Joe Biden on Lies About Obama

Joe Biden addresses the lies being told about Obama. He specifically reacts to the interview (2nd video) where WFTV Channel 9's Barbara West asks Joe Biden if Obama is a "Marxist".

Read more...

It's Our Money, Stupid!

Paulson, Bush, Wall Street...
Why are we so stupid? Myself included. Why do we get all excited over stimulus checks written for only an infinitesimally small fraction of our own money, the same money taken from us to fund the agenda of a few greedy warmongers?

Why do we act like tax cuts, designed to rip us off, only to benefit those of us who already have enough money to wallpaper the the entire state of Texas, is a good thing? Oh sure, we might get a few dollars at tax time, a mere fraction of what it cost us to line the pockets of those Texan wallpaperers.

We are so easily distracted by the shiny penny in front of us that we completely fail to see the guy who threw it there, is now picking our pocket clean.

Will the current economic fiasco teach us a lesson? If history is any indicator, the answer is, not a chance.

More than once, Willie Sutton, dressed as a prison guard, carried two ladders clear across the yard in order to rob some "poor" unsuspecting soul, blind. When caught in the spot light, he yelled out, "It’s ok!" and continued on with his mission without missing a beat.

Two ladders?!?

Read more...

Dangerous Rhetoric May Provide Answers to the Wrong People.

John McCain poses the rhetorical question, "Who is the real Barack Obama?". Rhetorical, because Sarah Palin eagerly provides the answer...he is a terrorist! What else could Sarah Palin mean when she accuses Obama of "palling around with terrorists".

Enough's been said about Obama's supposed Muslim affinity that even "Joe six-pack" can visualize the graphic image the republicans are trying to paint. Being black isn't enough to scare the voters away any more. However, an African-American, Muslim terrorist should be enough to send all the red-blooded, patriotic, apple-pie and mom loving Americans running to fetch their six-shooter. Doggoneit!

This type of emotionally manipulative rhetoric - Sarah Palin's first and only language -

"For me, the heels are on, the gloves are off." -- Sarah Palin telling a group of Republican donors in Naples, Fla.

is dangerous at a time when society is caught up in a maelstrom of political, economic, social and technological change. People feel angry, desperate and abandoned. Confused and anxious, they search out simplistic explanations and are actively searching for someone to blame...the evildoer, who is responsible for causing their pain. Nine times out of ten, a scapegoat is targeted instead, and nine times out of ten, that scapegoat is of a different race religion, sexuality etc.

While this type of rhetoric will not cause anyone to make an attempt on Obama's life, it certainly could provide the final justification. After years of listening to "evildoers", "axis of evil", "you're either with us or against us" and "we can either fight the terrorists here or over there", is there anything worse than a terrorist? Is there anything worse than a Muslim? Is there anything worse than a black man running for President of the United States?

At a rally Monday in Albuquerque, when McCain asked, "Who is the real Barack Obama?" one supporter yelled back, "Terrorist!" Across the country in Florida that day, Palin's criticism of Obama and Ayers drew resounding boos and prompted one person, according to the Washington Post, to shout out, "Kill him!"

Who is the real John McCain? I've asked myself that many times. No, not because I think he is a terrorist, far from it...however, John McCain, the "Maverick" the man we knew at the beginning of the decade disappeared completely. The John McCain running for President, although he looks the same and sounds the same, is not the same.

Read more...

Obama Wants Increase Federal Insurance on Deposits to $250,000

Obama wants to include increasing federal insurance on deposits from the current $100,000 to a $250,000 in an effort to "boost small businesses, make our banking system more secure, and help restore public confidence in our finanical system", according to CNN, this morning.

“Yesterday, within the course of a few hours, the failure to pass the economic rescue plan in Washington led to the single largest decline of the stock market in two decades.

While I, like others, am outraged that the reign of irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has created the current crisis, I also know that continued inaction in the face of the gathering storm in our financial markets would be catastrophic for our economy and our families.

At this moment, when the jobs, retirement savings, and economic security of all Americans hang in the balance, it is imperative that all of us – Democrats and Republicans alike – come together to meet this crisis.

