I realize it's difficult to set aside the liberal garland and observe neutrally. We all want what we want . . . and filter the evidence to support our beliefs. But if you had been able to shut down the inner compass for a moment and observe neutrally, you would have noticed a refreshingly moderate and obviously earnest fellow telling his story and sharing his vision for cooperative, bipartisan leadership.

It would be lovely to live in a utopian world, but we do not. There are real problems on this earth, some of them social, some of them lethal, and we need to roll up our sleeves and start working on them. The opportunity to work alongside a person who has spent decades in positions of public service and leadership is something to respect and seriously consider. To simply ignore or disparage such a person, in favor of a younger less experienced rival with only a couple of years of public service is curious, and bordering on irrational. Unless of course you happen to judge a person not by the content of their character, but rather by the timbre of their voice, or the affectation of their oratory . . .

Stop with the kneejerk lovefest for the young good looking faker. Block out the rhetoric for a moment and you will see that McCain is a deeper, more sincere, more accomplished and more experienced person. I've been a democrat all my life, but it is obvious to me -- and to anyone who looks evenly at the choice -- that the republican candidate is more qualified to lead this nation. And that is who I will vote for . . .

— gravitybob, the great northwest

Thank you Bob for writing a clear, articulate, reasoned perspective on what is taking place in our national presidental election campaign.

gravitybob, this is America and you are certainly entitled to vote for who you want. But I have to disagree. McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time -- he has admitted it himself. And this country just can't take 4 more years of that. So I'm voting for Obama. I'm sick of people yammering on about his inexperience. George W Bush was governor of Texas for 6 years before becoming president. Look how well that's turned out.

I respected McCain, even though I didn't agree with him, until he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. It was such a cynical calculated move, insulting to women across America. She's a woman, so all women will vote for her. Women are interchangable and one is as good as any other, and women are stupid sheep who don't think for themselves and have opinions. As long as it's a woman on the ticket, all women will vote for the Republicans.

Plus, Sarah Palin and her extremist views truly frighten me. They frighten me more than Al Quaeda. She, and people like her, are working from within and are working more insidiously. They will attack not by crashing a plane into a building but by chipping away at all our civil liberties, one by one, until the America that we've all come to know, is nothing but a distant memory.

Sheldahgal wrote:

"They will attack not by crashing a plane into a building but by chipping away at all our civil liberties, one by one, until the America that we've all come to know, is nothing but a distant memory."

I respectfully believe our civil liberties are being taken away by the spying on us by the Department of Homeland Security. If you have a baby monitor in your home their satellites will record everything that it picks up. I sincerely believe the telling of people what they have to do is orchestrated by the people who want menin womens public bathrooms and vice versa and things like that. I thoroughly agree the government should not be dictating how people are supposed to behave towards one another. All this politically correct speech and so on. People should be able to tell it like it is, don't you agree?

I do not agree with many of your posts, but I do agree with you about the DHS encroaching upon our civil liberties, which has been done under the current Republican administration. Granted, with the support of many Democrats, but under the current Republican administration. Personally, I don't see anything insidious in a unisex bathroom -- I just think it's people going too far. Sometimes, it's OK when a place is gender specific!

What bothers me so much is that the immediate reaction to criticism of the DHS and its ilk is along the lines of "If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't have any problem giving up this or that, or you shouldn't mind if someone wants to scrutinize your web browsing history, the books you check out of the library, your credit card purchases, etc." Sure, that sounds great on the surface -- until you really think about what you're giving up -- your right to privacy, your right to live your life the way you want (provided of course that you're not hurting anyone or breaking any laws), and your rights to being treated equally and fairly under the law.

The reason I'm leaning left in this election is because I feel very strongly that the Republican party has, more and more, become a tool of the Christian right in recent years. And that our other rights -- freedom of expression, freedom to, basically, be who we want to be -- are in serious danger.

There's a growing movement by health care providers in this country to deny care -- ignore the Hippocratic Oath -- because of religious beliefs. <link> And there are laws being passed that support this. This is just one example of things happening in this country that truly dismay me. The nomination of Sarah Palin just confirms this even more.

I have nothing against Christians (I am a Christian, and I do believe in God) or anyone who practices any other religion. This is America, right? Freedom of religion?

But the Christian right does not want to simply practice their religion and live their lives the way they feel is in accordance with God and their beliefs. If that were the case, I would have no problem at all. What they want is for everyone to live the way they think is right, just, and moral. Who are they to say what's right or wrong? Who are they to tell me, or you, or anyone else how to live their lives?

So when I say that Sarah Palin and people like her will chip away at our civil liberties, I mean that first they'll attack the big issues, like abortion. A woman's right to choose will be taken away -- the "decision" (HER word) that her daughter had regarding her unplanned pregnancy will be taken away from everyone else. And I say this as a woman who does not believe in abortion for herself, but thinks it is a decision every woman has a right to make on her own. Then maybe the next target will be the "decency" front. Maybe not book banning, at first, but by attacking TV shows THEY deem to be inappropriate. Then, who knows? Will they seek to deny funding to public schools that include books they find offensive in their curriculum? Will they try and get creationism added back to the standard school curriculum next? Pretty soon, we'll all be living in the world that some other group (whether led by Sarah Palin or someone else) has decided is acceptable for the rest of us. We'll be living in a world where our choices, ideas, and thoughts are being legislated. And that is not a world that I want to live in.

