I guess neither had anything noteworthy to say, but you found a way to work in an old Obama quote. Fair and balanced reporting is always appreciated by few readers. Why not just run an Obama for President banner at the top of the blog and turn this into a Obama site and get it over with?

And seriously, the what would Jesus drive thing has about the same impact as a head on, apply to the head ad...good for a laugh.

When your politicians, your government, your corporations, your job and your wealth have abandoned you - what else is their to cling if not your faith and family?

If Barack Obama who pulled himself up by his own bootstraps may be labeled "elitist" then the Clintons who liquidated their blind trust of nearly $50 million amassed during their years in public office may similarly be labeled "crooks."

Hillary Clinton says her economic policies will restore the economic policies of her husband's administration. However as the sub prime housing loans and dot com investment bubbles were created and pandered during her husband's administration, Hillary and her husband ignored Alan Greenspan's warnings of the irrational exuberance in these markets and both supported China's entry into the World Trade Organization without any conditions such as protecting the environment or labor and property rights to levels that are comparable to western standards.

The U.S. government surplus (generated by taxes raised from the housing and investment bubbles) evaporated once the housing and investment bubbles burst.

Furthermore, China today is not only a leading contributor to environmental pollution and global warming (thank you very much Mr. Nobel Laureate, Al Gore), it's also pushing up oil and other commodity prices, taking our jobs and stealing our intellectual property.

Like the Roaring Twenties decade that preceded the Great Depression, the Irrational Nineties that preceded our current decade were both golden ages for technology, scandal-plagued politicians, corporate greed, and unrestrained personal debt and speculation.

As the global economy teeters on the brink of economic meltdown not unlike the Great Depression, America doesn't need finger pointing and fear mongering, America needs a president whose economic policies are based on confidence, unity and reason. America needs Barack Obama.

When political and military judgment mattered most to U.S. military personnel and the American people, John McCain and Hillary Clinton failed as U.S. Senators to demonstrate any commander-in-chief qualities when without competent questioning, they both accepted the faulty intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and misjudged the Bush administration's competencies to lead the war.

Barack Obama on the other hand demonstrated his superior judgment and commander-in-chief qualities when he took an unpopular position and cautioned that without clear rationale an invasion of Iraq would encourage the worst impulses of the Arab world and strengthen Al Qaeda's recruitment.

Now, John McCain advocates maintaining U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely which does little to incentivize the Iraqi government to deliver the political reforms needed to promote civil unity whereas Barack Obama's threat to withdraw U.S. troops does more to incentivize the Iraqi government to deliver the necessary reforms.

As the threat of global terrorism persists, neither John McCain or Hillary Clinton have demonstrated any understanding of the complexities of building and maintaining global alliances to confront this common enemy. America needs a president with demonstrated commander in chief qualities, leadership and judgment. America needs Barack Obama.

If experience, wisdom and judgment may be relied upon to judge a presidential candidate's abilities to solve problems, then let's look at the records of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

2007 - While Barack Obama promoted a restoration of balance between work and wealth in the Senate and criticized special interests for distorting U.S. tax codes, Hillary Clinton and her husband liquidated their blind trust of the nearly $50 million amassed during their years in public office.

2002 - While Barack cautioned that without clear rationale an invasion of Iraq would encourage the worst impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda, Hillary told Larry King she didn't regret her vote on the Iraq war resolution because like the Bush administration, the Clinton administration viewed Saddam Hussein as a threat to the international community.

1999 - While Barack secured bipartisan support for health-care reform and passage of low-income tax credits and child care subsidies in the Illinois legislature, Hillary supported her husband's Iraq "regime change" policy in order to divert public attention from the president's marital, legal and ethical infidelities.

1989 - While Barack Obama served as the Harvard Law Review's first black president, Hillary Clinton then wife of the Arkansas governor received payments from a law firm that was doing the state's business and received board of director payments from Wal-Mart where she remained silent about Wal-Mart's anti-labor union practices.

1979 - While Barack Obama was actively involved in the South African divestment movement to end apartheid, Hillary reaped profits of almost 10,000% in the futures markets and left taxpayers with her real-estate losses in the Savings & Loan bailout.

The Clintons would have us believe that Hillary and Bill have been thoroughly vetted. If that were true, then why don't we have answers for:

FOREIGN: How will Hillary know whether Bill's advice serves U.S. interests or the interests of his Russian, Chinese, Indian, Kazakhstan, Dubai, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman or Brunei clients?

