OK this is it, the last debate

Wed, 10/15/2008 - 7:46pm
By: Cyclist

So gather around that TV with that popcorn and listen intently for some signal, goof, miscue or whatever that will allow you to make a clear choice. Let the debating begin!

login to post comments | previous forum topic | next forum topic

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 3:40pm.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 4:14pm.

Well, it's no secret that the central part of Pennsylvania just doesn't like Negroes. Wasn't it Karl Rove himself who famously said that Pennsylvania was "Pittsburgh on the left, Philadelphia on the right and Alabama in the middle"?

There is a very moving video HERE by an AFL-CIO vice president who discusses racism in the Ohio-PA-WV area in very direct terms. He is not a great speaker, but his speech is very powerful.

Submitted by Davids mom on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 9:00pm.

Thanks so much for sharing this! It's only by working together as Americans can we begin to recover from the mess we're in. To hang on to 'conservative' values and support the people who have not supported or demonstrated these values is insane. We have to judge by 'deeds' - not labels. Americans had better support the next president of the United States - and work together to restore our economy, world standing, and respect.

Submitted by winby1 on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 8:15am.

Who's respect are you concerned about?? Russia/Iran/S.Korea/Syria/Venez.?? I'm just curious??

meanoldconservatives's picture
Submitted by meanoldconservatives on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 4:40pm.

Wasn't it Karl Rove himself who famously said that Pennsylvania was "Pittsburgh on the left, Philadelphia on the right and Alabama in the middle"?

Was that a rhetorical question, or did Sniffer not bother to look it up, or did he just post another LIE like the fake Sarah Palin SAT scores? Knowing the bs Sniffer loves to post I just did a quick Google search. And guess what??? It was said by someone, but not Karl Rove. And not a Republican. Lookie here, straight from Wikipedia.....

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Democratic political consultant James Carville described Pennsylvania as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between."[4]

Sniffer is full of it

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 7:18pm.

How's the campaign going? I notice you have a habit of pivoting away from the meat of an argument (what was said) and focusing on the tertiary (who said it or how something is spelled). Heck, for a guy who stressed about a blog name in all caps, I can understand, but I've got to ask. What's wrong with your candidate? If he can't run a campaign, how could he think we US Americans would trust him with the country?

ps: You still talk alot about your wealth (which makes me think that is the sum total of your value to this Earth). You might help plumber.... I mean contractor Joe with a 1200 back tax he owes the guberment.


meanoldconservatives's picture
Submitted by meanoldconservatives on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 8:34pm.

I just tried to help you with your spelling "diva", which is noticeably off sometimes and then on again. If you can get somebody to help you go back and read my post, you and your tutor will see that I not only corrected the lie on who said it....I addressed the issue that Sniffer raised. That would be the racism part, in case your tutor leaves you hanging. Pivot on that for a while...

The campaign ain't over yet, even though the boy king is ahead. I can tell you this though....Barry ain't winning on the trust issue. It's the economy, stupid. Whether Barry has conned enough "divas" like you into buying his bs, we'll see soon enough.

Hey, your thinking my wealth is my total value on earth is a pleasant change for you. Nice to see you trying to think. It's a start. It might help you if you weren't playing this weak charade, up in herr.

As much as I'd like to help old Joe, he is on his own with his back taxes. I already support enough "deserving families" with their entitlements, if ya feel me. You're probably even getting some of my tax money.

p.s. You keep watching my habits and paying all that attention to what I talk about and you might learn. It's very flattering that YOU value me that much....just don't become a stalker.

Submitted by skyspy on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 10:22pm.

diva is entertaining: the angry pounce on anyone who...(gasp)....doesn't see the world the way he does,... very familiar....hmmmm Is it mack? sack? tack? Hard to tell.

meanoldconservatives's picture
Submitted by meanoldconservatives on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 7:36am.

See, in old Sack's multiple personality world being a "diva" allows him to "come out". What they hate is when the "facts" they post out here are challenged. They hear things enough, they become "fact". They post them out here, they become "fact". Then, you are only supposed to offer rebuttal to the "fact" they have posted. Don't debunk the accuracy of the "fact", that's being "mean". He even said it himself..."you seem to pivot away from the argument and focus on who said it". The problem is there are people reading this who believe anything they read. The internet is the single greatest bs repellent there is.....

Submitted by jettstream on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 1:23pm.

Diva can you tell me how you know why other side of the trax was banned? What about Beaver, your best friend.

Come by and have coffee, I have been there and done that. I may show up to patch up some things with a person. One never comes. What I like is to look someone in the eye and have them be honest. A kind person there told me how pleasant you are. I need to talk that that kind person when he gets on.

Diva writing styles are hard to change. Meanoldconservatives and other are right with what they say.

Have a nice day being a diva. Hey, and don't be so judgemental when we know.

Really, have a nice day.

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 8:19am.

Look guys. If you want to be coddled and not challenged, hang out with family. If you care to debate ideas and support what you say, it seems odd to always gripe about being challenged SKYSPY. And meanold otherside of trax banned for attacking bloggers and not their ideas, if you're going to gripe about changes of screen names driven by personal attacks to bloggers' employers (milk toast), AT LEAST DO IT UNDER YOUR ORIGINAL PERSONALITY Other_side_trax. You really need to kick back over some coffee with your blogger bros. It's not like someone possessing your fortitude has anything to fear or hide. Right?

meanoldconservatives's picture
Submitted by meanoldconservatives on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 8:46am.

