http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9LbLxja4UHY&NR=1
I am glad Colin Powell spoke out on something many people were feeling about the negative campaigning and the suggestion that Obama was associating himself with a terrorist, I thought it was a scheme by McCain's people to make americans feel insecured about homeland security.
Open Forum
Free speech
In reply to KaWai:
Powell in Iraq
www.a101avn.org/ a4101avn.htm
If you ask me ... that is not POWELL speaking out ! ... that is POWELL trying to save his own face .... of what there is still left to save ... read his political 'reputation' and new found 'courage ' ...:)
Are people supposed to be glad to hear him talking NOW ...... ? uhmm ... what a great comfort to those American troops who are dead and with his approval of the INVASION !!! ... heroes are not just made of clay or are they ?
In reply to KaWai:
The interesting fact is that NEGATIVE campaign or not .... one thing is ' 100% ' sure .... MONEY ALWAYS TALKS and whoever gets the most .... is the lucky one to ' convince 'us of their 'truth' ... 'ideals '..... and ' vision' ...... so no need to feel angry or dissatisfied just enjoy the ROLLER COASTER because after all the SPIN DOCTORS do always give us what we want when it comes to presenting the TRUTH of each candidate ....... of course there is one catch.... we must be prepare to believe anything blindly even if we know that we are just kidding ourselves ...:
____________________________
US poll expected to be the most expensive ever
• US Presidential Elections 08
October 23, 2008 09
The battle for the White House between Republican John McCain [Images] and Democrat Barack Obama [Images], which has witnessed one of the most acrimonious campaigns, is also expected to be the most expensive ever with over $5 billion estimated to be spent on the election cycle.
As much $5.3 billion is expected to be spent, an amount that is over the Gross Domestic Product of several small countries, but something that neither Senator Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain and all of their colleagues in the House of Representatives and Senate even wince about for a nanosecond.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the presidential race alone is expected to cost $2.4 billion.
According to Sheila Krumholz, the executive director of the CRP, the presidential candidates alone have already raised more than $1.5 billion since the election cycle started in January 2007.
"This is the first time that candidates for the White House have raised and spent more than $1 billion. This year's total is on track to nearly double candidate fundraising in 2004 and triple 2000," Krumholz said in a teleconference.
And for Congress all candidates for the House of Representatives and the Senate have raised more than $1.5 billion, according to data made available as of October 21.
"Weeks before Election Day the 2008 cycle has already surpassed $4.5 billion, $300 million more than the $4.2 billion that had been raised by the conclusion of the 2004 cycle. The overall estimated costs of the 2008 election would represent a 27 per cent increase over the 2004 cycle," Krumholz said making the point that Democrats will have collected 52 per cent more money for their congressional and presidential efforts by the end of this cycle, compared to four years ago.
But Republican fundraising growth, however, has been a meager 2 per cent since 2004.
"This election will blow through historic records on a number of counts. We've marveled for years at the cost of elections, especially during presidential cycles, but this one is the first to cross the $5 billion mark. At the same time, it's encouraging to see more Americans than ever participating in offsetting the traditional dominance of special interests and wealthy donors who might be expecting paybacks. The only payback is a victory on Election Day" the top official of the CRP said.
The breakdown of where the money is coming from is pretty revealing as well with those listing their occupation as "retired" accounting for at least $204 million; lawyers and law firms, $180.9 million; the securities and investment industry, $122.8 million; real estate, $105.5 million, and health professionals $69.6 million.
It is said that business interests account for about 72 per cent of all contributions with ideological, labor and other interests making up the rest.
While lawyers remain strongly in the Democrats' camp and Wall Street favors them, too, some of the other top givers, retirees, real estate and doctors and other health professionals are mostly split at this point between the two major parties.
Democrats have solid support in the number of traditionally supportive industries, of course, including the entertainment industry and among college professors and other educators.
And not surprisingly Republicans count on contributions from the oil and gas, pharmaceutical and manufacturing industries.
Business wise the top corporation in 2008 is once again Goldman Sachs followed by CitiGroup at $4.2 million and JPMorgan Chase & Company at $4.1 million.
The biggest giving industry association is the National Association of Realtors, which has given nearly $3.2 million.
"Wall Street and other industries in the financial sector don't seem to have tightened their belts. No signs of recession in their political giving. Of course, their contributions may be part of a strategy to continue securing government assistance for their businesses as the economy heads further south" the CRP has said.
Interestingly, candidates for Congress in 2008 have spent nearly $95 million from their own pockets to get elected.
"You can't win a seat in Congress without being personally wealthy or knowing a lot of wealthy people who are willing to back you with their money. With Election Day coming up, it's important for candidates and citizens to remember that you can't win without votes, either," Krumholz maintained.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JicZeBkg67A&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MMLclhlj2dQ
OBAMA STRESSES SECURITY POLICY DIFFERENCES WITH McCAIN
From the Editorial Team: In his nomination speech, the Democratic presidential candidate reiterates his commitment to direct diplomacy with Iran and his hawkish position on Pakistan. What do you make of Barack Obama’s security policy positions?
Accepting his party's nomination for president, Barack Obama not only focused on domestic politics, but also reiterated the "fundamental change" he would like to bring to US foreign policy .He promised to "restore America's moral standing in the world" and to "end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan."
He stressed his differences with the Republican nominee: "John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives." .This line drew some of the most enthusiastic applause among the 80,000 supporters in Denver's largest football stadium. Obama wanted to stress his relatively hawkish position on Pakistan: he had earlier promised to run down high-value terrorist targets inside Pakistan even without that government's authorization, i.e., he would violate the sovereignty of a US ally in a unilateral move. American unilateralism has long been criticized by the Europeans. Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, however, has said that US-Afghan-Pakistani cooperation in the war on terror will improve after Musharraf's resignation. See the atlantic-community.org article Pakistan's New Commitment in the War on Terror.
Obama emphasized that strong rhetoric alone is not sufficient: "I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons." He further argued, "you don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances." This line could be interpreted as a response to McCain, who declared "We are all Georgians now" and opposes direct high-level negotiations with Tehran and was even caught singing about bombing Iran.
Obama did not elaborate further on these "oldest alliances" nor did he once mention NATO or Europe in his speech. Instead he indicated "I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease." This might indicate that he is looking beyond Europe for new allies. Senator Obama was criticized for not convening policy meetings as the chairman of the Senate European Subcommittee. Do you think the Atlantic Alliance is less important for Obama than for McCain? Or do you consider Obama an Atlanticist because he visited Germany, France and Britain during his election campaign?
A President Obama would certainly demand more burden-sharing from Europeans. Watch his speech in Berlin and the attendees' reactions in our video interviews. Last week atlantic-community.org started to discuss whether Europe will be able to continue the security policy of free-riding. We invite you to continue to share your views and your policy recommendations.
REF>August 28, 2008
:http://www.atlantic-community.org/index/Open_Think_Tank_Article/
Obama_Stresses_Security_Policy_Differences_with_McCain