Every day there is a letter here telling us to be worried about Obama, or not to buy into him, or he's bad at this and that, or something like similar. How bout instead of continually telling us what's wrong with Obama, how about giving us an option? Telling us something right about someone else! These are just like McCain ads- always talking about Obama, never talking about himself. Makes me think McCain is an empty suit if there's nothing to say about him.

I wonder why Allan South did not back up even one of his accusations with quotes, facts, references, or anything.

I also wonder why the D-News would publish a letter that makes these kind of accusations with zero support.

Why do the same type of wacked out ditto heads, keep getting their letters put into the opinion page of the Deseret News? At least these people could be original, thoughtful or show some common sense, but instead we get the same old line of unsubstantiated nonsense. By the way Alan, how is he going to disregard the constitution? you do realize, Alan, that he was a constitutional law professor at one of the top law schools in the nation, the U of Chicago. So I am just going to throw this out there, I think he is probably more familiar with the constitution than you, or John McCain.

The Dnews allowed your comments without any support. Most of the drivel here is unsubstatiated and usually from the uneducated.

Isn't Obama a Constitutional lawyer? How can the writer claim that Obama will somehow damage the constitution when he's built his educational career around the very document, its principles, and laws/court cases connected with it? It will be refreshing to have an administration who actually understands and adheres to the Constitution as opposed to what we have today!

And four more years of John McCain will get us out of this mess? That's four more years of warmongering, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, etc., etc. In short, four more years of George W. Bush, which this country can't handle.

'disrespect for the constitution'?
If you're describing the current prez then you would be accurate.
How has Obama done this?

I don't buy it. I see genuine hope in Obama, and will vote accordingly.

We've seen too many lawyers who study the constitution and laws, not to uphold and support them, but to find ways around them. Oliver Wendel Holmes once said, "The young men know the rules, but the old men know the exceptions." If BO taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, we need to be that much more fearful of his ability to circumvent the constitution as he should be more familiar with the document and court precedent allowing ways around it. The comments in support of BO made me aware of another reason why I should vote against him.

Unfortunately the main alternative is not that attractive, but we have a choice of voting for something not good or something dangerously awful.

"disrespect for the constitutional law of the land"

What? As if the present administration or McCain himself had any respect for it! But Obama is far more dedicated to the principles in that "piece of paper" than George Bush (either one!) ever even thought of being.

Anonymous | 7:02 a.m. - >>I see genuine hope in Obama, and will vote accordingly.<<

B. Hussein Obama's genuine hope is that he will get elected president so he can appoint Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, and/or Lewis Farrakhan to cabinet positions. And maybe even William Ayers. These are his close and trusted long-time friends.

You said ". . . we have a choice of voting for something not good or something dangerously awful." I agree. McCain is "something dangerously awful" and must be defeated for the good of this country. While I don't like Obama, I find McCain infinitely worse.

The writer is correct.

Obama is a genuine lightweight. He is inexperienced and unqualified. The man is a socialist and the most far-left member of the U.S. Senate. His patriotism is also highly questionable. He won't even put his hand over his heart while the National Anthem plays. That alone should give people a lot of concern.

To Lost in DC: You are clearly someone with education, experience and understanding of politics. Unlike, many who write on these blogs, you actually know what you are talking about. Keep up the good work.

My main concern about Obama are his ideas concerning marriage and abortion. Only those who are against marriage between a man and a woman being the law of the land and abortion on demand should support Obama.

As for the question "are we better off than we were four years ago", the past four years have been on the watch of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. If you want four more years of this, then vote for Obama and any other Democrat. No matter what a politician says, when it comes to voting records, he will vote with his own party the majority of the time.

Cats,

You've lost all credibility by yanking out that phony National Anthem bit. You probably also think he's a muslim?

The recent NYT article on McCain demonstrates his alignment with Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. That's precisely the kind of "experience" that will drive this country into the ground.

A vote for McCain is a vote for Cold War II.

The best argument for the election of Barack Obama is McCain himself. McCain is a part of the Military/Industrial complex who's goal for the United States is endless war.

What's sad is that all of the Obama supporters on these pages are truly oblivious to Obama's positions.

You are asking those opposed to Obama to give you information and examples of what they are talking about.

If you don't know your own candidates positions on issues they you are completely just sucked in by the Bush Derangement Syndrome. There truly is no other explanation.

Read up on his anti-2nd Amendment stance; his desire to let babies who make it through a botched abortion die on the table; his #1 liberal ranking in the Senate and the votes associated with it; his tax everyone to provide "free" stuff for everyone philosophy; his repeal DOMA stance; etc. etc.