Looks like you got your facts wrong. Shocking!!! I've never been banned here. I only have posted under one other name and that was in relation to my sister dying from cancer. Because it was not politics related. If you want to email Cal, he'll tell you I have two logons with similar email addresses. Those email addresses contain my real name. He won't give you my name, but he can vouch that nobody ever banned me.

You are right about one thing though. The fortitude I possess makes me have no fear or reason to hide. Certainly not from the likes of you....

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 9:05am.

See you on the 25th then Smiling


meanoldconservatives's picture
Submitted by meanoldconservatives on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 9:11am.

Not sure what you mean there...

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 8:57pm.

You are wealthy and a genius. There, now that I have come to terms with that, I feel much better.

"I can't wait until tomorrow, because I get more lovable every day."

meanoldconservatives's picture
Submitted by meanoldconservatives on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 8:09am.


sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 4:51pm.

You're right, it was Carville, not Rove. I thought that looked funny after I posted that and went back to edit it after I'd checked but you'd already responded and locked me out.

So have a cookie, you were correct on the attribution.

The underlying message, however, remains the same.

meanoldconservatives's picture
Submitted by meanoldconservatives on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 5:09pm.

That was a speech at a union pep rally. The union guy said he went back to his hometown and ran into a woman he had known forever. A woman. One woman. So, we are to extrapolate from that woman's comment that the majority of people in that area feel that way? Are you kidding???

If your "underlying message" is that white people who don't vote for Barry because he is black are racist, then riddle me this. Aren't the black people who are voting for Barry because he is black racist? You can't have one without the other.

Will some whites and some blacks vote for those reasons? Absolutely. The point is, the blacks that do that are no better. If you cast your vote based on skin color, then you might just be a racist. It ain't just a white thang....

Submitted by Davids mom on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 9:22pm.

Aren't the black people who are voting for Barry because he is black racist?

There are blacks who earlier in the campaign were not going to vote for Obama - not many, but some. However, they, like so many whites, have changed their minds - and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin. I'm sure you are not basing your vote on the color of a conservative's skin - but his principles. For too long, blacks had problems with the conservative’s social/civil rights policies. Believe me, there are many black fiscal conservatives. Anyway - with the mess that we're in now, it's time to pull together and cooperate in order to restore our economy, etc.

meanoldconservatives's picture
Submitted by meanoldconservatives on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 8:04am.

it's time to pull together and cooperate in order to restore our economy

Is that another way of saying redistribution of wealth? It's still Socialism....

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 6:08pm.

I don't believe they're racist. In fact the latest polling average is giving Obama +14 in Penn:

Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama

I expect McCain to concede the state and pull out sometimes next week. He can buy media in NC and NV for the price he's paying for Penn.

Submitted by Davids mom on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 9:11pm.

I think we're seeing the beginning of America CHANGING from basing judgment on 'skin color'. Obama could not be in this position if ‘blacks’ only supported him. He has organized a very effective campaign - and we have seen him grow more presidential during this 'tedious' but revealing campaign. I am so pleased that our country will have a voter turnout of over 40%!! Let's hope it's over 60% of registered voters.

Fred Garvin's picture
Submitted by Fred Garvin on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 10:07pm.

David's Mom,

barack was the one who threw out the race card during his campaign.

Surely you don't expect barack, someone without an ounce of moral fiber in his body to bring people together.

It has been a very revealing campaign. We've seen barack lie over and over during his campaign. We have seen all of the dangerous associations that he has built over the years. We've seen the corrupt Chicago political machine that helped launch him into an office that he has no business holding. We've seen him support corrupt groups like ACORN so that they can steal the election for him since he can't do it on his own.

Submitted by Davids mom on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 7:40am.

The character assassination is not working. People are basing vote on the issues (economy). To continue this path is hurting McCain.

Fred Garvin's picture
Submitted by Fred Garvin on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 8:08am.

If people truly understood the effects that barack's tax plan will have on their job prospects and future, they wouldn't vote for him.

A recent gallup poll shows that shows that only 13% of Americans want the government to distribute the wealth more evenly among Americans, compared to 84% of people who want the government to focus on the overall economy and jobs. In other words, there is an overwhelming majority of people in this country who fundamentally oppose exactly what Barack Obama is all about – redistribution of wealth. His entire campaign is based on this notion of "spreading the wealth".

Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy

Barack himself just recently brought up race again in an article in the New York Times: "There are a couple of things at work here. No. 1, let's face it — I'm not a familiar type ... I've got to deliver that message as a black guy from Hawaii named Barack Obama. So, admittedly, it's just unfamiliar. ... Which, by the way, is a different argument than race ... I'm not making an argument that the resistance is simply racial. It's more just that I'm different in all kinds of ways. I'm different even for black people."

Huh? He's different but the resistance isn't simply racial? He must think were just a bunch of stupid white people. He constantly brings up race as an issue and then blames Republicans for it. He is not a man of honor. He is manipulative socialist, and is hell bent on destroying our country in the name of "fairness".

Submitted by winby1 on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 8:02am.

I certainly do want to know who the character is running for President!! Don't you?? I understand why some people do not care about his character because those people ONLY care about the color of his skin!!

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 8:13am.