MONEY: Do the Clinton Foundation, Clinton Library, Clinton campaign and Clintons tax records show a proper accounting for the sources and uses of funds?

PARDONS: Will Hillary "reject" contributions or compensation from persons she pardons unlike her husband Bill who accepted contributions from Marc Rich, partner of Viktor Bout (the merchant of death), and her brother Hugh Rodham who accepted compensation from drug lords who were pardoned by Bill?

For too long fear, division and rancor have been used as instruments to maintain power and position in Washington.

Why are the Clintons' traditional adversaries Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity now embracing Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Party's nominee? Because both the Clintons and John McCain are willing sparring partners in the fear mongering arena, whereas Barack Obama's means of governing through confidence, unity and reason threatens the wealth, power and position of these fear mongers.

It's refreshingly nice to see the better angels of America's character prevailing as voters reject the racial, religious and ethnic slurs being spewed by the divisive surrogates of the Clintons, Limbaugh and Hannity.

Voters in Pennsylvania now have an opportunity to change the direction of America's policies, economy and foreign relations for the better by voting for Barack Obama and rejecting the fear mongers.

As a Republican-leaning independent, I will vote for the Democratic nominee if it is Barack Obama but I will not vote for the Party's nominee if Hillary Clinton is on the ticket. America needs Barack Obama.

On Religious beliefs I think Hillary has the upper hand on Obama, Obama seems too Christian to me, I don't trust religious people especially people in power, Google "Ring of Power Illuminati" to understand what I mean...the Clintons seem non religious, and that's the way it should be...we should be good not because of religion but because it's human...being moral and good should be natural not because its dictated by God. I'll vote Obama cause I want someone who can make a decision and who's with the people...but I wish he was a little less Christian. I just hope he's faking it to get elected like Hillary though he does seem more sincere.

Well written! This issue has been avoided by democrats historically. In 2004, I wrote John Kerry 6 weeks before the election telling him to challenge President Bush by pushing faith into the conversation. The democrats were so silent on the subject and let Republicans fill the void which didn’t offer voters of faith much to choose in the end. I’m happy to hear this subject of faith being discussed. It’s very nuanced and it gives us an opportunity to shift out of moral black and whites where problems aren’t solved, just exploited. Again, your post was great!

How dumb. John Paul II didn't call George Bush to talk about abortion, gay marriage or pornography because he DIDN'T NEED TO. Bush was already on his side.

The Democrat party can try to dupe people all they want in regards to "faith", trying to push off their socialism and increased government spending as being "faith", but when it comes right down to it, the Democrat party stands opposite of what most people of faith believe.

You can't be a proponent of abortion (and yes, no matter what they say, they promote abortion, with government funding) and call yourself someone "of faith".

Just because Democrat politicians can campaign in tax exempt black churches without challenge by the IRS does not mean they have "found faith"...

For too long the introduction of faith into the political debate has been more divisive than inclusive. The evangelical fringe has moved to the forefront while the rest of us have been disenfranchised. And that is our fault.

Every person of faith shares a core set of beliefs: we believe in a power greater than ourselves and in a Creator, who has blessed us with everything we need to live, flourish and grow. And what we share, I hope, with those who may not believe in that greater power, is an inherent knowledge that it is our responsibility as stewards of this planet that future generations enjoy that same opportunity to live, flourish and grow.

If I have to hear about a politician's "faith" all I want to know is that he or she understands we are here but for a moment in time; that he or she recognizes the decisions we make impact the lives of generations to come; and that we have a unique responsibility as humans to ensure life on this amazing planet is available to all who follow.

I don't care if someone is a Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist or Agnostic. I care about accepting responsibility for the environment first, because if we fail in that we fail. Period. We can talk about lifting our fellow man up. We can talk about whose interpretation of centuries of religious writings is correct. We can debate life after death. We can debate if we were created by "God" or natural occurrences.

But let's take that out of the political debate and simply agree we are blessed to be here and alive. And that we agree to share that blessing with those who follow by being responsible stewards. Decisions made from that place can only be good. The rest is simply chatter.

Let's face it - the only reason you are "happy" to see the Democrats talking about faith is that you are hoping it helps them win in November, not because they are talking about faith. You are just hoping voters get duped by it.

Here is a question for anyone who cares to answer.