While I'm not a McCain fan at all, I find it interesting that liberals and the media don't see that McCain has consistently reached across the aisle and worked with Dems on legislation. I'm not a fan of those pieces of legislation but at least McCain has done what everyone wishes - bipartisanship.

Remove the BDS from your eyes and open your minds to take in the truth about your candidate. Talk about a group of people who are sheep....hope....change...hope...change...hope...change...hope...change

Sameol' sameol'

*Squaakk* Obama wont put his hand over his heart or wear a flag pin *squaakk*
I didnt know parrots could type.

Grandma Jean: you ought to spend more time reading up on current events and less time on religious magazines. Your facts are wrogng: "the past four years have been on the watch of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats".

Nancy Pelosi has been Speaker of the House since January 2007, nineteen months ago, not four years ago. The Republicans had Congressional majorities since 1994, except for a period in 2001-2 when Sen. Jeffords defected from the Republican party and Tom Daschle served as Senate Majority Leader with a one-vote margin (50-49-1). Democrats are back in control of the Senate since January 2007, with a whopping 51-49 margin.

Amazingly, you never mention Bush once in your diatribe. Seems to me you would vote for him again in a heartbeat. Fortunately, you are part of a shrinking minority of American opinion and are no longer mainstream.

Personally, I prefer Obama's charlatans and carpetbaggers to McCain's . . . or Bush's, for that matter. If you read the list of people on Obama's advisory council, it is truly impressive.

Hi Charles,

Can you back up any of your claims in your 4th paragraph? You've got the 2nd amendment wrong, the abortion issue WAY wrong, his tax position COMPLETELY wrong, etc. etc.

Obama has always supported gun ownership rights with sensible regulation. Your claim about his abortion stance is not only wildly wrong, but offensive. He answered your claim, forcefully, on television just last night. Obama opposes DOMA because he things states should be free to define marriage; he opposes gay marriage and favors domestic partnership laws (actually, his position mirrors quite closely the position outlined last week by the LDS church).

You've also got McCain wrong about bipartisanship. Last year McCain's votes supported the Bush position 90% of the time. This year McCain's votes have supported the Bush position 95% of the time.

You're entitled to your own opinion, Charles, but not your own facts.

People of the earth - attention!!
B. Hussein Obama is a muslim, socialist, and is left-handed!! You know that if elected president he will put all his leftist liberal cronies into office, take away your guns, fistbump other heads of state and eat your firstborn. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Allan, Fred, Lost in D.C., cats - this is how you are perceived. Follow the example of Thomas, perhaps - give some thought, use some references or examples.

I say again . . . those of you (Ernest, etc.) who believe that Pres. Bush has gone against the Constitution, my challenge still remains. Write an article with citations, sources, bibliograpy, etc., that outlines your accusations. I still see the accusations without substantiation. I still challenge the DNews to publish that letter, when it comes in.

The term carpetbaggers was used to describe the white northern Republican politicians who came South, arriving with their travel carpetbags.

The fearmongering continues, standard ditto head talking points in this one other then throwing in the term carpetbagger and using it incorrectly.

Who started the "Obama will eat your baby" line anyway? Whoever it was showed they are able to set some hooks deep in the minds of many who read or listened to it. I hear numerous frothing at the mouth liberals quoting it almost everyday here.

This line is getting old to me, but some seem to think they are being original by using it. I hope they can come up with a better less over the top one for the future. Like maybe dealing with some statements Obama detractors have ACTUALLy said, instead of making up such obsurd straw-man satements. This making up statements that are way out on the ludicrus extreme doesn't help the conversation, it poisons it.

Murray Dad - attention: Obama was given little to start out with in life. He has made much of it. McCain was given much and done little. Would a "poor student" (his words) have gotten into the Naval Academy without Dad and Grandpa being Admirals? Being given a free pass, what does he do? Graduate fourth from the bottom of a class of 900! So this is the right Presidential "stuff"? Or are you still talking about Mighty Mitt??

I love the way these far-left bloggers start screaming that you have "lost all credibility" when you are laying out facts they just don't want to hear.

I have never at any time claimed that Obama is a Muslim. He is a Christian. I actually think he's a nice guy. However, there's just no dispute that his resume is VERY THIN. He is very far left and very weak on national security. He has never even sponsored (let alone passed) one significant piece of legislation. Not even the Democrats in the Senate would dispute that. His only other experience in the state legislature is light years of difference from serving as a governor which is an executive position.

as someone with a lot of professional experience in Washington, unlike most people on this blog, I actually do have some idea what I am talking about.

McCain was not my first choice for President. However, given the alternative, I have no choice but to support him since he is a leader, strong on national security, pro-life, opposed to tax increases and is vastly more experienced and qualified than Obama.