If you cheat on your spouse, what does this say about your "character"?

Submitted by justwondering on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 9:55am.

According to Goose vs. Gander sect 5,paragraph 2-5;

Americans lack of concern for the character of elected officials appears to have started in the Ted Kennedy-MaryJo Kopechne case in 1969. Sen. Kennedy and 29 year old Ms. Kopechne left a dinner party on Cape Cod in Kennedy's car. He was not giving her a ride home.Later the car went off a bridge. Kennedy swam to safety leaving MaryJo in the car to drown. He did not report the incident until the following morning. The voters continue to elect Kennedy and MaryJo,who was an only child, continues to be dead.
JFK had affairs in the White house when he was President.
Clinton had oral sex in the Oval Office,claiming that it realy wasn't sex. The outcome of this is many teens believe that oral sex is not sex and therefore expose themselves to sexually transmitted diseases.

If you want to criticize McCain for his divorce,etc. I suggest you go to yor roof,jump off breaking both arms,leg and sustain other injuties. The rabid crowd will come quickly,tear off your clothes,spit on you and drag you through the village. Find an isolated outhouse and sit in there for over 5 years being starved,beat,humiliated and with almost no contact from your family.
When you're released, tell me how your marriage is doing.

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 10:04am.

You see, democrats, and specifically, the Democratic candidates for President and Vice President, have not launched a campaign of character attack. Democrats, in general, so not try to claim that they are the party of all things moral.

Now, if you are the party of "bringing character and morality to politics," we would expect you to have character and morality. Its kind of like this: If you say abstinence only education works better than comprehensive sex education, we would expect you to AT LEAST be able to hold up your own family as an example.

Hope this helps.

meanoldconservatives's picture
Submitted by meanoldconservatives on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 8:22am.

It says you'd probably think it was ok to do it in the Oval Office.

Submitted by winby1 on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 8:21am.

Why?? I don't care for soaps to much!!

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 7:45am.

It's like talking to a brick wall, Davids Mom.

Most Americans want to discuss the issues, but there remains a fringe element that believes they can help McCain win the election by repeating the mantra "Ayers and Acorn and Wright! OH MY" just like dorothy from the Wizard of Oz.

Submitted by Davids mom on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 1:28pm.

Sniffles - you're so right. As McCain people continue to repeat their negative mantras - the polls go up in favor of Obama. The effect of the image of McCain yelling 'fight' – has a negative effect on the tired, broke Americans. An independent McCain (free of the advisors – Rove and Cheney) would have made a better showing. Obama supporters are fired up - and determined to prove that nasty campaigning is a thing that is not going to work this time. McCain has the 'older' generation in his hip pocket - but he's lost the women, the independents, the youth- and the minorities. Can you believe the latest polls coming out of Pennsylvania? The McCain campaign didn't believe the mantra "It's the economy, stupid'. Obama has proved that his belief in a united America is not based on race. He has the most diverse support of citizens since 1964! Working together for our country is not synonymous with socialism. Americans can progress even though they disagree. That’s what democracy is all about!

Fred Garvin's picture
Submitted by Fred Garvin on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 3:28pm.

"Obama has proved that his belief in a united America is not based on race." Then why is he the one that repeatedly brings it up?

"Working together for our country is not synonymous with socialism."
But "spreading the wealth" of Joe the plumber to other people, which is barack's plan, IS SOCIALISM!!

Submitted by winby1 on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 7:54am.

Sniffles I'm sure you will be the 1st one with your hand out to recieve your free hand out when that time comes!! You see I was always told by my father that if you didn't earn it don't take it!! But like I said some segment of our population feel that they are owed something and I guess you are part of that segment!!

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 1:45pm.

Well now, if I understand you correctly, since I don't support your candidate for president, you assume I'm somehow looking for a handout?

Quite the contrary, I assure you!

Why on earth would you say something so ignorant as that?

Submitted by winby1 on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 3:56pm.

Well Sniffles you are backing Mr Obama who is pushing Socailism on America and you are backing him. Tell me what other policy is it that makes you vote for a Rev Wright loving candidate!! Could it be his wonderful policy of sitting down with Iran/Syria/N.Korea without preconditions?? If it's not his economic policies what might it be that you are so excited about. He has already told Pokistan that he was invading ther country when elected!! Is that the policy that you support!! What is it?? Well maybe I'm wrong about you!! Just maybe your not backing his Spread The Wealth Theory!! If your not supporting his Welfare program I am sorry!! But I think you are!! Obama is buying votes and he is going to win by giving hand outs!! Americans voting for Socialism should be ashamed!! America is a Capitalistic country and has always been!! I am a Capitalist and will remain one!!

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 5:04pm.

Have you not noticed that it is the Bush administration that is nationalizing the banks? It's the Bush administration that took over Freddie,Fannie and AIG? Didn't you notice it was the Bush administration that wrote and pushed the bailout bill?

Did you not notice when the Bush administration abandoned its stupid policies and sent Condoleezza to meet North Korean delegates in Malaysia and sent the third highest ranking State Department to Geneva to meet with the Iranians?

You gotta pay some attention to the news.

Submitted by boo boo on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 7:44pm.

Let there be no doubt that you will have to repeat this blog on what the Bush Administration's "accomplishments" were over and over again...the ink isn't dry on the documents. So soon they forget....who did what.

Submitted by winby1 on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 6:35pm.