The bill rejected yesterday was a marked improvement over the original blank check proposed by the Bush Administration. It included restraints on CEO pay, protections for homeowners, strict oversight as to how the money is spent, and an assurance that taxpayers will recover their money once the economy recovers. Given the progress we have made, I believe we are unlikely to succeed if we start from scratch or reopen negotiations about the core elements of the agreement. But in order to pass this plan, we must do more.

One step we could take to potentially broaden support for the legislation and shore up our economy would be to expand federal deposit insurance for families and small businesses across America who have invested their money in our banks.

The majority of American families should rest assured that the deposits they have in our banks are safe. Thanks to measures put in place during the Great Depression, deposits of up to $100,000 are guaranteed by the federal government.

While that guarantee is more than adequate for most families, it is insufficient for many small businesses that maintain bank accounts to meet their payroll, buy their supplies, and invest in expanding and creating jobs. The current insurance limit of $100,000 was set 28 years ago and has not been adjusted for inflation.

That is why today, I am proposing that we also raise the FDIC limit to $250,000 as part of the economic rescue package – a step that would boost small businesses, make our banking system more secure, and help restore public confidence in our financial system.

I will be talking to leaders and members of Congress later today to offer this idea and urge them to act without delay to pass a rescue plan,” -- Barack Obama.

Read more...

McCain Wants to Rearrange the Deck Chairs on the Titanic to Save It.

While visions of sugar plums were dancing about in everyone's head, in the dark of night, December 21, 2000, Senator Phil "We have become a nation of whiners" Gramm, a.k.a., McCain's econ brain, and congress, passed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), a.k.a., the Enron Loophole (McCain defended in May 2008). This act completely deregulated the $62 trillion credit derivatives market, not only at the federal level but at the state level as well. Gramm's bill provided the key that unlocked the Pandora's box of greed, stupidity, and chaos that would serve to "collapse" the American economy.

The Federal Reserve was chartered - Federal Reserve Act of 1913 -- December 23, 1913 in the wee hours of the morning. The week before Christmas, a popular time of year to sneak corrupt legislation in, really needs it's own regulatory act.

$62 trillion is the estimated worth of the credit derivatives market. It is this so-called "worth" that is at the crux of this financial meltdown, because the value has never been tested by economic reality. It's solely based on promises made on money that wasn't there to begin with.

This dark financial market -- a market, to put it simply, that involves private contracts, where one side bets it will go up and the counter party bets it will go down, the counter party charging a hefty fee for placing the "bet" -- has become the predominant method of transacting business in our economy, yet it exists completely outside of the law and realm of regulation, thanks to an ongoing crusade since the 1980s to "free" the market from the feds.

Yes, these hedgefund managers, and the like, work hard and take risks for their annual $3 billion salaries -- OK, only a few make that much...the rest only make $500 million -- but then again, so do sophisticated cat burglers and people involved in organized crime.

More money is invested in this market and its derivative products than in regulated stocks and bonds, combined. Credit default swaps, the "star" complex financial instrument, are nothing more than insurance policies taken out on the bets made inside the credit derivative market serving to insure billions and billions of dollars. This is what the banks used to protect the value of the billions of bets they made on people paying mortgages they could not afford to pay. The banks and insurance companies, made these "bets" through off-book structured-investment vehicles which the federal government permits.

So, why would anyone bet that people will make their mortgage payments, who can't document their assets because they don't exist, and who clearly cannot afford to make their mortgage payments? Well, one of the reasons is that they assumed that housing prices would continue to rise and the other reasons can be summed up in two words, greed and stupidity.

Then, these "geniuses" added the "value" of these bets to their books. The problem was/is that no one knew what the real value was or is because the "value" could not withstand accounting procedures because there was/is no real monetary or material worth. There was/is no system of accounting required, no capital reserve, no central registry of transactions...the value was/is manufactured out of thin air.

The credit agencies who are paid by the people who own these financial instruments rate them AAA, further adding to this deception we call our economy.

Who's going to "fix" this problem?

Well, if you think, if you think rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic will save it, than vote for McCain of if you think hiring faster people to chase after the horses after they've escaped from the barn, rather than installing a door to prevent their escape, is the better option, than by all means, vote for McCain.

