindy McCain more than Michelle Obama.

7) Accomplishments -- we've been told hers, what's his?

- In the US Senate, Barack Obama has served on the Foreign Relations Committee, Homeland Security Committee, Veterans Affairs Committee, Health Education Labor and Pension Committee. Before getting to the US Senate Obama served 11 years in the Illinois State Senate. Barack Obama is a graduate at the TOP of his class at Harvard Law School. Barack Obama also has a degree in Political Science specializing in International Relations. Barack Obama worked in Chicago, Illinois as a community organizer, Obama, as the director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago, helped set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens. Barack Obama worked as a Civil Rights lawyer for 9 years. Barack Obama was also a University of Chicago Constutitional Law Professor for 12 years. In the US Senate Obama has written 890 pieces of legislation, and co-sponsored 1096 pieces of legislation.
What were hers again?

8) Abortion -- equally extreme. Why do you think his fanaticism is better than hers?

-Because when an issue is disputed, we should err on the side of freedom. Some people, based on their religious views, believe life starts at conception and those people should not have abortions. However, some people do not believe that and have the constitutional right to their beliefs too. Only one side is trying to tell the other how to live. These decisions are not easy and should be left to individual families. The goverment should not be involved in our most difficult private choices.

9) Reform -- she's done it, he's talked about it. Explain where you disagree.

-Here, you're clearly talking about exectutve reform so I'll grant you this one. Palin did shake some things up in Alaska. But, did you know that she ran on a platform of supporting projects like the "Bridge to Nowhere"? She later reversed her position and stopped the bridge, but get this: she kept the money for other projects! I have no doubt McCain and Palin will bring good reform to Washington in terms of earmark spending. But we need much begger reforms than that. When you're going in the wrong direction, you don't wok on improving efficiency, you change direction.

10) Earmarks -- she fought to stop them, he used them for personal gain.

-Whose recent personal gain is based on earmarks again?

This crazy Right Wing Bitch's idea of hunting is slaughtering wolves from a plane. Here's hoping the next time she is "hunting", the plane runs into a mountain.

Hi Doug, thanks for actually trying to discuss / debate.

1) Obama didn't support ANWR, Offshore, and wants to tax the oil companies (which comes out of exploration and improvements). He's got the delusion of unproven alternatives as the only choice. McCain and Palin believe in ALL solutions. (Increase supply as demand increases). Also, never forget, it was the democrats that killed Nuclear and hydroelectric, so we used coal and oil instead. (Solar and Wind are still pipe-dreams for a while longer -- so we need something to bridge the next 20 years).

2) Your choice is let Saddam get WMD's or try to stop it. Period. France, Russia and Germany (who were making money off Saddam's oil contracts) all said they were going to lift sanctions. Our choice was go to war, or let Saddam get WMD's. That Saddam's program was a little further behind that we thought, doesn't change that he had a skeleton program that was well on the way (that's what the commission found out). If we did it Barack's way, 400,000 more people would be dead (but they don't count to Dems, since they are only Iraqi's), and Saddam would still be in power, and he would have re-started his WMD programs. So war sucked, the alternative would have sucked more.

3) Barack worked less than 143 days, and the foreign relations committee met how many times -- a couple dozen? So you're saying that because cronies appointed him to a prestigious position (despite his lack of qualifications), then he was absent while campaigning, that qualifies him? Seriously, it's like he got an honorary degree, and you're calling him Doctor.

4) He was for complete gun bans (private property and the second amendment). It's one thing to have registration in cities, but he was for it for the state (and fed, as far as we know).

5) You didn't answer. What percentage do you think of the military polls for McCain versus Obama? And more importantly, what percentage of the leadership polls for each. Give it your best guess.

6) Actually, Cindy McCain kicks Michelle's ass in philanthropy! Seriously -- <link>

7) Accomplishments -- less than 143 working days before starting his campaign, then he served on 4 committees that he rarely attended. 1997-2004 is not 11 years in the state senate, it is 6. But he has a lousy record for "present" votes, and with a 97% partisan record, he appears to have not put much thought in the votes he did make -- just voting party lines. Where's the big uniter crossing the aisle. Seriously, the Jr. Senator from Illinois has almost NOTHING to show for his time in Senatorial office. So I ask again, not what was his title, but what did he accomplish? Give me a piece of legislation that wouldn't have passed without him, or something he achieved.

8) Agreed. We should err on the side of freedom -- leaving it to the states to decide. Not a one-size fits all fascist solution. We should also err on the side of protecting personal rights. As in the fully viable baby should not be murdered out of convenience (which he supports).

10) Barack's. His wife got a promotion because he was elected Senator, he kicked back millions in earmarks. In other state's that's called corruption. In Illinois it's called what?