I am not a Bush supporter and since I am a Vietnam Vet I lost all respect for Bush way back when he sent our young men to Iraq to die!! I have never supported the Iraq war!! Saddam was the only human alive that would control Iran and did!! I have never supported Bush!! I am an Independant. As a matter of fact I stated 2-3 weeks ago that where are our American heros when we need one. I do feel Obama is a bad choice and a Socialist and I am not in favor of a Socialist Government. Jeff if you will watch the news you will understand what I'm talking about when it comes to your candidate and his policy on Iran/N.Korea/Russia and invading Pokistan!!

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 7:20pm.

I disagree about Obama and I support his position on Iran/Pakistan/N. Korea. But let us agree to disagree for now and soon I'll post my reasons for you to dissect.

Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 5:42pm.

Be nice to sniffles. He gets a little "wobbly" at times. Smiling As for the racial thingy; isn't it interesting how John Lewis and now Murtha can try to make an issue of it and both had to back down. Your point is interesting.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

meanoldconservatives's picture
Submitted by meanoldconservatives on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 4:44pm.

[On Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama] If she gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two.
Newsweek, May 2, 2008.

That old "Corporal Cue Ball" is one funny dude.....

Submitted by winby1 on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 8:24am.

Hey Mean I would be curious to see how many votes Mike Tyson would get!!

Submitted by skyspy on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 8:33am.

Yesterday a federal judge upheld a decision to allow the state of GA to continue to verify voters citizenship. Oh, the humanity!!. What's next deport illegals? It's a sad day for ACORN/obama.

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 9:10am.

Obama is in big, big trouble. Now he may only win by 100 electoral votes. Maybe McCain can generate some robo calls that say "It is important for you to know that Barack Obama has close ties to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers." That should do the trick. Right? Oh, by the way... I hope it doesn't hurt your feelings that I dare address you personally on your ACORN/Obama blog. I know how sensitive you have become of late.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 11:32am.

Grumpy Grampa didn't fare too well at the debate last night.

One of his lowlights had to be when he dismissed "life of the mother" abortion exceptions as "typical extremist position".

That giant sucking sound you heard immediately afterwards was McCain's election chances going down the proverbial drain.

I think by now McCain realizes that his election hopes are Gone With The Wind. Latest projections have an average....AVERAGE! electoral vote count of 350 for Obama, well above the 270 required to win.

Just shy of a landslide.

I believe it is time to start a suicide watch for Richard Hobbs!

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 12:50pm.

I agree, sniffles, that McNasty stepped into a mine field when he started talking about abortion rights and Roe v. Wade. We watched that line-graph plummet during the debate, with undecided women voters, as he puffed up his chest while claiming, with "air-quotes", that it was some kind of ruse when a woman's health was in danger during a pregnancy. It was so offensive to women voters, and that line-graph visually showed how negative the female voter felt during his lame comments. He really lost some points on that.

McCain has no business discussing uterine politics with such a nasty, chauvinistic attitude. He would no doubt try to overturn Roe v. Wade and relegate women to back-alley abortions, coat hangers and Pine Sol douches.

Submitted by cailin on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 1:34pm.

McNasty? Really? I am a woman and I was in no way offended by McCain's comments. My view on the debate is this:
Obama is a smoother talker...but that's not necessarily a good thing.
He's too slick. His policies for economy are socialist (no matter how many times he rephrases it) and his slickness reminds me FAR too much of Bill Clinton. He keeps referring to McCain as another Bush, but he himself is kind of becoming another Clinton. (And no, I am not inferring that he will cheat on his wife. Just to set the record straight.)
McCain should have called Obama out on more; he's being a little way too nice. He could have PEGGED Obama. Yes, I capitilized pegged. Get over it. Sticking out tongue
Ok so America, stop being dazzled by how "pretty" Obama's words are. Just because he can speak well doesnt mean he has your best interests at heart. Just because somethings shiny doesnt mean its valuable you know...

Submitted by USArmybrat on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 12:44pm.

McCain brought up the use of the term "health" of the mother, not "life". And pro-abortion extremists use that term to mean ANYTHING, just to keep that abhorrent practice of "partial-birth abortions" legal! It has nothing to do with protecting a woman's life, but has everything to do with allowing this procedure for any woman's whim! B.O. shows a very cold side of himself for his support of this procedure.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 12:59pm.

First of all, there's no such procedure as "partial birth abortion". It's an emotional phrase used by anti-choice folks to describe a procedure called "intact dilation and extraction", which I presume since you claim to be a nurse that you know something about this procedure.

Republicans who believe their medical expertise transcends that of doctors were able to pass a law banning this procedure way back in 2003. Once George Decider Bush had 5 Catholics (or former Catholics) on the Supreme Court, he was able to have the law declared "constitutional" back in 2007. Since it is now a matter of decided case law, I'm not sure why exactly you are railing against this.

I've gone on record as willing to support unconditional abortion bans that take effect post-viability of the fetus (roughly 25 weeks) if ...IF... the right to an unconditional abortion pre-viability is established. Would you support such a position?

Submitted by justwondering on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 3:49pm.

The term partial birth abortion is the term used in "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, US Congress, and defined as follows "an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant"It is not just an emotional phrase.

"Dilation and extraction" is a procedure, but when the term partial birth abortion is used, the term is widely used and acepted as being a dilation and extraction.