That's according to Law professor Michael Greenberger, at University of Maryland School of Law, and the director of the University's Center for Health and Homeland Security. Greenberger worked with Robert Rubin, former secretary of the treasury during the Clinton Administration. He is now one of Obama's two top economic advisers. Greenburger said Rubin clearly sees the source of the current market meltdown, and that is the deregulation of the credit derivatives market, something he failed to see when working for Clinton, unfortunately.

Changing the organization chart - "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" - as John McCain wants to do will do nothing more than make the bailing out process easier for the Federal Reserve, thus more expensive for us regular taxpayers.

Obama wants to make these complex financial products transparent. He wants to know where they are, who has them, what the real value is, adequate capital reserve, margin requirements, and auditing procedures to make sure these things can withstand economic reality.

Completely outside of the law...completely unregulated...the credit derivatives market is the biggest game of smoke and mirrors in the history of the American economy.

Read more...

Extend the Federal Clean Energy Tax Credits

The Long-term Extension and Modification of Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit bill will expire December 31, 2009, if the Senate does not vote to extend it further. It has been voted on or attempted to pass eight times. McCain failed to show up to vote all eight times, including one time when the bill failed by one vote and McCain was in Washington DC and could have easily participated. Obama voted to extend the bill three times.

Why is this a big deal?

Aside from obvious reasons, the biggest concentrated solar project, on paper, in the world is ready to go, outside of Phoenix Arizona. This massive undertaking will employ as many as 2,000 people and use as much steel as it took to build the Golden Gate Bridge.

We have one more shot at passing a long-term extension of the critical federal clean energy tax credits. Please call or email your Senators today to urge them to vote YES on S. 3335, which includes an 8 year extension of the commercial and residential solar tax credit, and doubles the residential cap to $4,000.

Read more...

Vetting the Antichrist.

No, I'm not saying Sarah Palin is the Antichrist. However, speculating on who the Antichrist is, is important work, since the evil one should be rearing his or her ugly head soon. So, I thought I'd post "Vetting the Antichrist" on the first Friday of every month to discuss potential candidates. Thus far, I've suggested George W. Bush and Erik "D. for Darkness" Prince, owner of Blackwater Worldwide.

Sarah Palin is my next choice, given how the shade, diabolical red flatters her so, not to mention, the negligible "vetting" process that took place before selecting her as John McCain's running mate.

The last time I "vetted" the Antichrist, I asked a couple of questions: What is the extent of this person's power and influence or potential magnitude of his evil doings? How conspicuous is the evil doing? Based on these questions, I've come up with some guidelines. Please tell me if I'm misguided as I am no expert on the principal antagonist of Christ.

• The Antichrist can be male or female, any age, race, ethnicity or religion, and can "claim" any sexuality ( because of society's bias, an openly gay Antichrist is highly unlikely).
  
• The Antichrist can belong to any political party and/or originate from anywhere in the world.
• The Antichrist must be charismatic, must have vast influence and refrain from being conspicuously evil (his evil will manifest when he's sure he has conquered the world)
  

Assuming Mr. Obama failed to meet Antichrist criteria, and is not the prince of darkness, let's see if the prince may be a princess.

What do we know about Sarah Palin other than "diabolical red" becomes her?

Well, Ms. Palin is a 44-year old married, Republican female with five children and a soon to be a grandmother. She is very articulate and extremely magnetic (80% approval rating as Governor). She has the world as her stage, thus, the potential to influence billions of people. What else do we know about her?

According to Tom Hamburger, one of the authors of One Party Country:The Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century , and on staff at the LA Times, she relied on the earmark system that she now opposes. As mayor of the small city of Wasilla, Alaska, population approximately 9700, Ms. Palin hired a Washington lobbyist to secure earmarks. As a candidate for governor, she backed the notorious "Bridge to nowhere", later changing her mind, claiming it as wasteful, and then using the funds for other projects, instead.

In a biting speech that epitomized style over substance, Sarah Palin, an Assembly of God church member, said the "difference between her and a pit bull was lipstick." She targeted that inner pit bull toward Obama, mocking his prior position as "community organizer" because after all, a community organizer helps low-income people, in poor urban communities stand up for their rights. Translation: That's not a real job! Those people are worthless!

