What is Barack's change? How about $250 billion in more spending by the federal government to come out of the pockets of citizens. That's not change, we need to reducing spending in Washington, not have more handouts.

I fear this guy will be the modern version of Jimmy Carter: Smart and idealistic, for the most part, but a weak leader.

What is Barack's change? How about $250 billion in more spending by the federal government to come out of the pockets of citizens.

Which of course is less than half of what Bush just proposed in Pentagon spending alone in his new budget......lol.....

I never said Bush was a good president. It just shows that he's not changing anything. He's just making Washington bigger, when what we need is smaller government at all levels. We already work about 5 months a year just to pay our taxes. It's time for real change not rhetorical change like Barack is espousing. We don't need a nanny state.

A candidate preaching (and I do mean preaching) "change". That's original. It's amusing how everytime I ask an Obama fan why they're voting for Obama all I get in response are third grade level responses like "He seems nice", or " He's a good speaker" or "He'll bring about real change". Where's the critical thinking by our young people? What about the fact he wants to take more money out of the pockets of working people as if working 4 months out of the year just to pay taxes to the gov't isn't enough? What about the fact he is against enforcing our nation's immigration laws, which holds down wages for unskilled American workers, while increasing crime, school crowding and healthcare costs? Oh that's right, that's okay because Obama is a good speaker and he's got charisma.

If you're going to vote for this inexperiened charlatan at least be aware of the damage you're bringing to the country and be willing to admit, to yourself if no one else, the real reason you'd vote for this guy.

The real reason I'm voting for him is because he can beat McCain.

NOT REALLY A VOTE "FOR" OBAMA SO MUCH AS A VOTE AGAINST A CONSERVATIVE.

The real reason I'm voting for him is because he believes in diplomacy before war.

EVERY PRESIDENT DOES. WHICH IS WHY BUSH PRESSURED THE UN TO PASS 16 RESOLUTIONS TO PRESSURE SADDAM TO COMPLY BEFORE RESORTING TO FORCE.

The real reason I'm voting for him is because he's not a polarizing figure that pits one side of the country against the other.

OBAMA IS RANKED BY A NON-PARTISON GROUP AS THE SINGLE MOST LIBERAL MEMBER OF THE SENATE LAST YEAR. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK SUCH AN EXTREMELY PARTISAN POLITICIAN WON'T BE POLARIZING?

The real reason I'm voting for him is because the establishment candidates of the democratic party have FAILED FAILED FAILED for over ten years now, and we need WHOLESALE CHANGE in our parties leadership, not just another establishment candidate.

YOU'RE ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT AND YET YOU WANT TO FURTHER EMPOWER THE BIGGEST ESTABLISHMENT OF ALL, THE FEDERAL GOV'T, BY VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE THAT WANTS TO EXTEND GOV'T CONTROL OVER OUR HEALTHCARE AND OUR POCKETBOOKS.

I think it's funny how people think that everyone voting for Obama hasn't thought it through, that we're a bunch of flighty teenagers.

FUNNY. JUST 5 MINUTES AGO I WAS WATCHING FRANK LUNTZ INTERVIEW A FOCUS GROUP OF OBAMA SUPPORTERS AND HE ASKED IF ANY ONE OF THEM COULD PROVIDE AN ACCOMPLISHMENT OF OBAMA. NOT ONE COULD, BUT SEVERAL THOUGHT "INSPIRATION" QUALIFIED AS AN ACCOMPLISHMENT.

We're adults. It is not easy for us to vote for him. Some of us are scared to do it. Myself included. But in the face of eight more years in Iraq under McCain, you have to make tough decisions.

IF YOUR DECISION IS GROUNDED IN SOUND REASONING OVER EMOTION AND MAINTAINS THE IDEALS OF INDIVIDUAL EMPOWERMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY THIS NATION WAS FOUNDED ON YOU SHOULD NEVER FEEL SCARED TO CAST YOUR VOTE.

Is that thinking critical enough?

CRITICALLY FLAWED, BUT IT BEATS "INSPIRING" AND "CHARISMA".

NOT REALLY A VOTE "FOR" OBAMA SO MUCH AS A VOTE AGAINST A CONSERVATIVE.

No, it's a vote for Obama. I don't think "Anyone but that guy" is on the ballot. His ability to beat McCain is just one of the reasons I'm voting for him.

EVERY PRESIDENT DOES. WHICH IS WHY BUSH PRESSURED THE UN TO PASS 16 RESOLUTIONS TO PRESSURE SADDAM TO COMPLY BEFORE RESORTING TO FORCE.

He changed the US foreign policy to include pre-emptive strike before 9-11 even happened. What do you think he had in mind when he did that? Is that a real pro-diplomacy stance?

