Obama and Clinton

[cavdad45]

I am amazed at where this discussion has gone. The views are interesting. Here is how I see it:

1. I am not impressed by any of the candidates running for President. There are no quality choices, so I have to choose the lesser of the evils presented. I have never voted for a Democrat and never will. It's offensive to me.

2. Religion. That is a personal matter between each of us and God. Though God preserved His Word to guide us, if we take the time to learn and apply it. It does have alot to do with my political decision making as well as any decision I make in life. I try to live my life pleasing to God as revealed in His Word.

3. Part of my walk with God includes trying to reach a world with the Good News of the Savior and the free gift he provided as stated in Romans 6:23. However, I do not use this forum as a platform for this because it is inappropriate and unprofitable. Just as Gisteppo's preaching his case for Obama has not changed anyone's mind about his candidate; my preaching Jesus will not change anyone's mind on this forum, either.

4. This forum is an interesting debate platform. I have enjoyed reading all the viewpoints, but I am not moved from where I was before any of these were posted. I have earned a new respect for some members like Gisteppo, eventhough we differ greatly, I like him and would count it a priviledge to fish with him. When it's all over, let's not look back at something we typed that we regret in that it was mean or disrespectful to another WL.commer.

[kevinb]

[quote="cavdad45"]I am amazed at where this discussion has gone. The views are interesting. Here is how I see it:

1. I am not impressed by any of the candidates running for President. There are no quality choices, so I have to choose the lesser of the evils presented. I have never voted for a Democrat and never will. It's offensive to me.

2. Religion. That is a personal matter between each of us and God. Though God preserved His Word to guide us, if we take the time to learn and apply it. It does have alot to do with my political decision making as well as any decision I make in life. I try to live my life pleasing to God as revealed in His Word.

3. Part of my walk with God includes trying to reach a world with the Good News of the Savior and the free gift he provided as stated in Romans 6:23. However, I do not use this forum as a platform for this because it is inappropriate and unprofitable. Just as Gisteppo's preaching his case for Obama has not changed anyone's mind about his candidate]

Well said cavdad45. My hat is off to you.

[Gisteppo]

Well put Cav.

I find it really sad that you are "offended" by voting democrat. The party system has allowed us to use it as a label, even though some people may find that a D or an R might think more closely to how they do, but the name is to stigmatic. Its not a personal problem, it is sad to me that the country has come to such a division.

I don't think that I would call what I do "preaching", but definitely filling the world with more knowledge and information can help those caught in the middle to decide which direction they will tip in November. I will never cross any hardcore republican over to my side, but I hope that I can bring some moderates more information and I can show a repub that their distaste for someone may not be as bad as they originally thought.

I like that the majority of the posts have been without malice and not specifically derogatory on the whole.

Definitely we shouldn't rule out a political discussion here and there, as we can get to know people a little better and maybe air out some facts that nobody knows. I learned a good deal about McCain, some good, much bad, in reading up on this, and some good and bad about Obama as well (though it appears all bad on the Hil front).

I like it!

E

[HillbillyGeek]

Being a black and white person sure is convenient]"When you have no regard for human life in one instance why would I assume you have regard for human life in any other."[/i] Interesting philosophy... Since we are created in God's image, does this philosophy also apply to God? How much regard does your version of God have for human life? Let's take a look at cruelty and violence in the first four books of the Bible:
...

Hey HG,
I use three unfertilized eggs to make an omelet.

I do not see where I get to be a "black and white" person. Yes, there are certain irrefutable facts in this life, but there is also some gray and it is my opinion that we are judged more correctly on how we handle the gray than the black and white.

Where did you get this list? Atheists R Us. I have never seen such a complete list of distortions and misleading analysis. I do not have the time to go through the whole list, so I will just comment on the first ten points of the list.

Genesis
1. God likes Abel's dead animals better than Cain's fruits and vegetables. Why? Well, no reason is given, but it probably has something to do with the amount of pain, blood, and gore involved. 4:3-5
--If you honestly read the account you will see that Abel obeyed God in his sacrifice in giving the “first fruits” and Cain disobeyed God in bringing “some of the fruits” for his gift. God favors obedience.

2. Because God liked Abel's animal sacrifice more than Cain's vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious jealousy. 4:8
--If you read verses 6-7 you will see that God warns Cain that if he does good he will be accepted, but that “sin is crouching at the door” and it will master him. Sin is disobedience to God. When Cain killed Abel it was jealousy, but it was clearly outside the will of God.

