Isn't that his full name? :confused:

Dwight David Eisenhower, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Richard Milhous Nixon, Gerald Rudolph Ford, James Earl Carter, Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, and George Walker Bush. That's all from memory witout a Google search. Historically, Presidents are identified by their full name--the recent exception being Harry S Truman who didn't have a middle name--the S stood for nothing.

If he wins, likely the oath of office will start out "I, Barack Hussein Obaba, do solemnly swear.....". It's a tradition that the full name is used.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is fine and dandy, and Barack Hussein Obama isn't? Why not?

The guy says he's a Christian. I'll take him at his word, although why it should matter is a mystery. I thought we put the religion of our candidates behind us by 2008 :hs: :doh:

But you can respect a candidate who makes references to farm animals ???????????????:rotf2:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/680/

I'm not wrong Spence. You just don't want to hear it.

Did you even read the link you posted?

It clearly says she was all for the bridge project when it was going to be federally funded and she was pandering for votes, but then eventually killed it when it was clear the state would have to bear the full cost.

Sounds like she'd have no problem spending my tax dollars instead of hers :hs:

If this is the kind of Republican reform you're after, I think I'll pass.

-spence

I read the link. She was for the bridge when running for Govenor but against it as the cost became excessive. She killed the project. That's what happened. She has left out some detail I'll admit, but what politician hasn't stretched the truth a little. I find it pathetic that you feel she can't do what Obama has made a career doing.

The cost only became excessive because her own people were going to have to pay for it!

Read it again, you're in the mud now.

And to think this is what the GOP is all in a tizzy about??? Man the DT's are going to be bad.

-spence

You're absolutely right. In my haste to get the post up before having to do something at work, I didn't elaborate clearly.

Fortunately, spence knew what I meant and filled in the holes I clumsily left out. Which I appreciate.

I completely agree Mike. In 2008, religion shouldn't even be a second thought. Personally, I don't care the religion of a person as long as they do the job appropriately and with my best interests in mind. It has been a long time since that's happened though.

Think about how stiff the competition was to become Editor of The Harvard Law Review.
Now do it black.

2005
2006
2007 february declared his candidacy for president....pretty sure he didn't spend much time doing his "Senatorial Duties" much after that.

Thats pretty much 2 years (ok 2 Years and 1 month if you want to argue Symantics)

and my issue isn't with his experience.....my issue is How can an Obama supporter us the "Inexperienced Card" on Palin after they spent months claiming that it shouldn't be an issue in Obama's case.


There's plenty of other things that can come into play about Palin and her politics without trying to throw that around.

Obama has been in the National spotlight for the past four years, and has won a tough Dem primary including many debates with some of the best the party has to offer.

Now that alone is a sign of maturity and that people have trust in his leadership based on a good sample of his ability and judgement.

This isn't to say he's perfect, but it's a long way from where Sarah Palin is at this moment. Yes, she has some immediate voter approval...because she's pretty, has attitude and appeals to the litmus tests. She'll have to show a lot of substance to make it stick with the mainstream though.

-spence

If McCain looses, Nebestradamous predeicts Palin will be doing Viagra commercials.. "GEt it up... all the way to alaska!"

I think I have addressed this in at least 2 posts. To fully sum up my position on the "Inexperienced Card," it comes down to 'not nearly as much experience' (Obama to McCain) and 'has absolutely no experience' (Palin). When I say no experience, I mean in the issues that are an immediate concern to Americans at this time - economy, high unemployment rate, decreased education spending, foreign policy.

It's also no coincidence that since Palin was selected, McCain nor his campaign have mentioned Obama's 'inexperience'.

Well, yeah....That's because they realize that the inexperience thing has become moot (for both sides).....which is what I've been trying to say.

I certainly see where you're coming from and think it's a valid point. I think it is just a matter of perception. Thus why my opinion on it is a bit different.