Thank goodness you nasty, far-left people aren't actually in charge of anything.

This message board is full of people who have made up thier minds and will not be swayed one way or the other. Pretty pointless.

Curious in California, you will note that in January 2007, when queen nancy and clown prince harry took over control, the economy was doing well. They've been very effective in only 19 months in bringing everything down, haven't they?

I'm also curious why you mention Bush in your diatribe. He's not up for re-election. Obviously you have a bad case of what Charles called Bush Derangement Syndrome. It's too bad it's clouded your view of everything else.

Murray Dad, I'm sorry I have so confused you with my comments. While it is true that BO has been ranked by partisan and non-partisan groups alike as being the most liberal member of congress, I have never disparaged Islam by saying he was a muslim. Nor did I accuse him of cannabalism. Will he surrender US sovereignty, place elitists and extremists in powerful positions, and work against the protections provided by the 2nd amendment? I believe he will, and therefore I believe he is a dangerously awful choice, as opposed to McCain, who is just not good.

@Bear Rug.

The United States Supreme Court ruled against the Bush Administration in Hamdan v. U.S., holding in part that the attempt to strip courts of jurisdiction over such cases was improper.

A Federal judge in Detroit found Bush's wiretapping unconstitutional. The appeals court dismissed based on lack of standing. It did not reach the constitutional issue.

There are other cases if you're interested.

Cats,

Again, you make these wild claims that are just not true. Obama's success in the Senate is actually quite impressive -- he's been busier than McCain. He worked successfully on a bipartisan effort to secure loose and black-market nukes. He spearheaded the successful effort to create stronger congressional ethics laws. He successfully pushed through legislation to create a database of all recipients of government grants and contracts in order to get rid of the no-bid contract waste that has blown so much taxpayer money under Bush. He pushed through legislation to protect veteran benefits and stop the national shame of homeless vets.

I could go on, but this handful of examples is sufficient to demonstrate that you simply don't know what you're talking about. Anyone with a mind to can look up his legislative record on the web. It's easy. Why didn't you do so before you shot off at the mouth?

McCain strong on national security? He doesn't even know the difference between Sunni and Shia! And his tax policies will only continue to benefit the righest of the rich. And according to McCain last night, you're only "rich" if you make $5 million!

You give pathetic voice to the masses of terrified Republicans. What are you so afraid of? A black president? You'd better get used to the idea. You wouldn't be so terrified if you didn't know Obama was going to win this election.

Grimble,

In the comments I read from Obama he said he disagreed with the SCOTUS decision in the DC case. Maybe he clarified them somewhere, but the initial reports I saw said he was disappointed in the decision.

As for DOMA, you agree, he is against it and wants to repeal it and now wants to leave it to the states. Funny, the reason DOMA was approved was to stop renegade states actions being forced on other states who disagreed with it by appeal to SCOTUS; in the vein of abortion.

I'm spot on with the assessment of Obama's abortion stance. You just need to look at his Illinois legislative record to understand it. Boxer, Feinstein and Billary don't even agree with his stance on that issue.

If all of Obama's tax requests go through, we will be effectively taxed at over 50%. He wants to tax capital gains at a higher rate to make it fair for everyone. How many poor people do you know have capital gains? Straw man argument from Obama.

The facts are there Grimble; you just need a different news source.

Obama was a flop last night. Morals/religion/virtures...Obama has none. He hates America!

The first paragraph of my post was satirical -

Mr. South -- Why do make derogatory statements against Obama and not back them up? Not one as to why you think the way you do. I say your statements are lies -- the same type of lies we hear from 'maverick' McCain and have been hearing from 'W' for way too long.
You are correct in stating we are truly in a mess. You fail to mention, however, that this mess is due to your leader, "W". Hopefully you understand that.

Fred,
You're blowing smoke about potential cabinet members of the forthcoming Barack H. Obama administration. The middle name isn't scary, by the way.

Obama believes marriage is to be between a man and a woman (I know that for a fact, he's said so), I'm also sure he would rather not have a baby aborted... where you might be confused is in the fact that he supports the freedom to choose to do these things. Supporting everyone's right to choose to do them doesn't mean he supports the acts themselves. Free agency is something everyone should have and he's supporting that.

Charles resorts to the conservative tool of final resort. "He hates America!"

Now I'm really sacred.

Once people spread lies about my Mormon ancestors. There where people who though Mormons had horns.

Today, I LDS owned paper is trying to show Obama's horns.

Charles:

I have looked at Obama's history on the abortion issue. You've got it flat out wrong. You're utterly misconstruing his stated position and his legislative history. Just because you keep saying stuff doesn't mean it's true, bro.