3. God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17
--I just looked at thirteen versions of the bible in Genesis 6:7 and I do not see the word anger. What I read is sorrow and in some versions I see he repents that he made man. When we read the preceding verse we see why He was grieved. “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” When you have one bad element in a lake you have to kill-off the entire lake to ensure you have eradicated the problem. Same thing.

4. God repeats his intention to kill "every living substance ... from off the face of the earth." But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4
--See explanation for # #3.

5. God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23
--Cute little rhyme. A little inaccurate, but cute all the same. “…only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. He did provide for “restocking.”

6. Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. "And the Lord smelled a sweet savor." 8:20
--This is a common misconception reinforced by inaccurate songs and stories mostly for children. When we read Genesis 7:2 “’You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female…” You see there were seven, not two. I know that this is hard to understand, but it was the sacrifice, even though Noah was killing what should be the start of his herd he knew that God would honor his faith in God to provide.

7. To free Lot from captivity, Abram sends an army of slaves to pursue and smite his captors. 14:14-15
--I do not get this point at all. In the thirteen versions I have available it says either “trained men” or “trained servants” I do not see where it says slaves. It also says he defeated them. “Smite” infers death to all, but defeat infers…well, he won.

8. God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10
--This was not “needless slaughter” it was an important ritual in that the persons entering into a covenant or a contract were willing to give up part of their wealth (the animals) to show their sincerity in making a promise.

9. Hagar conceives, making Sarai jealous. Abram tells Sarai to do to Hagar whatever she wants. "And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled." 16:6
--Now I think this list gets a little weird in that I thought the whole point of this list was trying to show how God was cruel and had no regard for human life. Just the opposite is shown when you read the verses that follow:
7 Now the angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur. 8 He said, “Hagar, Sarai’s maid, where have you come from and where are you going?” And she said, “I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai.” 9 Then the angel of the LORD said to her, “Return to your mistress, and submit yourself to her authority.” 10 Moreover, the angel of the LORD said to her, “I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count.” 11 The angel of the LORD said to her further,
“Behold, you are with child,
And you will bear a son;
And you shall call his name Ishmael,
Because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.

10. Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Pet.2:7-8. 19:7-8
--It is not the temptation or the sin that ultimately separates us from God. It is the way we deal with sin. Judas and Peter were guilty of the same sin, betrayal of Christ. Judas could only see his sin whereas Peter could see the forgiveness of God. 2 Corinthians 7:10 reads thusly: “For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.”
Even the Apostle Paul said at one point that he was the “chief of sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15-16) and in another the one “who Jesus loved” (John 13:23). It is not the sin, but the repentance from that sin that makes the man.
Another example is when you read Judges 6 you find Gideon hiding from his enemies threshing wheat in a winepress and the angle of the Lord address him as “valiant warrior” although he was not. God could see he would be.


Hey Gisteppo,

Ecclesiastes 6:3 If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he.


I had frankly never heard that argument before you brought it up before in another post.
The problem lies in that how do we decide who, before they are born, will meet these criteria.
There is a saying, “Anyone can count the number of seeds in an apple, only God can count the number of apples in a seed.”
When the bible says, “You shall not kill.” The experts in language tell us that this means that you shall not take innocent life. What is more innocent than an infant?

I do not pretend to be an expert in this area, but the statistics you site concerning children in foster care and not being adopted. Are they not mostly abandoned by or removed from the home of their parents as young children, not as infants. I personally know of three families t

[Drewp]

Pink Elephants for President in '08! :albino:

[EastsideRedneck]

Good take on things Cav'. I have no problem with religion and religious people so long as they do not impose their values on the unwilling or unable.

Iskiles/Hillbilly-

Your banter about scripture is exactly why there has been wars fought for thousands of years; words can be interpreted in many different ways to mean many different things and many are staunchly opposed to wavering on their interpretation. Internet forums and email discussions are a nearly perfect example of how words can be taken to mean different things. Without verbal or visual cues, it is most often impossible to discern the true intent of the words as written. There isn't a single living person on this planet that definitively say that the words in scripture were either fiction or non-fiction. Faith and fact are not necessarily synonymous. As long as there is interpretation, there will be dissention.

Gisteppo- I consider myself more of a patriot becuase although I am a card carrying Republican, I am willing to cross party lines to vote for what is in the best interest of our great nation. The two-party system is quite contrary to this in my opinion. If a mixed ticket were possible... oh well, we all have pipe dreams.

