You should get your facts straight. Politics and truth need not be mutually exclusive. It's important to have discussions on substantive issues, but there is no need for innuendos and half-truths to ground our discussions.

1. The $1 million dollars was never approved. The hospital, therefore, has never received any of the money.

2. The earmark request was made by the University hospital without Michelle Obama's involvement whatsoever.

3. Obama represents the state of Illinois. He made similar requests on behalf of other Illinois-based educational institutions and non-profit organizations.

4. Other senators, representing their states, make similar requests on behalf of their constituents. Quite natural in today's political environment. Whether this should be changed is another question altogether.

5. Obama wanted transparency and has asked Hillary Clinton to respond in the same way by revealing her requests over the years.

I thought liberals supporting Obama because he is going to clean up Washington with the new politics. What is the "change" that they "hope" to have? Better porks?

4. Other senators, representing their states, make similar requests on behalf of their constituents. Quite natural in today's political environment. Whether this should be changed is another question altogether.
-------------------------------------
McCain didn't ask for earmark. So Obama is simply another old politicians. Let 's be honest and not use this spin about "hope" and "change" and "new politics". Looks like these rhetorics are to fool people.

Now for the sake of transparency, Obama can release the earmarks he requested when he was an Illinois legislator.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/earmark.vote/index.html?section=cnn_latest

McCain had urged his Democratic rivals to reveal the earmarks they've asked for and turn back the money that hasn't been spent yet.

The Obama camp then joined McCain in calling for Clinton to release her requests.

Earmarks that are approved are a matter of public record, but information about earmark requests that do not get approved can currently come only from the legislators themselves.

...
McCain, who has refused to request spending for projects in his home state of Arizona, has long been a vocal critic of earmarks.

Clinton and Obama announced this week they favor the ban, despite their own use of earmarks.

McCain said the Democratic presidential candidates are late to the anti-earmarks position, saying both have requested earmarks using taxpayer dollars "that are absolutely outrageously wasted."

Oh, I dunno, Jay, looks to me that since the $1m didn't get apporved that the ol' Bammy Clan got $200k for nuthin'. Not a bad day's work, huh?

McCain didn't ask for earmark.

No? Oh wait!

It is just the sort of parochial spending request that might lead Senator John McCain, nemesis of pork barrel projects, to give somebody an earful.

The bill would direct $2 million annually over five years to establish a center at a specified law school to honor a renowned jurist from the state. While the goal may be laudable, some critics say, the measure is a classic case of lawmakers' trying to funnel money directly to a home-state institution for a project that should find financing elsewhere.

But it is doubtful that Mr. McCain will weigh in against the idea this time: the legislation to support the project is being sponsored by him and Senator Jon Kyl, Arizona Republicans who are among those aggressively promoting new rules for handling Congressional spending requests.

Yes: Obama is definitely on track to make significant changes in Washington. It is, I think, a very big deal that he has revealed his earmarked requests and has asked Clinton to disclose hers. There will be more to come--I believe in leadership by example and Obama, by demanding transparency, is being very consistent.

For the sake of the whole trugh
More Hope and Change (h/t Hot Air)
Update: The AP says Obama has not responded to repeated requests to release his earmark legislation for six of his eightyears in the Illinois Senate. Yet, he's criticizing Hillary on this score:

Again, CNN is no fan of McCain

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/earmark.vote/index.html?section=cnn_latest

McCain, who has refused to request spending for projects in his home state of Arizona, has long been a vocal critic of earmarks.

Clinton and Obama announced this week they favor the ban, despite their own use of earmarks.

McCain said the Democratic presidential candidates are late to the anti-earmarks position, saying both have requested earmarks using taxpayer dollars "that are absolutely outrageously wasted."

So if I try to hold up a bank and ask for 1 million but they don't give it to me I'm not a crook ?

Actually he also requested $8 million for a Genome project (run thru the U of I at C) that was granted and was paid ...

The Goracle is the BIG winner ... his net worth appears to be north of 100 million ...

There's a big difference between earmarks and funding requests. "Requests" are the basis for appropriation bills. Earmarks are items slipped into bills ususally after it leaves committee. McCain has not and does not ask for earmarks. Obama does.

RE #6. If anyone cares to read the entire article that Barney, no I mean JFO, no wait it was mantis this time, (they are impossible to tell apart anymore) posted, you'd see that that particular piece of legislation is nothing like the "earmarks" that McCain opposes and has consistently opposed. (Unlike Clinton's wife or BO who now suddenly decided they were opposed to earmarks too.)

But Barney, I mean mantis, is hoping that those who read his post will be like typical Democrat voters and just believe the NYT's disingenuous misrepresentations and not bother to look at the facts of the matter.

The United States of America will be a better place to live when Barack Obama becomes President.