Why is it generally considered "ok" for liberals to back abortion and be against capitol punishment, and conservatives to back capitol punishment and oppose abortion?

In my humble opinion when we choose to talk publicly and politically of "faith," we muddy it up trying to apply it to politics.

anyone can talk on the surface about faith, and anyone can buy their bullshit.

isn't faith something deeply personal, or is it "pop culture" now, like most of the political discussion?

WELL .... since Obama wants us to abide by the golden rule .... do unto others as you would have them do unto you ... it's time for ALL of US to
Flip HIM OFF:
Obama ("Middle-Finger-Gate")....& WHY the MEDIA isn't covering it:
Originally posted on: The Swamp website:

Just watch the videos. He did it twice, in the same day, at two separate events. He made the gesture at the same point in his speeches - the crowd understood what he meant. Actions speak louder than words. This man is not fit to be a US Senator.
First speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DygBj4Zw6No
Second speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhkq11UExcw
Posted by: james | April 18, 2008 3:47 PM
If Obama gets the nod it will be due solely to Black hypocrisy and White guilt. Great way to get a president! You think the last 8 years were a mess...just wait!
Posted by: Sandee Enriquez | April 18, 2008 5:30 PM
MSNBC & NBC are owned by GE. CBS is owned by Westinghouse. They have lots of AD $$$money to spread around to all forms of media.
GE & Westinghouse are planning to Reap $BILLIONS Risk-Free from building 29 new nuclear power plants - thanks to the Cheney Energy Bill (Cheney's NEXT Big Energy Monopoly RIPOFF) .... just waiting in the wings for either --- Obama, or McCain to win the presidency --- they're both pro-nuclear.

Clinton voted AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill & says her Energy Plan does not include nuclear.
That is WHY the MEDIA puts out Pro-Obama PROPAGANDA - Anti-Clinton Slime & Smear ... all day everyday.

(Who Knew --- Obama's "New Kind of Politics" = DIRTIER than the Republicans)

you did great last night. It's wonderful to hear that slight philly accent out of a main line girl. Shiela Jackson is simply incredibly biased and really discredited herself by ignoring the questions asked. You made some great points and got great air time.

The pundits will criticize Barack for not throwing Wright under the bus sooner, but it's take character to stick by old friends in the face of adversity. I just wish Barack would show a little more emotion from time to time. His coolness under fire is admirable, but americans need to see the human side of the man too.

ciao!

Flavia I'm a big fan of yours. i like a lot of what you have to say about the issues when I see you on tv.

I agree with you that it is refreshing to see Democrats talking about faith. I personally would not align myself with either party. I like certain things about both. For example, I like the fact that the Dems are pushing for universal health care. I think it is an extremely important issue that is long overdue.

On the other hand I think that the Democrats have shown themselves to be too bound up with special interest groups which has driven away many middle of the road people including people of faith. An example of this was when pro-life former Pennsylvania Governor Casey was not allowed to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention. I know the old line about him not being allowed to speak because he didn't endorse Clinton. Anybody who followed that story knows that this explanation leaves a lot to be desired.

Another example that comes to mind is the Boy Scouts being booed at the 2000 Democratic convention. The so called party of "tolerance" made itself look incredibly intolerant.

It seems to me that the Republicans have both pro-life and pro-choice members in the party. Giuliani even ran for the leadership of the party. The idea of a pro-life candidate running for leadership of the democrats strikes me as being completely impossible. Like most democrats I am absolutely against the death penalty. Caring for the poor and weak is also extremely important to me. Unlike most Democrats I am against abortion as well. It seems to me the Democrats are still too quick to label anyone who opposes any form of abortion (even partial birth abortion) as "extremists" or "anti-women". Having said that, I want to stress that I am not a one issue voter.

I get the feeling that seeing Bush do so well in the bible belt has made the Democrats rethink their gameplan (which up till now has been to ignore people of faith). I just hope the candidate's discussions about faith are genuine.

uGEggh comment3

Comrade kill yourself..

I read and feel at home. Thanks the creators for a good resource..!!

The Author is crazy..!!

Is anybody strong in radio here? We need a colleague who would tell us briefly about the transistor T2. I hope there are radio amateurs here. If it`s not on the subject at all, then I`m sorry. I have to write because I have no choice. PS: if the spelling is not right then also I'm sorry, I'm just 13 years old!....

Good! Wish everybody wrote so:DD