When is a fetus viable ? When critical organs as lungs and kidneys can funtion ooutside the uterus.

You are incorrect on most of your statements, as usual.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 4:02pm.

Congress can call it whatever they like, they can call it "fluffy baby bunnies", but the simple fact is that no medical textbook refers to a procedure called "partial birth abortion". It is simply a term used by fundie extremists that was adopted (pun intended) by venal Republicans who knew a "hot button" phrase when they heard one. I defy you to show me ONE medical textbook, not printed by a religious publishing house, that uses the term "partial birth abortion".

Fetal viability is generally accepted as being around 25 weeks. Fundies have attempted to whittle that down to 20 weeks, pointing to generally unsubstantiated "miracle" claims.

Submitted by justwondering on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 8:38pm.

The American Heritage Medical Dictionary March 2007 has the term partial birth abortion and its definition. The last time I checked,the publisher, Houghton Mifflin, was not a religious publishing house.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 9:02pm.

I found this on wikianswers:

The term "partial-birth abortion" is primarily used in political discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States. The term is not recognized as a medical term by the American Medical Association nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. This term was first suggested in 1995 by pro-life congressman Charles T. Canady, while developing the original proposed Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. Keri Folmar, the lawyer responsible for the bill's language, says the term developed in early 1995 in a meeting between her, Charles T. Canady, and National Right to Life Committee lobbyist Douglas Johnson. Canady could not find this particular abortion practice named in any medical textbook, and therefore he and his aides named it.

In 2007, the 5 conservative Catholic judicial activists on the Supreme Court declared that "partial birth abortion" was essentially synonymous with the proper "IDX" procedure (except when it wasn't, i.e. stillborn fetuses). Since they legislated this terminology from the bench, it's been included in medical dictionaries.

I stand by my position that the phrase "partial birth abortion" is not proper medical terminology, it is political terminology.

Submitted by justwondering on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 9:33pm.

Wikipedia,wikianswers, wiki whatever are sites that teachers tell their students NOT to use when doing research.
When a nurse tells a doctor that the patient's medical history includes a partial birth abortion in 2005, the doctor is not going to
ask the nurse what she means, and I doubt the doctor will say, "I guess she's a Democrat.It is people like you that want make the term political.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 9:49pm.

I'm quite aware of the anti-wiki bias, and I rarely point to wiki myself. You should know, though, that every single statement in the passage I gave to you had a verifiable reference....prolly because the anti-choice zealots like to shoot the messenger so much.

Here is the LINK I got my info from, feel free to impeach the underlying sources. (page down to "partial birth")

BTW, there's something similar to be said for quoting a medical dictionary as an authoritative resource on medical procedures! But I digress....

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 9:12pm.

Why is it okay when GOD gives a woman an abortion? He, she or it is not legally allowed to practice medicine in this country or anywhere else for that matter.

Does that mean Father Epps wouldn’t vote for God?

Now there’s a conundrum to chew on.

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 9:27pm.

I have often thought of the ramifications of outlawing abortions, and whether a woman who naturally miscarried could be accused of a crime for a frivolous reason, such as not eating healthy enough. This would not be out of range for abortion opponent zealots.

"I can't wait until tomorrow, because I get more lovable every day."

Submitted by skyspy on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 3:27pm.

The issue is not abortion or partial birth abortions. The issue is a so called "infanticide bill" in the state Ill.

Go to Factcheck. org/elections 2008 obama_and_ infanticide. html

Aug. 25, 2008

Obama opposed Ill. legislation in 2001-2002-2003 "that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believed it could not survive."

This is a matter of opinion between the pro-life camp and pro-choice camp. You have to make a personal decision as to whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide". It depends on your interpretation.

"As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill SB1082 sought to define the term "born alive infant" as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from it's mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor, it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee which Obama chaired."

That is what the flap is about. I cannot understand how anyone could chose to withhold medical care from an infant no matter what the circumstance. Most of you know I'm not a fan of kids, and I don't have any myself. This shocks and appalls even me. I don't want this person with his hand on the red button.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 4:42am.

Skyspy? USArmyBrat? Did either of you watch the last debate?

Obama did a masterful job explaining that "present" vote.

In a nutshell, there was already an infanticide law on the books. Cowardly anti-abortion folks (redundant, I know) introduced legislation with the exact same verbiage as the existing infanticide law with the "gotcha" provision that a fetus had the full legal citizenship rights of someone who had been born. They couldn't introduce simple legislation saying "a fetus is a citizen" because their motives would have been transparent. This was nothing more than a cheesy effort to get around Roe v. Wade. You vote for it, you're giving courts ammunition to overturn Roe v. Wade (and establish a brand new Christiany legalism that citizenship begins at conception)....if you vote against it, we'll say you're in favor of infanticide. Either way, the sleazy pro-life forces figured, pro-choice people lose hyuk hyuk hyuk.

Obama voted present to avoid giving the sleazy anti-abortion folks political ammunition.

Submitted by skyspy on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 6:39am.

It isn't an effort to overturn Roev.Wade. Apparently more babies are "born alive" during a late term abortion, than what us lowly average citizens know about. The argument is and has been should the medical staff do everything to save the baby and give it up for adoption.

You may think that obama handled that question well but...All he did was snicker and make snide remarks throughout the entire debate. He acted like a 10yr old during one of those sex ed films in school. Puuleeezzee.