The issue with John McCain, gravitybob, is not a question of whether he is a true American hero because of that there is no doubt. The issue is not whether he is an independent or "maverick" of which that can be argued either way. The issue is what, beyond bringing 'character' and 'values' to the presidency, is John McCain going to do get us out of this disastrous mess that HIS party has gotten us into over the past 8 years. The issue is whether or not he has enough political muscle to tell the radical right-wing portion of his party to 'stuff it' and go back to becoming the bi-partisan moderate that I had grown to respect several years ago. With the embarrassing and painful to watch pandering to the religious zealots, to the stooping to the same political tactics he once called disgraceful and that were once used to defeat him, to the blatantly pandering and cynical choice of a extremist conservative for a VP choice I think the answer is perfectly clear. McCain can claim to be as bi-partisan and independent as he wants to be, but it is obvious who his real masters are and they have once again reminded him that if he wants to represent THEIR party then he needs to bow down to THEIR commands. It seems even the most ardent 'maverick' can never escape the extremist machine that GOP has become.

Sheldahlgal,

That was eloquently put, and I share your thoughts exactly on the problems with Republicans lately, Palin being on the icing on the cake. I fear they will corrode the very foundation upon which our society is built. And with their restrictive viewpoints and censorship, we can say goodbye to being a world power or a leader in anything besides, maybe, bible manufacturing.

The scary part is that once the government starts regulating something, it's incredibly difficult to get it back. Think of the massive organization required to allow women or blacks to vote. Are we even capable of something as great as that these days? I wonder.

It is the natural tendency of government to try to accrue more and more power as time goes by. That's true whether it's run by democrats or republicans. The founding fathers understood this which is why they wrote so many checks and balances into the Constitution.

The real problem with this current administration is their continual and successful erosion of those checks and balances in order to create their vision of a "unity executive". This vision seems to picture the president as a four-year dictator who has unlimited power, rendering the other two branches (but not the super-secret Cheney branch) impotent.

And this is the main reason why I oppose a man who votes 90% or more in accord with this administration while still claiming to be a maverick. I don't have faith that McCain will restore the vital checks and balances to our system of government. I don't know if Obama will, but I is a clear to me that McCain will not.

Aw, C'mon GreatBear. During most of McCain's Bush lockstep voting, Bush was riding high in the polls. And John McCain has been running for president in 2008 for 8 years. He had to play the odds as they appeared at the time. McCain could go his own way if he were elected, and lives. Not sure what President Palin would do if he doesn't live.

That's true, except that his lockstep voting didn't stop when Bush's approval rating sanking to around 30% and stayed there for the past few years.

Hey there Sheldahgal... Your linked article is informative about a growing debate that needs to be addressed more thoroughly.

A debate that may have relatively easy solutions once all the concerns are put on the table and addressed. Patient's need to be informed if medical providers religious beliefs prevent them from providing particular procedures. One often sees signs in public buildings that cancer causing chemicals may be present.. You see where this is going? It should not be difficult to implement much more effective communication between providers and patients about whether certain types of care are provided, or not. Doing so ought to be really healthy for our civilization.

Its unrealistic to square an assumption of a pol's personal religious beliefs is equivalent with taking away civil liberties when there are countless realistic remedies available, albeit becoming more challenging because of lack of specific pertinent information in some areas.

I believe having a woman as VP will make it far more easier to address the concerns you identify, and; reach a reasonable concensus. The fact she is conservative ought not to dismiss the probable constructive outcome of putting everything on the table in an effort to generate invaluable communication. The process towards realistic communication between the providers and patients may have started with the article you linked. Developing a workable environment for the health care providers and patients can only be beneficail for all.

I prefer a Christian oriented government over an Islamic sharian government and an unbridled humanistic government, which is the direction numerous activists (athiest?) clamor for, particularly those who disregard the notion of an all powerful God.

Thorough public discussion of the concerns the article points out need to occur. Having a pragmatic female politican representing traditional Christian values involved in the process would appear to generate realistic credibility to any discussion and not make it something to be feared by women in these United States..

I guess you hate the founding fathers, since they set up a humanistic government. They had enough of the crusades, the Thirty Years War, and other such conflicts that happen when the government decides what faith everyone should follow.

For myself, I prefer a government that stays out of the religion business. It's none of the government's business which god, if any, I bow to.

Actually I love the Founding Fathers and descend from them.

My namesake personally gave the VA Declaration of Independence to Lord Cromwell, King George's representative in Jamestown in 1774. In 1775 he Chaired the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence Committees in the VA House of Burgesses from which those three National documents were drawn. In 1776, as Chairman of the Constitutional Convention Committee he was the first person to publicly read and pronounce our nation's Declaration of Independence. I am also a descendant of Thomas Jefferson in addition to three other President's.

Our Founding Fathers were men who believed Jesus Christ was the Son of God. In fact knowledge of the Scripture was prerequisite to sit on a jury during those times.

I am unwilling to idly sit by and have our country taken over by people who do not respect the intent of our Founding Fathers and our Constitution.

Google the Treaty of Tripoli and then get back to me, okay?

Obviously, you swallowed the line of BS that the founding fathers were all uniformly evangelical Christians. Th truth is, they ran the gamut from the very religious to the very secular. In other words, they were much like people today.

They explicitly banned any religious test for serving in any office for a reason and the reason is that religion is better off without government interference and government is better off allowing people to choose their own faiths (or lack thereof).

Of course the Founding Fathers prevented the establishment of a State Religious Denomination even though all the denominations then believe in the Bible.

Even the Orthodox Jews of that time believe in the same God, demonstrated by adherence to the Torah which is the first five books of the Bible.