OBAMA IS RANKED BY A NON-PARTISON GROUP AS THE SINGLE MOST LIBERAL MEMBER OF THE SENATE LAST YEAR. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK SUCH AN EXTREMELY PARTISAN POLITICIAN WON'T BE POLARIZING?

The reason why he won Iowa is because republicans and independents voted for him. What does it mean to be the "most-liberal"? What was the criteria of the ranking? What "nonpartisan" group was it? you can't refute my argument by citing Caspar the Friendly Ghost and The Last Unicorn, Bea. And you spelled nonpartisan wrong.

YOU'RE ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT AND YET YOU WANT TO FURTHER EMPOWER THE BIGGEST ESTABLISHMENT OF ALL, THE FEDERAL GOV'T, BY VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE THAT WANTS TO EXTEND GOV'T CONTROL OVER OUR HEALTHCARE AND OUR POCKETBOOKS.

I never said I was anti-establishment I said "the establishment candidates of the democratic party". I believe in the "establishment" I just believe that it's not being run well. I believe in social programs, I believe everyone should have health care, I'm not sitting here typing with an anarchy symbol on my shirt.

FUNNY. JUST 5 MINUTES AGO I WAS WATCHING FRANK LUNTZ INTERVIEW A FOCUS GROUP OF OBAMA SUPPORTERS AND HE ASKED IF ANY ONE OF THEM COULD PROVIDE AN ACCOMPLISHMENT OF OBAMA. NOT ONE COULD, BUT SEVERAL THOUGHT "INSPIRATION" QUALIFIED AS AN ACCOMPLISHMENT.

Wow, that is funny. You know what else is funny? Frank Luntz' credibility. Let's see what the internet has to say about him:

"In 1997, he was reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research for refusing to release poll data to support his claimed results "because of client confidentiality"."

and then...

"In 2000 he was censured by the National Council on Public Polls "for allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during the [2000] Republican Convention." In September 2004, MSNBC dropped Luntz from its planned coverage of that year's presidential debate, following a letter from Media Matters that outlined Luntz's GOP ties and questionable polling methodology"

and also...

"In a video piece, entertainers and libertarians Penn & Teller lambasted Luntz for his comment that the key to survey polling is "to ask a question in the way that you get the right answer"."

Hilarious.

IF YOUR DECISION IS GROUNDED IN SOUND REASONING OVER EMOTION AND MAINTAINS THE IDEALS OF INDIVIDUAL EMPOWERMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY THIS NATION WAS FOUNDED ON YOU SHOULD NEVER FEEL SCARED TO CAST YOUR VOTE.

That's... well... Just not true. This nation was founded by revolution. Revolution is scary. Back then it involved cannons and muskets. The founding fathers had to have been scared that the British were going to put down their revolution and put them all to death. Change is scary. The righteousness of your decision doesn't remove that fear.

Have a great Super Tuesday. And just a word of advice:

ALL CAPS DOESN'T MAKE YOU MORE RIGHT!

theoriginaljoefisher >> bea and primary blog spammers.

Joe Fisher, the all caps was to make it easier for you to distinguish my response from yours. Wasn't yelling at you. But you are right in that I misspelled one word. Pointing that out says more about your debating abilities than my spelling skills, however. As for your "arguments". The non-partisan group that ranked Obama most liberal senator last year is the National Journal, a group widely recognized by even democrats as non-partisan. The fact is, Obama is a far left senator, and clearly not a centrist, which is probably why you support him. By definition, anyone sitting so far on the fringes of any party will be polarizing. By the way, Bush partnered with extreme liberals like Ted Kennedy to pass legislation. If Obama becomes president do you really think he'll be working with an equally extreme conservative to set domestic policy? I doubt it.

"The reason why he won Iowa is because republicans and independents voted for him."

Actually Joe, you're wrong. Republicans don't vote in the Iowa democratic primary. And regarding diplomacy, if you want to pretend the Clinton and Bush administrations weren't trying to pressure Saddam with diplomacy for years before they used military force, you're clearly suffering from selective amnesia or delusions. Read a history book.

You can question the credibility of Frank Luntz all you want. It doesn't change the fact that he asked a simple, straight forward question. Name an accomplishment of Barack Obama. Not one Obama supporter could name even one. You probably can't either. Go ahead, google away Joe. You'll still have trouble.

Lastly, you don't think it's true that the United States was founded on the ideals of individual empowerment and personal responsibility? Wow. There's your problem. You have no understanding of this nation's founding whatsoever. These are the ideals that attracted colonists to begin with. The revolution you cite was to rid the colonies of the same oppressive taxation and gov't intrusion in the lives of individuals that liberal politicians champion with increased confiscation of personal income and regulation. A final word of advice: study history.

p.s Oh and when I said Bush made Sadam and Osama rich, I mean Sr. as Jr. was running around using public money to fail at playing base ball and oil. But hey thats how the republicreatures like it. Its all about the public money when its for them!