She has also been described as having a fragile ego, allegedly dismissing people from jobs they've held for a substantial period of time, for offending her.

Is she the Antichrist? From what we know so far, on a scale from one to ten, ten indicating the "Beast" Ms. Palin rates a three.

Beast Ratings:
George W. Bush ******
Erik D. Prince ********
Sarah Palin ***

Read more...

Biden and Obama, Charisma, Inc.

Finally, a clear picture emerges. No bias here...OK, maybe, just a little, considering Joe Biden, was my first choice for President.

Barack Obama's choice of running mate reveals something very important about his character, that he is not afraid of being challenged. In his owns words, "I want somebody who is going to be able to challenge my thinking and not simply be a yes person when it comes to policy- making." Undoubtedly, Joe Biden will voice his opinion loud and clear.

Charisma -- je ne sais quoi - "I know that I do not know" -- although hard to define, is the ability to convey two opposite qualities or contradictory impulses -- strength and vulnerability, grandeur and humility etc. -- at the same time according to Joseph Roach, author of the book, It and Professor of Theater and English at Yale University.

From the few times that I've been in the presence of Joe Biden, he comes across larger than life. He relates easily to people, with tremendous charisma and a commanding presence. However, as most of us know, he doesn't mince words when he is fired up about something. He has this uncanny ability to be brutally honest and direct, but at the same time seems to intuitively sense the needs of others, conveying a sincere interest in their welfare.

Charisma, in and of itself is neither good nor bad. In fact, encountering charisma should trigger our suspicions as it can often camouflage sociopathic tendencies... think Ted Bundy. Thankfully, Ted Bundy is a freak of nature, but that doesn't mean we should not be very careful, especially when we do not know much about the person's history. This is the reason, Obama raises red flags in some people's minds, including my own. What do we know about him? Not much.

On the other hand, Joe Biden has been around "forever".
We know he's not perfect...far from it. Between his admitted plagiarism back in 1987, and his "support" of the bankruptcy bill, I posted about previously,

...Joe Biden resides in one of the only states ... every single credit card issuer incorporates in the state of Delaware, making it almost impossible to totally ignore their greedy demands...
As we all know, decisions are not always as clear cut as they appear. One must give priority to certain factors over others, weighing the pros and cons of each one and then incorporate what they've discovered to make a final decision that will hopefully support their overall agenda or goal...
He knew voting against the bill would make no difference to the outcome; he was pretty sure he would enter the 2008 Presidential race; he knew that foreign affairs is a critical issue to our future; and he knew his expertise in this area is far superior to all of the other candidates. Voting against the bill may have accomplished nothing more than to kill his political career at a time when his knowledge and leadership is invaluable to America.

we know the guy has flaws.

Nevertheless, Joe Biden's path has not been an easy one. At the age of 29-years old, in 1972, one month after winning his first Senate election -- the youngest man ever elected to the Senate -- his wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident, and his two young sons hospitalized. Biden never abandoned his responsibility to his country nor his family. He made the decision to commute by train from Wilmington DE to Washington DC and has continued to do so for the last 35-years. He drives an economical car (I saw it) and just a few years ago, he was listed at the bottom of a list ranking personal wealth amongst current senators. The Republicans will have a hard time pinning an elitist label on Biden.

There is no doubt that Joe Biden truly complements Barack Obama in more ways than one. He has the credentials in foreign affairs and national security that Obama lacks as he has served three times as the head of the Senate's Foreign Relations committee. He In addition, his son Beau Biden will start an army tour of duty in Iraq, October 3.

Most importantly, we know Joe Biden tries to learn from his mistakes, is open minded enough to incorporate new knowledge and information, and tries very hard to make decisions, right or wrong, based on solid principles and a love for his country rather than a love of wealth, power, status etc. As far as politicians go, Joe Biden tops the list regarding integrity.

Read more...

Obama or McCain? Forcing a False Perspective.

Partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation is unavoidable whether you are a journalist, blogger, anchor, teacher, bartender, doctor, lawyer, etc., because, above all else, we are human and human beings, by nature, are incredibly biased. That said, as one commenter pointed out in response to my last post comparing John McCain and President Bush, I overlooked an important fact. I failed to mention Economist Mark Zandi, author of Financial Shock, who is now advising John McCain and, unlike Phil Graham, Mark Zandi seems to know what he's talking about.