When this issue was getting heated up in the state of IL., they had a woman testify who had survived an abortion attempt. She was adopted by the nurse working at the clinic that her mother went too. Go back to 2001,2002, 2003 IL. state senate. The issue is NOT about a womans right to an abortion. He didn't vote present on an infant born alive, he opposed it. They had a law on the books in the state of IL. regarding the "born alive infants". The wording in legal terms, basically said it was legally ok to withhold care, if the medical staff wanted to. The bill that was proposed would have forced the medical staff to provide care for "born alive infants".

That is what people are upset about. Be serious Roe v. Wade will never be overturned in this country. For a change I havn't seen the religous people getting very worked up about Roe v. Wade anymore. They are not as vocal about it as they were in past presidential elections.
Have a good weekend, go watch the Thunderbirds at DOB.

Submitted by jettstream on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 6:54am.

As we get closer to the election, some think it is okay to do this. I DON'T support ABORTION at all. If it's baby inside and it's aborted it's still a baby trying to survive.

I have a friend that works at a hospital in TN. and she says if the baby is born alive they have to try and save the baby. What a horriable death for that little one that would have to go through if they just sit back and let it die. They can't speak for themself so I will speak for them. Yeh, you would like to stay alive if this were your case wouldn't you.

This is very distrubing.

Obama and 'Infanticide'
August 25, 2008
The facts about Obama's votes against 'Born Alive' bills in Illinois.
Anti-abortion activists accuse Obama of "supporting infanticide," and the National Right to Life Committee says he's conducted a "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions." Obama says they're "lying."

At issue is Obama's opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.

Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.

Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."

Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes attacked Barack Obama over this legislation during their 2004 race for the U.S. Senate, repeatedly accusing him of favoring "infanticide." Because of this, Keyes said, "Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." Nevertheless, 70 percent of Illinois voters did vote for Obama, but now the issue has bubbled up again.

The National Right to Life Committee released a statement Aug. 11 saying it had obtained proof that Obama was misrepresenting his 2003 vote by stating that the Illinois "born alive" bill that he voted against in committee lacked a provision, contained in the 2002 federal law, that foreclosed any effect on abortion rights. Obama, in an Aug. 16 interview, then said critics of his "born alive" stance were "not telling the truth" and "lying." On Aug. 18, the NRLC updated its white paper and continued to accuse Obama of dissembling.

As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082, sought to define the term "born-alive infant" as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

Earlier versions of the bill, in 2001 and 2002, had met with opposition from abortion-rights groups, which contended that they would be used to challenge Roe v. Wade. Because the bills accorded human rights to pre-viable fetuses (that is, fetuses that could not live outside the womb) as long as they showed some vital signs outside the mother, abortion-rights groups saw them as the thin edge of a wedge that could be used to pry apart legal rights to abortion. Obama stated this objection on the Senate floor in discussion of both bills.

However, Obama has said several times that he would have supported the federal version of the bill, which passed by unanimous consent and which President Bush signed into law Aug. 5, 2002, because it could not be used to challenge the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision granting a legal right to abortion. On Aug. 16, the candidate repeated that again to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. He also prefaced his remarks with an attack on those who said he had misrepresented his position on the state bills, saying they were "lying."

CBN Correspondent David Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that's the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it's just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main – they're trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they're basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.

Obama: Let me clarify this right now.

Brody: Because it's getting a lot of play.

Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

Who's "Lying?"

NRLC objects. They point to evidence that SB 1082, the bill Obama voted against in committee, was amended to contain a "neutrality clause" that is identical to one contained in the federal law. (The Illinois government's legislative information Web site shows the proposed amendment, but doesn't give results for votes in committee. NRLC's documents show that the amendment was adopted.) Since he voted against the state bill, NRLC says, his claimed worry about Roe v. Wade is a smokescreen, intended to cover up his unconcern with the protection of infant lives.
In the NRLC white paper, Legislative Director Douglas Johnson writes that Obama "really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, 'A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.' And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public."
NRLC posted documents – which are so far undisputed – showing that Amendment 001 was adopted in committee and added the following text: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section." That wording matches exactly the comparable provision in the federal law.

The documents NRLC put out are a "Senate Republican's staff analysis" and a handwritten roll call confirming that the amendment was adopted. We contacted Patty Schuh, spokesperson for the Illinois Senate Republicans, who stated that both documents are genuine. We also contacted Brock Willeford, who was the staff aide whose name appears on the "staff analysis." He stated that he wrote the document immediately after the committee meeting and that he was in the room at the time of the votes. We asked Cindy Davidsmeyer, spokesperson for the Illinois Senate Democrats, about this. She declined to answer our questions but did not dispute Willeford's firsthand account.

A June 30 Obama campaign statement responding to similar claims by conservative commentator William J. Bennett says that SB 1082 did not contain the same language as the federal BAIPA.

Obama campaign statement, June 30: Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section." [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]

The statement was still on Obama's Web site as of this writing, Aug. 25, long after Obama had accused his detractors of "lying." But Obama's claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act.

Same Words, Different Effect?

Obama’s campaign now has a different explanation for his vote against the 2003 Illinois bill. Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion. So a bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human could directly affect the practice of abortion at the state level, but not at the federal level, the campaign argues.

