The Obama special last night

[Laura]

[SIZE=12pt]*I* thought it was AMAZING, moving, informative and incredibly well done. [/SIZE]

I'm sure that the anti-Obama folks on here, even those who didn't watch

will feel it neccesary to rant and rave, but you know what, I don't really care

*I* thought it was incredible and that is all that matters to me. Actually, it was BETTER than incredible, it was PRESEDENTIAL!!

 

[Bassett]

I did not watch it but I heard enough about it this morning. I don't think a lot of people were as impressed as you were. No offense please. All I want to say is I don't think a lot of people have any idea, whatsoever, of what will happen if we are run by one party alone (regardless of which party). If we do away with the checks and balances there will be NOBODY to control their spending. Things will just go rampant. I pray we can keep BOTH parties in our government system. Things only have one way to go if we are controlled by one party and that is DOWNHILL. Spend, spend, spend.

Also heard this morning that Obama could not pass an FBI test. Too many unanswered questions.

 

[minie812]

I have to say that I am one of the undecided voters as well as my Hubby. We watched last night and have been watching all along on BOTH parties. I will say it was very powerful to watch for a change (I am so tired of hearing about "JOE the plumber & seeing JOE the plumber) it is like a broken record. Anyway still undecided but I am leaning to the _____

 

[BlueMoonEmbroidery]

Also heard this morning that Obama could not pass an FBI test. Too many unanswered questions.

Wrong

"There is nowhere on the form that Obama's relationship to Ayers as it exists or existed would even come up," said Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney who specializes in security-clearance work. "It would never come up unless somebody mentioned it during a background investigation."

Moreover, even if it did come up, there's no reason to believe it would impede Obama's hiring, Zaid said. "Given what has been said publicly about their relationship, I can't fathom that it would ever get more than a moment's attention," he said.

A second lawyer specializing in security clearances, Elizabeth Newman of the Washington, D.C., firm Kalijarvi, Chuzi & Newman, concurred that the Ayers connection would pose no problem for Obama, even if it did come to the attention of the investigators.

"They would care if there was a recent relationship with someone who is currently on trial or currently considered to be advocating violent overthrow of the government," she said. "But not something that was 20 or 30 years ago."

A third security-clearance lawyer, Mark Riley of Odenton, Md., who is also a retired Army intelligence officer, was slightly less dismissive of the Ayers issue, saying it was "something they would investigate."

But Riley leaned toward the conclusion that the Ayers connection would not cost Obama a security clearance. "The issue is what is Obama's relationship with him in his adult life," Riley said. "If he didn't have one, other than they sat on a board and maybe had the same political causes, that's not enough to deny a fellow a clearance."

So all three of the attorneys we contacted agreed unequivocally that Obama's relationship with Ayers would not be an automatic disqualifier, as the claim suggests.

In fact, Zaid said someone with Obama's record – a law degree from Harvard, teaching experience at the University of Chicago Law School – would be an excellent candidate.

"The agencies would be fighting over him," Zaid said. "As an outright claim, this statement is false."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/800/

And to stay on topic I also thought the special last night was very well done. I was very happy that Obama showed the woman with RA. That is exactly what many of us with RA are facing.

 

[Bassett]

Blue Moon:

No one said anything about Ayres. Just as a person in general they said he would not pass. Just curious, Why did you say Ayres? Are you thinking maybe, just maybe there IS something to it?

 

[Danielle_E.]

It was exceptional at the very least

. All the republican analyst that I saw after the speech interviewed were gracious and positive about his speech which was nice to see. It was nice for a change not to have any mud-slinging going on.

I truly hope that the U.S.A. will elect this "exceptional man". The U.S. needs to get their economy back on track, they need to bring stability in foreign policy and not the "bomb, bomb, bomb" mentality (even the UN wants to see Obama elected), they need to get their image to what it use to be and have the rest of the world respect them once again. I am afraid that Bush and the Bush mentality has almost destroyed your country's image

Whoever does win, whether it is McCain or Obama, I fervently pray that the divisiveness that I am seeing during this campaign will be healed and that the people of the U.S. will accept what the majority want in your country.

One thing is for sure - it has been one of the most interesting Presidential elections I have ever seen.

 

[AppyLover2]

His admitted drug use would be a huge factor in whether or not he was granted a security clearance. At least when I got mine it was a BIG deal. Could be that it's changed since then but I seriously doubt that it's gotten that lax.

Speaking of drug use and things becoming lax....a commentator was talking the other day about what a big deal it was when Clinton said he "didn't inhale". Now nobody seems to care that a presidential candidate was a user.