So, now that McCain has severed ties with Phil Graham, one of the creators of the current financial crisis, my main reason for crossing him off my list, and since I found out Barak Obama believes in capital punishment for child rape, a result of defective thinking, judgment, etc., in my estimation, blurring my view of both candidates. My lack of confidence in both candidates may factor into my tendency to show a bias toward Obama, against McCain -- # of anti McCain posts far out# anti Obama posts -- because vilifying one over the other makes it much easier to choose. However, just as optical illusion can be employed in photography, film making and architecture to force a certain perspective on the viewer, by creating a villain, we can force a false perspective on ourselves in order to avoid the discomfort of ambiguity.

Although, I believe my last post is "truthful" in a general sense, McCain does not seem to covet the stubborn mindset of President Bush, very important to the point I was trying to make when comparing the two. If McCain surrounds himself with credible economists, and does the best he can to educate himself, it could very well compensate for his ignorance in that area. Paradoxically, McCain's lack of conviction regarding the economy may prove beneficial in the long run as he may be more flexible and better able to digest the degree of bias an expert might have.

Overall, Obama is my choice right now, however, with a little more clarity...

Read more...

Please Deprive Us Mr. McCain.

Mr. McCain, reportedly not in the "code of silence" as previously thought, thus prepared for Rev. Rick Warren's questions, when appearing on his forum Saturday night, should have come up with better answers.

In particular, when Mr. McCain was asked how he defines "rich". He was reluctant to answer at first, saying instead, that some of the richest people he knows "are the most unhappy."

What's he trying to say? The less "rich" we are the better off we are. Is he trying to sugarcoat what's to come? Sounds somewhat ominous to me...

"It should come as no surprise that John McCain believes the cutoff for the rich begins at $5 million. It may explain why his tax plan gives a $600,000 tax cut to the richest 0.1 percent of earners but completely leaves out 101 million hardworking American families," Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

Apparently, Mr. McCain does not understand that hard WORKING American families are not only far from "rich", that they are doing without essentials such as childcare, health insurance, nutritious food, transportation etc. telling us we're better off without these essential items? Does struggling to thrive or survive build character? Does struggling to thrive or survive make people realize what's really important? Sure it does! But what does that have to do with the price of milk, oil and the like?

Could it be that Mr. McCain's response to what he considers "rich" -- 'Some of the richest people he knows are the most unhappy' -- could be translated as it only seems like we're the fortunate ones.. So, while more than half the population is learning what's really "important", the microcosm of wealth -- the richest 0.1 percent of earners -- he and his family associate with, will "suffer" the deprivation of this "valuable" lesson of priority and the building of character. Is that what he's trying to say? Well, if that's the case, please deprive the rest of us, as well!

When such a large percentage of the population go without what's already been established as necessary to thrive, it becomes easier and easier to imagine the transformation of the United States from the highest form of civilization into something more in line with a much lower form.

This is more like it.:

On the other hand, he said, someone with $150,000 in annual income can be considered middle-class or even poor, depending on where they live, and should receive a tax cut.-- Barak Obama

Let's face it. McCain just doesn't understand economics enough to elect him President of the largest economy on earth. This is not a third world country...yet.

Read more...

Increasing Surveillance in the Name of Freedom

Firstly, let's figure out what we have the freedom to do in the United States. Do we have the freedom to say anything we want? Do we have the freedom to earn, shop, spend and consume? Do we have the freedom to be indifferent, to love, hate and breed? Do we have the freedom to think, play, work, and worship? Do we have the freedom to to steal, kill, lie, and cheat? Do we have the freedom to live the American dream, pursue happiness, health, wealth and justice?
All of the above? None of the above?

Universally, I would check "none of the above". After all, all citizens are not granted, relatively speaking, all of the aforementioned freedoms. Our "freedoms" are bestowed incrementally, based on wealth, power, status, race, religion, sexuality, gender etc. Assuming a distribution of freedom(s) exist, ranging from "none of the above" (totally disenfranchised American) to "all of the above" (Bush, Cheney), most people reading this blog would probably find themselves closer to the "Bush Cheney" end of the spectrum...however, maybe not for long.