[lskiles]

LS, you conveniently dodged the main point I was trying to make. Again, you said "When you have no regard for human life in one instance why would I assume you have regard for human life in any other". The Bible clearly demonstrates that your version of God doesn't have much regard for human life -- or life in general. How then can you use the Bible as an all-inclusive manual for determining what is right and wrong? According to the Bible, God clearly suffers from jealously and anger issues. He also doesn't seem to have a problem with premeditated murder, incest, prostitution, animal cruelty or statutory rape (just to name a few).

The examples I gave may seem lengthy in this type of forum, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. Don't get me wrong -- you are free to believe whatever you want to believe, but you should be careful when judging others (which is also a sin according the Bible). Using scripture to prove that your opinions are correct and righteous can work both ways, as it has in this example. There's plenty of "unpleasantness" and hypocrisy in the Bible, but it's not the stuff people choose to discuss in Sunday school. The old saying "accentuate the positive, and eliminate (ignore) the negative" seems to be the game plan for most main-stream Christians. Not surprisingly, most of the atheists and agnostics I've met have a MUCH deeper knowledge of the Bible than Christians who claim that the Bible is perfect.

I'm agnostic and believe that God's existence cannot be proved or disproved, but in any debate the burden of proof lies with the affirmative position. Someone could claim that there are pink elephants on Pluto, and I can't prove that they are wrong. Does that mean Pluto is populated with pink elephants? I'm thinkin' not...

First of all I dodged nothing. The exhaustive list of examples you gave me is a load of smoke and mirrors. I could go through each point on the list, as I did with the first ten, and show you the fallacy of each one. To what end, you will still refuse to believe the word of God and I will have wasted a good deal of time.

I was not going to answer any more on this thread (beating a dead horse), but you have hit on one of my pet peeves. Those of you who do not believe the bible using it to try and judge me.

…you should be careful when judging others (which is also a sin according the Bible).

Where does it say in the bible that I am not to judge others?

[Gisteppo]

I think faith is better left to another thread, one that can tackle it head on, instead of in the context of politics...

Oh, and LS, its Matthew 7:

1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

[lskiles]

I think faith is better left to another thread, one that can tackle it head on, instead of in the context of politics...

Oh, and LS, its Matthew 7:

1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

I knew that was the passage he was referring to. I was a little surprised you included verse two, most leave that out. It is one of the few passages that non-believers use against those of us who do believe. The problem is context. When we read the whole passage it tells us to judge only in the way we want to be judged. It does not say "do not judge."

I want to be judged by the word of God, so that is what I try to use as a criteria to judge situations, people, choices, etc.

Certainly I am not perfect and I hope I do not come off as being too "holier than thou."

[ndn]

Subject: FW: BARACK "DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY" OBAMA -- Jack Kelly

> The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling.
> But
> in a presidential candidate it's dangerous.
>
>
> BARACK "DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY" OBAMA
>
> Jack Kelly
> To The Point
> Thursday, 08 May 2008
>
>
> In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack
> Hussein
> Obama said something that is all the more remarkable for how little it has
> been remarked upon. In defending his stated intent to meet with America's
> enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said:
>
> "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but
> wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt
> did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."
>
> That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the
> journalists covering his speech, indicates either breathtaking ignorance
> of
> history on the part of both, or deceit on the part of both.
>
> I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D.
> Roosevelt.
> Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler;
> fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by
> Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of
> hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.
>
> FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman.
> Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended
> that
> war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.
>
> Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in
> June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean
> dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.
>
> Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with
> Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran had in December, 1943, and the
> meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in
> February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of
> whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were.
>
> Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in
> effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought
> to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.
>
> When Stalin's designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman's
> response
> wasn't to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered
> the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.
>
> Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F.
> Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader
> Nikita
> Khrushchev in Vienna in June, 1961. Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the
> Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its
> genesis in that summit.
>
> "There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June
> 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard
> decisions,"
> Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that
> Khrushchev
> ever questioned America's power. He questioned only the president's
> readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that
> Americans are 'too liberal to fight'."
>
> That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who
> traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy:
>
> "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs," Mr. Reston wrote.
> "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed
> him,
> but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to
> finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced
> young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed."
>
> It's worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen.
> Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14
> years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military
> and
> little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years.
>
> The closest historical analogue to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet
> without preconditions with anti-American dictators such as Iranian
> president
> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain
> and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to
> negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler.
>
> That didn't work out so well.
>
> A course in History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days,
> noted a poster on the Web log "Hot Air." The lack of historical knowledge
> among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate
> it's
> dangerous.
>
> In the year Mr. Obama was born, 1961, a R&B singer, Sam Cooke, came out
> with
> a hit song you still hear on Golden Oldies radio stations. The song
> started, "Don't know much about history..."
>
> What if voters realized that Don't Know Much About History ought to be
> Obama's theme song?
>
> Jack Kelly is a former Marine and Green Beret and a former deputy
> assistant
> secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He is national
> security writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[HillbillyGeek]

* snip *

I posted a reply, but then decided that it was too personal. This is too easy; I feel like a bully.