And in fact, the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which passed the Senate 52 to 0 (with four voting "present") after Obama had gone on to Washington, included an additional protective clause not included in the federal legislation: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion." Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor says that Obama would have voted for that bill if he had been in state office at the time.

But whether or not one accepts those arguments, it is not the reason Obama had been giving for his 2003 opposition. He told Brody that the federal bill "was not the bill that was presented at the state level." That's technically true; though the "neutrality clause" was identical in the federal and state bills, there were other minor wording differences elsewhere. But the Obama campaign statement says that "Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language." That's true for the earlier versions that Obama voted against. In the case of SB 1082, as it was amended just before being killed, it’s false.

A Matter of Definition

The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?

In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won't try to settle that one.

What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."

On the Record

While we don't have a record of Obama's 2003 comments on SB 1082, he did express his objection to the 2001 and 2002 bills.

Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.

-by Jess Henig

Johnson, Douglas. "Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is 'Lying,'" 18 Aug. 2008

Submitted by skyspy on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 7:13am.

This is one of the articles I read. Thanks for posting it.

Submitted by USArmybrat on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 6:32am.

OMG, now he's actually defending the "present" votes!! Yeah, Snif, we heard that silly argument before.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 7:20am.

"Silly argument"? "Life begins at conception" is a silly argument, imho.

Submitted by skyspy on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 6:47am.

I know it is sad. Unless I read it wrong though he didn't vote present. I'm pretty sure he opposed it.

Let him bury his head in the sand.

Have a good weekend.

Submitted by USArmybrat on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 8:01pm.

I was going to address this with my last post but was in a hurry and had to go. B.O. is the only one in the Senate that supports this form of infanticide. All the Dems voted on the other side--Hillary, even Dianne Feinstein. His views are so extreme and so radical that he is actually to the left of even these liberal Senators. And, Snif, you can worry about the naming of the procedure best known as partial-birth abortion, but it doesn't change the horrific act of murder that it is. The answer to your question is NO, I would NEVER agree to your proposal about abortion. Your talking about ending life, whether it be at 20 weeks or 25.

Submitted by skyspy on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 9:59pm.

I have been wondering where our usual liberal democrat apologist crowd is at? I thought for sure they would have dropped by with an excuse for this one.

I guess they went to the pelosi excuse factory to see if they could find a plausible explanation for this one. Oh wait, thats right even pelosi was horrified by this...huh?

Seriously anyone who could support infanticide is very frightening. I can't imagine giving someone like that any power at all.

Submitted by skyspy on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 12:31pm.

I think you are right it is a landslide for obama.

Now I have to obama proof my life so I have some extra write-offs to offset his entitlement programs. Lucky for me this is a good time to buy property. No more working overtime for me, 60% of it would go to taxes. If I can't have my money nobody gets it. It is just easier to not work, than to give it away in taxes.

Submitted by justwondering on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 11:58am.

Named after Tom Bradley, who,despite a substantial lead in the polls, lost his election for California governor in 1982. The Bradley effect says that black candidates will poll much stronger than the actual election results.
Many Americans fear being labeled as racist.There is social pressure to constantly prove you are not a racist.
Political correctness has taught people to lie to pollsters rather than be forced to explain why they're not voting for Obama.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 12:19pm.

Obama has been through 37 primary elections and the Bradley effect has not shown up yet. Times have changed since '82.

Submitted by Bonkers on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 12:49pm.

I don't know what happened in the Bradley polls to make them inaccurate, but it must be also considered that they were inaccurate and should have indicated that Bradley would not win.

We get polls even now that indicate as much as 4-5 points difference.
One indicating 50 for one and 40 for the other--may in another poll on the same day in the same area, indicate 55 and 45!

That indicates a 10% error (% not points).

As to people saying one thing to a pollster (or is misunderstood) and actually vote another way on election day, that has happened and does happen now.

Checks made on that situation indicate that that error can add as much as 3-4 points at most difference.

Also, if polling isn't done according to mathematical rules, such as randomly totally, section by section, and other variables, then the principle of how much a 7 comes up in a dice roll over a thousand random tosses is thrown out the window.

I think even the pollsters say they can be off 3 points--plus or minus due to the limited polling.

I would not bet money on the winner being the guy or gal down 4 points on election day! Unless of course the state in contention was Florida or Ohio and the Supreme Court over-rules the Florida Supreme Court!
Quit that there counting, right now.

Spear Road Guy's picture
Submitted by Spear Road Guy on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 10:11am.

McCain is too darn busy listening to his handlers tell him not mention Rev. Wright. They were the same ones who told him to announce the economy is sound.

McCain would shine if he'd just roll up his sleeves and tell it like it is. The liberal press isn't going to help him.

Vote Republican

Submitted by cailin on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 1:44pm.

i agree totally.

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 1:00pm.

"McCain would shine if he'd just roll up his sleeves and tell it like it is."

McCain would have shined if he had chosen the running mate he really wanted (Lieberman, Romney, or Guiliani) instead of a female version of George W. Bush, who was only good for rallying the base.

But he caved in to Rove and the idiot neocons still pulling strings from the White House. McCain is NOT his own man any longer and it's too late in the game to fix his "maverick" image that inspired alot of people (me included several years ago). He looks so tired and old now, a beaten man without passion, and I really am feeling sorry for him at this point.

Time to turn the old horse out into the pasture.