President Bush's “They hate us for our freedoms!” rhetoric makes sense as he himself and those who travel in his circle seem mostly exempt from external control of any kind. However, could it be that all his "freedom" talk is intentional? Perhaps, in an effort to distract us from the blood curdling scream emanating from the "pot" marked liberty...the "pot" he is gradually bringing to a boil, in hopes that the people liberty serves to protect are too stupid to realize.

“Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. -- President George W. Bush, during an address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American people, United States Capitol, Washington, DC, September 20, 2001.

"See, we love—we love freedom. That's what they didn't understand. They hate things; we love things. They act out of hatred; we don't seek revenge, we seek justice out of love." -- Oklahoma City, Aug. 29, 2002

"This is a nation that loves our freedom, loves our country." -- Washington, D.C, May 17, 2002

It's clear the Bush Administration is redefining liberty in the context of defense and security. Briefly, they are taking away our civil liberties in order to preserve what our founding fathers intended, the right for all men to be free. Their generosity knows no bounds as any potential "gold-mine" could become the target of their anti-liberty tactics to spread freedom.

Currently, the U.S. and the European Union are negotiating a "binding international agreement" regarding the transatlantic sharing of personal information; however, privacy and legal issues may prevent President Bush from signing this legislation into law before the end of his term. Europeans believe there are not enough safeguards against the possibility of the use of their personal data for reasons other than international security, not to mention, the lack of reliable procedures in place when people face the consequences laid out in the agreement in error.

Even more disturbing is Obama's sudden support of the FISA bill, a bill he promised to filibuster if necessary in the democratic primaries. More on him later.

"Nationalizing standards for drivers' licenses and birth certificates, and linking them together via a national database, creates a national ID system pure and simple."
-- Ron Paul

Read more...

What About the Children? Obama? McCain?

Check out Louisiana.

OK, let's forget for a moment that allowing capital punishment for child rape is unconstitutional and "a disproportionately severe punishment for a crime where the victim is not killed", as the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision yesterday. Let's forget that the testimony of children has been found to be unreliable as children are easily persuaded by others and have not yet developed a strong enough sense of who they are to stand up for themselves or others who may be wrongly accused. Let's forget that state sanctioned execution is premeditated murder, pure and simple. Let's focus on the child.

Child rape is an egregious crime against innocence and no doubt, scars the child for life. The road to recovery for that child will be extremely challenging and a burden no one should have to carry into adulthood. Statistics show that the person most likely to commit this crime may be the child's parent, sibling, or another significant individual in the child's life. Now, not only is this child traumatized by someone violating the very essence of who he or she is, they will carry the oppressive "guilt" of feeling "responsible" for the death of another human being, if what those in favor of capital punishment for child rape develops a national consensus.
Not every child will feel guilty, however, it is well known that children oftentimes blame themselves for the behavior of adults or situations or events, they, in reality, have no control.

Nothing is more important than getting this type of crime reported and the crime of child rape is already underreported. If it is ruled that capital punishment is an option for people convicted of child rape, the reporting of child rape could all but disappear except in rare circumstances, putting children at a much higher risk of the perpetrator striking over and over again, possibly to the point of killing that child. Can you imagine how a child, just raped by someone he or she knows, and possibly loves, would feel knowing that that person could be put to death if he or she told someone? In addition, the adult responsible for the child may choose not to go to the authorities especially if the other adult responsible is a spouse, brother, sister, grandparent etc.

If everything aforementioned is true and it is, why do both presidential candidates disagree with the Supreme Court decision striking down the death penalty for child rapists? Do they really give a damn about the welfare of children or the Constitution? If anything both candidates, especially Obama, should be trying to curb the use of capital punishment as it has been proven over and over again not to deter crime, is more expensive and unfair, as it seems only to apply to people who can't afford justice, people of color being the main recipient. As Justice Kennedy pointed out the final analysis must be determined by the Supreme Court, "applying evolving standards of decency".

Republican John McCain called the ruling "an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime.” Democrat Barack Obama said there should be no blanket prohibition of the death penalty for the rape of children if states want to apply it in those cases.

Just when I was starting to feel good about supporting Obama...

Read more...