Edited after I read Danielle's post. Another thing the commentators were talking about was the fact that they all expected Obama to do a great job in his infomercial. They said that he's a great speaker when things are scripted. It's when things aren't scripted that he tends to say things he shouldn't.

 

[BlueMoonEmbroidery]

Blue Moon: No one said anything about Ayres. Just as a person in general they said he would not pass. Just curious, Why did you say Ayres? Are you thinking maybe, just maybe there IS something to it?

"A chain e-mail has been burning up the Internet with the allegation that Sen. Barack Obama is not eligible for FBI or Secret Service jobs because of his acquaintance with former antiwar radical William Ayers."

Sorry I assumed you were referring to the email that was going around.

 

[Irish Hills Farm]

For those of you who Obama made all warm and fuzzy inside, guess his infomerical worked.

Got this in an email...

have made reference several times now to the fact that a lot of the supporters of Barack Obama have little idea of what is coming with him. We can now see as we get close to election day that even the things we do think we know are changing. Since Virginia is a battleground and since Mr. Obama has unlimited funds I have heard his commercials time and time again. And I have heard him say in them as late as this morning that those making under $250,000 will not see their taxes raised one dime. While that is not a quote that is his words.


But I heard during the day and on NBC news tonight that Joe Biden said the tax scheme should go to the middle class – those making under $150,000. When Senator McCain pounced on that the Obama campaign indicated old gaffe Biden misspoke but then introduced a new ceiling of $200.000. What we know on this issue is this – for Barack Obama the American dream is alive and well to $150,000, or maybe to $200,000 or if we really stretch to $250,000. At that point those people are the scourge of society. Just look at what they have done to vilify Joe the Plumber. The American dream – catch it on the way to some number to be defined. But to be on the good side it would be best to stop at that ceiling.

Here is some things that are much less well known, if known at all. First is what they want to do about unions and the Wagoner Act or its successor. In yesterday’s WSJ there is an editorial entitled “The Election Choice – Unions.” The Obama movement talks about being “Fair.” But they have no intention of being “Fair.” They are going to eliminate a worker’s right to cast a secret ballot when they vote to either approve or disapprove a union. By requiring the union bosses to witness each vote they are doing nothing more than setting those workers up for harassment and intimidation with property damage or bodily harm if they vote NO. Mr. Obama knows there is already a monopoly advantage to unions so that they can conspire during competing company union representations (unlike business that have the Justice department and others ready to put them in jail if they should conspire together.) That is not enough. They want to further force workers under duress to cast a non-secret ballot. Now tell me again – that is “Fair” how?

There is much more in this editorial including the imposition of the federal government on the states to allow unions for police, fire and other emergency workers. I do not know how they can get around the Constitution and separation of powers on this but that is what they intend to do. You can read this at

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122506674992670591.html

Also on this subject there is a column in today’s WSJ entitled Labor Unions prolonged the depression. It is written by the President of the National Right to Work Committee and some will say he is biased. Well he is but who isn’t right now?. But I know Virginia passed a right to work law to reduce unemployment and allow workers the ability to not be intimidated it they wanted to work and support their families. But Mr. Obama wants to end that and you can read more about it at

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515112102674263.html

There is much more we do not know. But here is a sampling.

 

[BlueMoonEmbroidery]

His admitted drug use would be a huge factor in whether or not he was granted a security clearance. At least when I got mine it was a BIG deal. Could be that it's changed since then but I seriously doubt that it's gotten that lax.

Looks like if it was more than 7 years ago, its not a problem.

Standard Form 86 Revised July 2008 U.S. Office of Personnel Management 5 CFR Parts 731, 732, and 736

Form approved: OMB No. 3206 0005 NSN 7540-00 634-4036 86-111

Questionnaire for National Security Positions

The following questions pertain to the illegal use of drugs or drug activity. You are required to answer the questions fully and truthfully, and your failure to do so could be grounds for an adverse employment decision or action against you. Neither your truthful responses nor information derived from your responses will be used as evidence against you in any subsequent criminal proceeding.

a. In the last 7 years, have you illegally used any controlled substance, for example, cocaine, crack cocaine, THC (marijuana, hashish, etc.), narcotics (opium, morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.), stimulants (amphetamines, speed, crystal methamphetamine, Ecstacy, ketamine, etc.), depressants (barbiturates, methaqualone, tranquilizers, etc.), hallucinogenics (LSD, PCP, etc.), steroids, inhalants (toluene, amyl nitrate, etc.) or prescription drugs (including painkillers)? Use of a controlled substance includes injecting, snorting, inhaling, swallowing, experimenting with or otherwise consuming any controlled substance

b. Have you EVER illegally used a controlled substance while possessing a security clearance; while employed as a law enforcement officer, prosecutor, or courtroom official; or while in a position directly and immediately affecting the public safety?

c. In the last 7 years, have you been involved in the illegal possession, purchase, manufacture, trafficking, production, transfer, shipping, receiving, handling, or sale of any controlled substance (see question a above) including prescription drugs?

d. In the last 7 years, have you received counseling or treatment or have you been ordered, advised, or asked to seek counseling or treatment as a result of your use of drugs? If you answered "Yes," provide date(s) of treatment and name(s) and address(es) of provider(s). You will be asked to sign an additional release if information is needed concerning any treatment.