Submitted by jettstream on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 2:52pm.

ACORN: Relationship May Be More Extensive Than Candidate Says

WASHINGTON: Barack Obama says he only had limited ties to ACORN, and they began in 1995. But other encounters with the group, plus a voter-registration drive he conducted called Project Vote three years earlier, calls his account into question.


Thursday, October 16, 2008

Twice in the last week, Barack Obama has said his relationship with ACORN -- the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- began and ended with legal work he did for the group in 1995.

The Democratic presidential candidate made his remarks in an effort to distance himself from the low-income advocacy group, which is under investigation for voter fraud in several states.

But that assertion is subject to debate. Obama conducted training sessions for ACORN workers a decade ago, and his campaign also recently paid an ACORN subsidiary for canvassing efforts.

Plus his work with a group called Project Vote back in 1992 raises questions about whether he was involved with ACORN back then.

Project Vote was one of Obama's earliest political successes. As director of Illinois Project Vote, Obama helped register 150,000 new voters in Chicago, and he was heralded for his efforts in local media.

ACORN was also registering voters at that time, and its relationship with Project Vote casts some doubt on Obama's statement that his involvement with ACORN didn't begin until three years later.

Obama's campaign Web site -- in a section called "Fight the Smears" that is devoted to shooting down harmful rumors about his candidacy -- states as "fact" that "ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992."

The site also states, "Barack Obama never organized with ACORN."

But accounts from the 1992 voter drive suggest the two groups were at least working alongside each other, if not together.

A blogger for Obama's campaign Web site in February wrote: "When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and his beginnings in Illinois as a Project Vote organizer ... Senator Obama said, 'I come out of a grassroots organizing background. ... Even before I was an elected official, when I ran (the) Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it.'"

Also, Chicago ACORN organizer Toni Foulkes wrote in the 2003 edition of the journal Social Policy that the two groups were working to register voters when Obama led the effort in Illinois.

She wrote that Obama and Project Vote made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win her Senate seat in 1992, and that "Project Vote delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them)."

But ACORN spokesman Lewis Goldberg told FOXNews.com "there was no work done between Project Vote and ACORN" during the 1992 Chicago drive.

"There was no financial intermingling," he added.

Goldberg said the groups, rather, conducted "parallel" efforts to register voters.

Asked about the 1992 project, the Obama campaign referred FOXNews.com to a July letter to the editor in The Wall Street Journal from Sanford Newman, who was director of Project Vote in 1992.

Newman wrote that Obama worked for his organization, not ACORN, and that "it wasn't until after Mr. Obama's tenure had ended that it began to conduct projects more frequently with ACORN than with other community-based organizations."

He wrote that Project Vote "remains a separate organization today."

Goldberg also told FOXNews.com the two organizations are still separate, even though they now work together on voter registration.

On that issue, the two organizations seem to have maintained a close and open relationship in recent years.

Project Vote announced last week that together with ACORN they registered over 1.3 million people to vote. Project Vote is listed on the ACORN Web site as one of many "allied organizations." The two organizations also share an office address in Arkansas and Washington, D.C. According to ACORN, the office-sharing is a cost-saving move done for "convenience."

But as to Obama's statement that his ties to ACORN are contained to his legal work, it has already been widely reported that his campaign paid more than $800,000 to a group called Citizens Services Inc., an ACORN subsidiary, to "augment" Obama's grassroots organizing efforts in the Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania primaries.

His campaign maintains those efforts were for getting voters to the polls and not for voter registration, which is the sticking point of ongoing ACORN probes.

Goldberg also confirmed to FOXNews.com that Obama gave two training sessions over the course of three years in the late '90s. He said each session lasted an hour or less.

Republicans say Obama can't deny his relationship with ACORN.

"[Obama's] relationship with ACORN is well-established," said Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz. "His comment is a fabrication."

But Obama's carefully worded statement regarding ACORN training on his "Fight the Smears" site appears to be true.

The statement says ACORN never "hired" Obama "as a trainer, organizer or any type of employee."

And Goldberg said that, in fact, "Barack was not paid."

Diaz noted that Obama changed his Web site to reflect the training sessions -- it previously said the Illinois senator was never an ACORN trainer. The word, "hired," was added later.
*****You would have to be one of the Three Stooges to vote for this man???? Not raise taxes- duh to all who are saying that. How is he going to get done all he says. He never tells us. The only way is to raise our taxes. I guess the ones voting for him must want their money to fly out the door. I guess that's why he won't go on Hannity. Truth be known he knows Hannity would ask the questions we want to know and he does not want us to know the answers. It's funny Obama scared of Hannity. If he wasn't he would go on a prove his case about disturbing issues with a real answer, Hannity don't take any answer as an answer. I think it is funny he stays far away from Hannity.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 4:23pm.

Why on earth would Obama go on Hannity? There are no votes to be had there.

And ACORN is a serious issue? LOL.

Open that 401K statement. People don't care about ACORN. They don't care about Ayers or Palin's secessionist husband or Troopergate or John McCain's cell phone tower either.

Submitted by Hey on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 8:27am.

McCain rolled his eyes and made a couple of faces, so I guess I should vote for Obama.

Submitted by susieq on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 8:57am.

McCain was not the only one rolling eyes. I rolled mine a few times.

birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 8:34am.

McCain didn't wear a flag pin. I guess he isn't patriotic.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.