Debates about religion are generally very personal, and it's virtually impossible to keep them logical. We are talking about the concept of "faith", which by definition, defies logic. The stakes are also very high. We are talking about the future of our souls, and being mistaken could lead to eternal disaster!

I don't have a problem with people doing whatever makes them happy -- as long as it doesn't negatively impact innocent bystanders. My parents are VERY religious and they really get off on it. Church is not just a place to feed their spritual cravings, it's also their social mecca. That's awesome! My wife and children attend church every Sunday, which is also awesome! They know where I stand on the subject, and also know that when asked for my opinion, I will deliver it with absolutely zero sugar-coating. :pale: I occasionally attend church with them because it can be a great source of entertainment. Plus, the pastor seems to have his feet on the ground. I gained a lot of respect for the guy after hearing him read a disturbing passage in the Bible and then say that he had no idea why it happened or what it really means to us. WHAT? A religious guru who is capable of saying "I don't know"??? I like this guy! :bounce:

[Gisteppo]

ndn, while I can see what the intent of the article is, I won't even give it any concern as the source is a notedly disastrous reporter, and generally fraudulent source.

Ex-USA TODAY reporter faked major stories
By Blake Morrison,USA TODAY
Seven weeks into an examination of former USA TODAY reporter Jack Kelley’s work, a team of journalists has found strong evidence that Kelley fabricated substantial portions of at least eight major stories, lifted nearly two dozen quotes or other material from competing publications, lied in speeches he gave for the newspaper and conspired to mislead those investigating his work.

Perhaps Kelley’s most egregious misdeed occurred in 2000, when he used a snapshot he took of a Cuban hotel worker to authenticate a story he made up about a woman who died fleeing Cuba by boat. The woman in the photo neither fled by boat nor died, and a USA TODAY reporter located her this month. If Cuban authorities had learned she was the woman in the picture, she says, she could have lost her job and her chance to emigrate.


Kelley, 43, resigned from the newspaper in January after he admitted conspiring with a translator to mislead editors overseeing an inquiry into his work. At the time, newspaper editors said they could not determine whether Kelley had embellished or fabricated stories.

After Kelley quit, a new investigation began, spurred by fears that Kelley might have plagiarized. A team of five reporters and an editor, monitored by a three-member panel of former editors from outside the newspaper, reviewed more than 720 stories Kelley wrote from 1993 through 2003. Each was examined by at least two members of the team.

A story was considered fabricated if expense reports, phone records, official documents or witnesses clearly contradicted all or parts of what was published, and if Kelley’s explanations failed to reconcile those contradictions.

The three former editors spent about 20 hours interviewing Kelley. Throughout those interviews, Kelley insisted he had done nothing wrong and urged a quick resolution to the newspaper’s investigation. “I’ve never fabricated or plagiarized anything,” Kelley said.

Confronted Thursday with the newspaper’s findings, Kelley spent 2 1/2 hours again denying wrongdoing. “I feel like I’m being set up,” he told them.

But an extensive examination of about 100 of the 720 stories uncovered evidence that found Kelley’s journalistic sins were sweeping and substantial. The evidence strongly contradicted Kelley’s published accounts that he spent a night with Egyptian terrorists in 1997; met a vigilante Jewish settler named Avi Shapiro in 2001; watched a Pakistani student unfold a picture of the Sears Tower and say, “This one is mine,” in 2001; visited a suspected terrorist crossing point on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in 2002; interviewed the daughter of an Iraqi general in 2003; or went on a high-speed hunt for Osama bin Laden in 2003.

In addition:

• Significant parts of one of Kelley’s most gripping stories, an eyewitness account of a suicide bombing that helped make him a 2001 Pulitzer Prize finalist, are untrue. Kelley told readers he saw the bomber. But the man he described could not have been the bomber.

• Kelley’s explanations of how he reported stories from Egypt, Russia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, Israel, Cuba and Pakistan were contradicted by hotel, phone or other records or sources he said would confirm them.