 

[Cathy_H]

Calculated polictical psychological hype presented Hollywood style to keep Obamanites in their slumberous spell. What a rude awakening for some when they come out of their stance. Beautifully done fanmercial will be the envy of Hollywood.

for Barack Obama the American dream is alive and well to $150,000, or maybe to $200,000 or if we really stretch to $250,000.

... So WHY are the numbers jumping around? ....

.... Didn't Obama say last night something like "you will always know where I stand!

There is no so called "unanswered" questions about Obama.. The problem is the far right people & media keep saying that and people believe it.. If you look up FACTS

We only know what Obama has told us. Do people honestly think he would reveal ANYTHING that would keep him out of the oval office!

 

[Laura]

Seems like I was right about the negative comments that would be made. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Irish Hills Farm]

I guess since we don't agree with you and we aren't buying what Obama is selling that is being negative.

Hrmm...interesting.

 

[Pepipony]

Calculated polictical psychological hype presented Hollywood style to keep Obamanites in their slumberous spell. What a rude awakening for some when they come out of their stance. Beautifully done fanmercial will be the envy of Hollywood.

for Barack Obama the American dream is alive and well to $150,000, or maybe to $200,000 or if we really stretch to $250,000.

... So WHY are the numbers jumping around? ....

.... Didn't Obama say last night something like "you will always know where I stand!

There is no so called "unanswered" questions about Obama.. The problem is the far right people & media keep saying that and people believe it.. If you look up FACTS

We only know what Obama has told us. Do people honestly think he would reveal ANYTHING that would keep him out of the oval office!

If you think about it, the number isnt jumping around. All the numbers listed are still below his $250k mark. So yes, if you make $100k a year your taxes wont raise, if you make $200k your taxes wont raise.

I am SO proud of him for not stooping to McCain/Palins level and bashing his opponent during this speech. I dont even think McCain is liking what he is being made to do by his Rove-esque handlers.

 

[AppyLover2]

Mary Lou thank you for assuring me that I have no questions about Obama. Silly me....I thought I did. I feel much better now.

 

[Cathy_H]

Seems like I was right about the nagative comments that would be made. Why am I not surprised

Freedom of speech being taken away right here on the forum!

this speech

- Some of us don't call it that. I call it a self serving commercial.

I guess since we don't agree with you and we aren't buying what Obama is selling that is being negative.

I guess that those of us that don't agree with Obama need to start our own thread!

ASSOCIATED PRESS SAYS SENATOR OBAMA WAS “LESS THAN UPFRONT” in his 1/2 hour commercial
THE FACTS: His proposals — the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more — cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged — although not in his commercial — that: “The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals.“

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/10/29/as...our-commercial/

 

[Laura]

Seems like I was right about the nagative comments that would be made. Why am I not surprised

Freedom of speech being taken away right here on the forum!

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it has to do with no matter what anyone says positive about Obama, certain people can't refrain from attacking him and anyone who supports him. We're happy about something, so you have to try to point out why we're wrong and delusional and whatever, we can't just be allowed to be proud and happy about something we think is positive.

 

[AppyLover2]

we can't just be allowed to be proud of happy about something we think is positive.

Laura you're right. I apologize. I wish I had the confidence in him that some of you do. I honestly hope he's the man you think he is.

 

[littlesteppers]

Thur..is this what you want to hear?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I thought it was Hollywood. It was romance. It was realism. The technical quality of it, the production values were perfect, the way they timed going to live, the biographical material. But most important, the connection with the average person in the economic turmoil we face right now I thought was fabulous. Of course, there we see the setting, which is very much like an Oval Office setting, showing that he's comfortable and we should be comfortable and will be with him in such a setting. I thought everything was just right.

I thought, the most important part of it, I thought, was the biographical, showing him talking about his mom and talking about him taking a chance in history and not wanting to miss it having seen his mother die at a young age. It was very human and I think you'd have to be a tough customer not to be touched by it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Man and I MISSED it,,..had to wash my hair..bet I would have tingles up my leg..like some news anchors..

 

[McBunz]

How is McCain going to balance the budget in a years time...?????????? Both sides are saying things to get your vote.. not just one...