Why Adrian?

What specifically will be better?

Other than that we'll all be more "hopeful" and "changeful", I mean.

There's a big difference between earmarks and funding requests.

You are right. Upon further reading, it does seem that McCain has studiously avoided earmarks for many years, and that funding bill does not fit the definition. I shouldn't have been so quick to post that link.

I'm glad that this is an issue in this election, and maybe we can actually get rid of earmarks once and for all (congressmen will probably figure out another sneaky way to funnel money to their states, but still...).

I apologize for my earlier, misleading comment.

And I therefore, must retract my comment that you can't tell Barney, JFO, and mantis apart.

#15 was the old mantis I've respected (though I've often disagreed)

What specifically will be better?

Other than that we'll all be more "hopeful" and "changeful", I mean.
------------------------------------
Probably you don't have to salute the flags. And you can make a big deal of not wearing a flag pin on July 4th for example. I think Adrian is thinking of the communist utopia, where the leaders lead a double life: saying one thing, but doing another in practice. By his actions, Obama shared the worldview of his pastor: he didn't salute the flag and made a big deal of not wearing a flag pin. His wife considers America mean and hasn't not been proud. These are not mis-statements, but expression of their worldview (after drinking that Koolaid all these years). Also what is so sunny and optimitic about Obama? It seems like people close to Obama are so angry if not hateful. He seems to lead a double life at least.

Bunyan,
Thanks for reading the NYT article. I couldn't read it and didn't want to register with that liberal paper of record! Agree with you that Mantis deserved credit for acknowledging his mistake.

You can say a lot about BO, but you can't deny that he's been very generous... with our money, not his own.

It took a while to total that up, but it comes to $558,807,831. That's over a half a billion dollars of our money BO requested to buy himself political power and backing. He's no amateur Jay Tea. His many years in the corrupt Chicago political machine have honed him into a typical corrupt, bought and paid for, Chicago Democrat.

So Bo supporters, where's the "change" coming from again. Anyone? Larkin? Bueller? Bueller?

Or is speaking more eloquently, while screwing us just as badly and wasting our money just as extremely as the rest, all the change you really want in our government?

It sure doesn't give me hope...

His many years in the corrupt Chicago political machine have honed him into a typical corrupt, bought and paid for, Chicago Democrat.
-------------------------------------
Did Pelosi try to pass legislation that would help her husband 's company? So Obama is a good fit for the dem party in general in any case.

I don't know about Pelosi (though it would surprise me), but Feinstein sure used her political office to create great personal wealth.

Just FYI. Sounds like a true liberal culture of corruption in Washington now. It took Reid/Pelosi only 6 months to fully establish it. I guess Obama can expedite and expand this change.

Pelosi's Bill Could Benefit Husband's Stock Holding

Take it from someone who has been watching Obama, for years, and seen, first hand, what he does, has done, and probably will continue to do, he's a schmuck. And anyone who supports him is a sucker.

Since 1999, the only thing Barak Obama has changed has been his address.

He endorsed the IL governor (Blago). A corrupt as they come slider. Why? He's a democrat. Not because he's qualified (he isn't); but, because Barak's playing good ol' Chicago style partisan politics.

He also endorsed the Cook County Commission President, Todd Stroger. Why?

Because he's qualified? No? He's a democrat. he's also african-american.

So, this is a two-fer. Barak plays partisan politics and the race card, at the same time.
What has Todd done for Cook County (Chicago)? Well, most disgustingly, he just jacked up the sales tax so that now, Cook County has the highest sales tax in the nation. During a recession, no less.

Does Todd decide to cut waste and graft? Nope. Jack the tax to cover it. And what will Todd do with this money? He's going to add thousands of new governmental jobs.

Well, thanks Todd. You can't properly run the county with what you have, so let's take more money to add more jobs that people aren't doing in the first place.

And thanks, Barak. The poor in Cook County who are now going to be poorer since you've decided party and race trump experience and qualifications.

Did Barak ask for transparency in Cook County or Chicago, or Illinois? No.

Did he legislate against the obvious corruption in his district? No.

He simply kept status quo for his benefit.

If you want to see where you'll go with someone, look to where that person's been.

Barak came from corrupt environment and not only didn't CHANGE a darned thing, he helped propagate a failed system.

I can only HOPE that people will see through the scam that is Barak Obama before it's too late.

ERG, I hate to say it, man, but you've been duped. And duped hard.

That, unfortunately, makes you a sucker.

Correction on #21, I meant to type: "(though it wouldn't surprise me)"

BTW LAI, thanks for the link. Since the Democrats came back into power in Congress the culture of corruption has expanded so quickly and to such great levels it's hard to keep track anymore.

Well at least it was a "change"! Still doesn't give me "hope" though...