• Kelley wrote scripts to help at least three people mislead USA TODAY reporters trying to verify his work, documents retrieved from his company-owned laptop computer show. Two of the people are translators Kelley paid for services months or years before. Another is a Jerusalem businessman, portrayed by Kelley as an undercover Israeli agent.

• In speeches to groups such as the Evangelical Press Association, Kelley talked of events that never occurred.

Kelley’s conduct represents “a sad and shameful betrayal of public trust,” former newspaper editors Bill Hilliard, Bill Kovach and John Seigenthaler said in a statement. The three editors said their “analysis of how these abuses occurred” will conclude “in the near future.” Reporters Michael Hiestand, Kevin McCoy, Blake Morrison, Rita Rubin and Julie Schmit investigated Kelley’s work.

Before he resigned in January, Kelley spent his entire 21-year career at USA TODAY. Editors nominated him for a Pulitzer Prize five times. Now, Editor Karen Jurgensen said the newspaper will withdraw all prize entries it made on Kelley’s behalf. The newspaper also will flag stories of concern in its online archive.

“As an institution, we failed our readers by not recognizing Jack Kelley’s problems. For that I apologize,” USA TODAY publisher Craig Moon said. “In the future, we will make certain that an environment is created in which abuses will never again occur.”

How USA TODAY is conducting the investigation

A team of reporters spent seven weeks examining the work of former USA TODAY reporter Jack Kelley. The reporters read about 720 stories Kelley filed from 1993 through 2003. Each of the stories was read and discussed by at least two members of the team. Hundreds were relatively routine news reports. But about 150 stories stood out to the group for a variety of reasons.

At least 56 were based on exclusive, eyewitness reports, usually reported overseas. Dozens cited anonymous intelligence officials. Others were human-interest stories that offered poignant details about the suffering of war, illness and oppression. In at least 10 cases, Kelley wrote that he watched someone die.

To verify the stories, members of the team interviewed dozens of people; reviewed scores of Kelley's expense reports; traveled to Cuba, Israel and Jordan; scoured records from Kelley's hotel, mobile and office phones; reread transcripts of speeches Kelley gave; ran at least 150 stories through plagiarism-detection software; and examined the contents of the laptop computer Kelley was issued by the company. Phone records were incomplete, and most of the documents on the laptop had been deleted before Kelley left the newspaper in January.

Three veteran journalists from outside the paper — Bill Hilliard, Bill Kovach and John Seigenthaler — monitored the process and spent about 20 hours interviewing Kelley about his stories and the newsroom culture at USA TODAY. The transcripts of those interviews were shared with the team. Seigenthaler is the founding editorial director of USA TODAY. Hilliard is former editor of The Oregonian in Portland, Ore. Kovach is chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, a group devoted to discussing journalism's future.

Members of the team, which continues to examine Kelley's work, are: John Hillkirk, editor; Michael Hiestand, Kevin McCoy, Blake Morrison, Rita Rubin and Julie Schmit, reporters; Ruth Fogle and Tom Ankner, researchers.

E

[ndn]

Gisteppo

Jack Kelly must be a fairly common name. I do not believe the Jack Kelly that wrote the story about Obama is the same man that You wrote about ( Jack Kelley) who spent his entire career at USA Today and has been accused of writing many fraudulent stories.

Note, the last names are spelled differently

[Gisteppo]

ndn, you are absolutely correct, I have the wrong guy.

E

[Drewp]

I'm interested to hear opinions on an Obama/Clinton ticket. Anyone think this is a good idea? Sounds to me like a shoe in if it were to happen - though I'd also love to see Obama/Edwards.

[kevinb]

I personally would rather see Obama/Edwards. I guess we'll see what happens.

[Marc Martyn]

My opinion is that a Obama/Clinton ticket would be a bad move. To campaign on "change" and then have the Clinton's in the wing would not be wise.

Edwards would make a good VP, but I think that Obama has to bring in someone new. There are a lot of qualified people for the position to choose from.

I think that the nation has both Bush and Clinton fatigue.

[Gisteppo]

Obama needs to run with one of the Iraq vets that became a senator in the past 4 years. Now THATS a ticket.....

E

[Marc Martyn]

Obama needs to run with one of the Iraq vets that became a senator in the past 4 years. Now THATS a ticket.....

E

I wouldn't be surprised if Jim Webb (Virginia) isn't on the long list.:thumright

[A9]

Hillary.....Concede already...