quote:

ORIGINAL: atursvcMaam

   i stopped seeking additional "truth" after having run across this little bit.  Fully in context i was a bit horrified.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/16/fact-check-did-obama-vote-against-care-for-children-born-during-abortions/
   if you don't like my source, then check it in the illinois senate record, or google it however you might like.
   i understand, and respect his reasoning as not wanting to interfere with Roe V Wade.  i have lived through choice, and was happy to have choices available, but, having voted against such legislation, and then saying life decisions are "above his pay grade" http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-abortion-is-above-my-pay-grade  leaves me uncomfortable enough to vote for someone else, and to watch what he says elsewhere with wiggle room to use at a future date.
     i have always listened very carefully when someone gives conditional answers.  After all, words do have meanings. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: atursvcMaam

http://toddmclauchlin.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-supports-live-birth-abortion-or.html
 i did not edit out the "spin", i realize that it is a loaded topic, but please do read the highlighted, quoted congressional testimony of a nurse, who apparently had some involvement in such procedures.  i agree, both context and substance matter.

quote:



...In contrast, Barack Obama, remember, promised that he would accept both public funding and the limitations that went along with it, and would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." Then in June 2008, Obama abruptly reneged, bowing out entirely from government financing, the first presidential nominee in the general election to do that since the system was created in 1976.

Obama has now raised over $600 million, by far the largest campaign chest in American political history. In many states he enjoys a four-to-one advantage in campaign funding -- most telling in his scheduled eleventh-hour, 30-minute specials that will not be answered by the publicly financed and poorer McCain campaign.

The story that the media chose to ignore was not merely the Obama about-face on public financing, or even the enormous amounts of money that he has raised -- some of it under dubious circumstances involving foreign donors, prepaid credit cards, and false names. Instead, they were absolutely quiet about a historic end to liberal support for public financing.

For all practical purposes, public financing of the presidential general election is now dead. No Republican will ever agree to it again. No Democrat can ever again dare to defend a system destroyed by Obama. All future worries about the dangers of big money and big politics will fall on deaf ears.

Surely, there will come a time when the Democratic Party, whether for ethical or practical reasons, will sorely regret dismantling the very safeguards that for over three decades it had insisted were critical for the survival of the republic.

Imagine the reaction of the New York Times or the Washington Post had John McCain renounced his promise to participate in public campaign financing, proceeded instead to amass $600 million and outraise the publicly financed Barack Obama four-to-one, and begun airing special 30-minute unanswered infomercials during the last week of the campaign.

http://www.aina.org/news/2008103114913.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: atursvcMaam

The question becomes, then, how long will he talk, qualify, and propose agreements before he realizes that no one else seems to be on the same page?