And I think you must have been on the same meds as Cindy McCain and Rush Limbaugh when you came up with those tax numbers. Under McCain's plan, people making over 2.9 million a year will get a tax break of $269,000 while working class people will get a tax break of a whopping $113. Under Obama's plan, EVERYONE making less than $227,000 a year will get a substantial tax break. My source is the analysis from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Where'd you get your numbers?

And you forfeited any remaining shred of credibility with your cheap closing shot about Obama hating America and having no morals. That's simply baseless namecalling.

(And yes, please, if you want to get into a discussion of Obama's personal morals vs. McCain's, go ahead. I'll call up McCain's first wife and we can have a conference call...)

Grimble | 8:57 a.m. -

"You probably also think he's a Muslim?'

When asked at the Saddleback questioning if there's evil in the world today B. Hussein Obama never did refer to the number one evil... Muslim fundamentalist terrorists. You know, the guys who took down our twin towers, and their friends who are responsible for dozens of terrorist bombings throughout the world and threatens more of the same. This is the real evil of the day. B. Hussein says he's not Muslim but his (lack of) response seems to indicate otherwise.

dogs | 9:37 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008

"*Squaakk* Obama wont put his hand over his heart or wear a flag pin *squaakk* I didn't know parrots could type."

Your post tends to prove otherwise.

HeyFred 12:29 p.m.:

"Fred, You're blowing smoke about potential cabinet members of the forthcoming Barack H. Obama administration."

Why run the risk?

"The middle name isn't scary, by the way."

The entire name is scary... as is the man.

To Fred- "the entire name is scary" - what a joke!
Not voting for someone because they have a "scary" name reflects how uneducated, ignorant, narrow minded and backwards one is, just like most of the sheep that express the same.

Shocking, another anti Obama forum letter, the DN can't go a day without printing one filled with no facts aimed at a bunch of scared repug's.

Grimble...Obama was the only state senator to object to the legislation that would prevent babies who lived through botched abortions to receive medical care; the only one!

Yes it was the Tax Policy Center that had Obama's effective tax rate at just over 50%.

Obama has no morals; just listen to his answers inbetween all the um's and uh's. Anyone with a moral stance would be able to spit it out without a tele-prompter. Your boy Obama, can't speak a coherent thought on his own.

And yes, Obama blames America for the world's problems. again, one just has to listen to him speak. The answer to the 7 year old girl was parallel to Michelle's "this is a downright mean country" comment. And then his comments at Saddleback reiterate his disdain for America, the military, and citizens wanting to defend themselves.

Liberals like to blame America for everything. You can't deny it because there are too many sources. Read what your candidate says. You obviously agree or you'd be saying, "wow, that's not really true" to almost anything he spews forth.

The facts are out there for you to see and hear. You just choose to ignore them. Typical lib.

Murray Dad | 10:13 a.m.:

"People of the earth - attention!! B. Hussein Obama is a muslim, socialist, and is left-handed!! You know that if elected president he will put all his leftist liberal cronies into office, take away your guns, fistbump other heads of state and eat your firstborn. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Allan, Fred, Lost in D.C., cats - this is how you are perceived. Follow the example of Thomas, perhaps - give some thought, use some references or examples."

Give some thought? Use some references? You've supplied enough in your post.

This July McCain spoke before the NAACP.

A few things come to mind:

Who called whose bluff here?

I've never heard the phrase 'you people' uttered with such conviction.

That's a good start. Now he should address all of the black people who aren't in the NAACP. Which is most black people.

Re: wrz
Replace the word "muslim" with the word "mormon" and make the same arguement. To be a muslim is no different than being protestant, jewish, or mormon. No better, no worse.
I vote for the person, not the party, not the religion not the skin color, not the shoe size.

Name | 3:39 p.m. -

"'To Fred- 'the entire name is scary''- what a joke!
Not voting for someone because they have a "scary" name reflects how uneducated, ignorant, narrow minded and backwards one is..."

Who's saying the scary name is the reason to not vote for B. Hussein Obama? There's more, much more. Murray's 10:13 second paragraph lists a lot of it.

Senator McCain always appears to be a man who is about to go postal.

This is indeed the perfect candidate for the modern American conservative movement of crazies.

I find BO's position on DOMA, as stated above in another post, to be disingenuous. If he truly wants the individual states to be able to define marriage, why does he favor repealing the federal act that was intended to assure their ability to do so?

Murray Dad, I am having a hard time finding this "thomas" you are referring to. I guess Oliver Wendell (sp?) Holmes isn't a good enough reference? I'm sorry if your disagreement with my position causes you to misinterpret my position or causes you to infer vitriol where none is intended.