Except for the American Indian, everyone in American is from somewhere else and even the American Indian once migrated across a strip of open land that once linked Alaska with Eastern Siberia.

Skip the race thing, the gender thing and all the novel trivia that young people are fascinated by with this election.

How do either of the candidates actually represent themselves on the major issues?

This should be our concern…

Websites like the one listed below could ultimately determine why more and more Democrats will defect to John McCain’s camp. Unfortunately, there is little about Obama that a website like this says that can be argued with…that is, unless you’ve flunked Philosphy 101 in college or never got to college in the first place.

Check it out: http://www.chilkootmarketing.com/index.htm What can be done?

Sooner or later all of us have to reckon with our consience and our higher intellectual powers and when this happens we will be invariably forced to choose between our higher principles or a particular candidate.

Which candidate is traveling down the wrong road with this?

Which do you think is going to win out?

Our higher principles or the intellectual and physical attributes of a particular candidate?

Predictably, older voters will vote in favor of their ‘principles’…obviously, because they are more concerned about what happens after death and the legacy they will leave behind.

The younger voters (in contrast), since they have more time left in life to recant, are more likely to be reckless and prograstinate with principle in favor of ‘idealism’.

These are the young and youthful voters that Obama appeals to and also why a lot of us older folks see Obama as ‘the Pied Piper of the niave’.

However, (which is the next question to beg itself): ‘When does Barack’s own conscience begin to bother him?’

Personally, I think Obama needs to start thinking about what he can do to ‘remake’ his image if he wants to win this election.

I’m not sure that he’ll want to be that person he’s beginning to look like against John McCain…who today represents everything that America stands for.

BUT, if Obama thinks he can win going the way he’s headed, then let him go for it.

But, as for me and many like me who still sit on the fence until election time in November, we’ll still be thinking that we’ll have to live with ourselves long after this election is over in November and maybe these are the thoughts that the new young voters haven’t considered yet…and there’s still a lot that can happen between now and November…

And, this probably means that Obama faces a huge political swamp ahead…one that he has created for himself by already being impetuous on some very important issues.

I distinctly remember Clinton using “Change” as his key campaigning hook in 1992. Plus ca change…

RE “My belief on conspiracy theories is that the world is too disorganized to conspire. Fuckups are far more likely.”

Do you support a recount to determine if an accidental computer mistake produced the wrong totals?

B. The world has seen many female leaders (even though most of them, like Hillary, are either spouses or daughters of successful leaders) but never, except for India, seen an ethnic minority elected to the highest office.

C. You’re right, the voters are going with who they think will do the best job, and that’s why those who believe in “change”, especially the young, love Obama. His very election will shake up this nation, and the world, in ways that are difficult to predict but apparent just because of where he comes from and who he is.

Sure it is and obviously it is an important media event, too. But you have to admit that the ‘change’ slogan really got you somehwat worked up. Interestingly, Bill Clinton had the same slogan in 1992 (it is just that most people have forgotten about that by now). Taken from Wikipedia:

“In order to keep the campaign on message, Carville hung a sign in Bill Clinton’s Little Rock campaign headquarters with the following three points:

1. Change vs. more of the same
2. The economy, stupid
3. Don’t forget health care.

Although the sign was intended for an internal audience of campaign workers, the phrase [The economy, stupid] became something of a slogan for the Clinton election campaign. Clinton’s campaign used the recession to successfully unseat George H.W. Bush, whose approval ratings had been in the 80% range one year prior.”

You’ve got the racist narrative wrong. Hillary did not WIN because of racism. Obama LOST. It’s not the same thing. People told the pollsters they would vote for Obama because they wanted to be viewed by the questioner as unbiased. But in the privacy of the voting booth they didn’t have that concern and didn’t vote for the minority. If it wasn’t Hillary running against him, it would have been the other leading candidate who won because of racism.

How much is the Hillary campaign paying you?

In precincts that used Diebold Accuvote scanners to count the votes, whether they be large, medium, or small, Hillary got a LOT higher percentage of the vote than in precincts that counted the votes by hand. In fact, if you look at the hand-counted precincts only, Obama won.

Same thing happened on the GOP side. Romney got a LOT higher vote in precincts Diebold Accuvote was used, although it wasn’t enough to change the results.

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS

I don’t have any legal standing to formally ask for a recount; I don’t live in New Hampshire, and I’m registered as a Republican, anyway, but honest elections are imperative in a democracy. Stealing an election is treason.