I think this was the funniest thing I've read today:

2. The earmark request was made by the University hospital without Michelle Obama's involvement whatsoever.

yo:

My views on Obama are constrained by certain realities, of which I am quite aware: the length of public service, relative lack of experience in foreign policy, etc. You seem to be quite passionate about your opposition to him--more so than I am about my endorsement of him, I would say.

Here is you speaking--hardly, a discussion about substantive issues; and not at all conducive to discussing matters of mutual interest to reach a common judgment:

"Barak came from corrupt environment and not only didn't CHANGE a darned thing, he helped propagate a failed system."

"I can only HOPE that people will see through the scam that is Barak Obama before it's too late."

Ad hominem attacks--smearing a person's character to discredit his positions--merely prolong the delay of dealing with important issues.

In some sense, we always get the kind of politics we want, don't we? If you want to be duped, you will be duped.

That Obama is just an old-school, run-of-the-mill crook from Chicago is going to come as a terrible shock to those who swallowed the Kool-Aid™ about "a new kind of politics," but better they learn the difficult lesson now, during the campaign, than we all be forced to share their education after the election.

To recap, our story thus far: Old-style political earmarks to the hospital which promoted his wife and was his biggest source of donations, $625,000 favor from major Chicago "fixer," wife who hates America for giving her $1 million a year family income, preacher who hates America for being too white.

No wonder the morons went gaga . . .

"Barak came from corrupt environment and not only didn't CHANGE a darned thing, he helped propagate a failed system."

"I can only HOPE that people will see through the scam that is Barak Obama before it's too late."
-------------------------------------
Surprised that you didn't list the FACTS that yo listed to support his conclusions.

I guess he is just trying to give you the WHOLE TRUTH from his own "study" of Obama. If you are interested in the whole truth, you would welcome these facts, I assume.

LoveAmerica

I didn't list such FACTS because one could do the same on behalf of Clinton, McCain, and, I would venture to say, anybody in America with any political interest. Where does that leave us?

I doubt that the WHOLE truth has been given us here (not by me or anybody). Not in this forum, in which time is limited and memorable phrases may substitute for real analysis . . .

The listing of FACTS about character interests me less than an analysis of the issues and ideas involved.

The listing of FACTS about character interests me less than an analysis of the issues and ideas involved.
-------------------------------------
So you don't care about the character of the president? In other words, you are willing to vote for a crook as long as he/she agree with your issues/ideas?

erg,

Thanks for assuming that I don't know the definition of "ad hominem" is.

Now, what's the definition of "intellectual snob?"

Anyway - the trick with Obama is that he is running on his character since he has nothing of substance with which to run. So, there's really nothing left.

"If you want to be duped, you will be duped."

Indeed. Thank you for exposing the limit of your political acumen and saving me the hassle.

Quick note: Obama's come out and denounced Rev. Wright's statements, but he didn't say which ones he was denouncing.

Tricky, eh?

Character is, of course, important.

But I'm willing to engage in the ideas that have been propounded by McCain, Obama, and Clinton, on how to solve our domestic and foreign policy dilemmas before making character judgments on any of them.

I would take caution in using "crook" and other incendiary terms, especially since none of us here, I would venture to say, has done a thorough study of each of the candidate's records (i.e., their voting record, their written text, their speeches, and other important biographical details, all which would be relevant for a fair character assessment).

There is enough character evaluation to go around--not enough critical interventions in our all-too-fragile democratic life.

yo:

Made no assumption that you didn't know the definition. Nothing in my text suggests that. I merely wanted to emphasize a particular point--certainly, not the only thing about such attacks--about the regrettable deferral that often takes place when character judgment replaces genuine political discussion. And nothing in my posts questions your intelligence.

But I'm willing to engage in the ideas that have been propounded by McCain, Obama, and Clinton, on how to solve our domestic and foreign policy dilemmas before making character judgments on any of them.

I would take caution in using "crook" and other incendiary terms, especially since none of us here, I would venture to say, has done a thorough study of each of the candidate's records (i.e., their voting record, their written text, their speeches, and other important biographical details, all which would be relevant for a fair character assessment).
-------------------------------------
Do you need a detailed assessment of a used dealer who promised honesty to you but lied to you twice?

BTW, you don't even adhere to your own standard in this post. Your din't even do a detailed study of your list before you posted it. You simply spouted someone else 's talking points without even doing a detailed study at all.

I think we can use some intellectual honesty here. You should go back and do real detailed studies of the points you listed and come back here. At least Mantis has the honesty to admit his mistake insteading of spinning it away. We can respect that.

A fair assessment, yet not complete, I'll grant you that, would be to look to see if the candidate practices what he preaches.

Obama doesn't.

Was Stroger qualified for his position, or did