You know after watching Charlie interview Palin I came across a thought that I believe is accurate.

With Obama you get a man who looks good when he speaks even though he's not really saying a whole lot. 

With Palin, we get somebody who, (thinking about that interview) needs to be researched to be able to answer effectively or she looks like a deer caught in the headlights.  When she does the research and knows the subject matter, she's really got something to say worth listening to. 

I don't think Obama knows anything about research, but he sure does look good when he's up there preaching. 

Eh, too bad, it would have been more fun.

Yea, Palin has less liberalism (More Conservatism) than Obama.

And we will see in about 6 weeks.  If he had just kept to his promise and not picked Biden.

The pretty ones are to be feared the most, for they do not get ahead on substance, but on style.

I hear a lot about John McCain having one foot in the grave, but then I've heard a few people here and there who are concerned that Obama might get shot.  How does that figure into the life expectancy question?  (My mother in law believes that's why he didn't pick Hillary as his running mate--because he was worried Hillary would have him killed and make it look like white supremecists did it.)

There are more people than your mother in law worried about that.

But even putitng political assassination aside, the fact remains, that McCain has  a longer life expectancy today - based on genetics - than does Obama.

In every political race it is a battle of ideologies. Yours is one that seems at odds with the rest of the nation. Hers seems more inline with the rest of the nation. You don’t like her beliefs and think that they would hurt the nation. Yet they are the same beliefs of our founding fathers, are you sure you are against people having the freedom to choose who they want to lead our nation and their choice of a successor? I don’t like Senator McCain or Senator Obama, this brings it down to the VP choice as the deciding factor. I have less respect for Senator Biden because he was found out to be a liar and a plagiarist and rejected by his own party each time he ran for president. Governor Palin in my way of thinking is a better choice as president than VP but this is what was offered her. Senator McCain’s choice of someone that is conservative rather than another liberal like himself tells me that he has good judgment. Senator Obama’s choice of Senator Biden tells me that he chose someone that would not stab him in the back rather than someone that can be the next president if elected.

What is it with the democrats of late? They chose Senator Lieberman as VP and when they lost they kicked him out of the party. What does that say about their choices for president and vice-president? How bad is their judgment when in four years you trash and destroy the guy you said would be the second best choice as president for your party?

Thats a big negative lieberman is the guy who Al Gore said would be the second best to be president, not democrats.  We were just forced to get behind him if we wanted Gore.

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that it was not your party’s fault it was Mr. Gore’s fault. But he was your choice for president and his judgment as your choice was so stupid as to pick Senator Lieberman as a running mate. You are right this is a package deal and if his judgment was that bad why did you support him? So you admit that your party has a history of bad judgment in presidential candidates. If he was so bad why did so many vote for him?

No I did not say that you are putting words in my mouth.  what I said is that if we as democrats wanted Gore we had to vote for Lieberman.  I didnt say that I felt that way.  But if you want my personal opinion on that matter, I would say that lieberman was a good pick from the point that he was a more centrist democrat and stronger looking on defense, and experienced.

P.S. We all know Gore won that election anyway...but that goes without saying...I figured you would all love that one.

Really?  The other side had a guy I would never vote for throughout my existence.  I wasn't able to vote in 2000, so that wasn't too much of a concern of mine, however, we still need to only pick from the best side unfortunately because that's what it's always coming down to in elections here.  We get two choices to weigh out and go with the one that we think will do the least amount of damage.  The one I thought would do the least damage didn't get voted in by America (or maybe Gore really did get the votes), and now we've seen the tragic results of eight years.  Speaking of which, who wants to make bets on a recount this year?!?

Just let me understand what you are saying here.  You would rather have a guy(McCain) who has massive questions of public corruption, and delaying regulation to "help" friends then a guy who didnt tell the truth about a speech he didnt write?  Is that what you are saying?

But you supported the man that chose Senator Lieberman does that not call your judgment into question if you then trash the man a few years later?

Please list the tragic results.

I am unaware of this. Please enlighten me, show me what you are writing about.

It should not be, and is not so far for me.  But Biden did make sure I could not and would not vote for Obama.

Funny how the left (generic - I have no idea what you were thinking 8 years ago) has turned against not only Liebernan, but all who had anything to do with him.

Lieberman was the only reason that Gore got close.  But how soon people forget.

Because he DID pick Lieberman.  They do not want to admit it, but LIeberman was the best candidate in 2000 of all of them.

I would say we agree again.

And no on the troll bait.

Which state?  And probably.  Gore set the precedent.  The people dont matter, only the courts do.

And proof of this was when they tried to kick him out of the party and replace him with another democrat, the democrats did not vote for the new guy meaning that the party could not control the area. What does that say about the mean old democrats that pick idiots for president?

Only in your dreams.  And that is the problem.  The reality is that McCain is a pretty honest guy, and cleaner than Obama.  But you can have them both for all I care.

Shh!  Let them roll on.  At least this group is not foaming at the mouth.

Candidates.  So far, democrats are very lousy at  picking presidents, and even worse about nominating candidates.

To prove that Dr Guy is correct, that I am not foaming at the mouth, I will just use the one example that has bothered me as an educator. Can you guess?  NCLB.  While it is important and has merit, it was poorly executed, rushed into law and is actually hurting many students and schools that need improvement.  The candidates now are speaking about moving forward and reforming, but at least Obama has the better policy for the students and schools overall.  I care about what's going to be done and what does get done while a person is in office, not the person that gets the position.  I'll always question their judgments whether it be a republican or a democrat.

You do know that the concept was the presidents but it was written by Senator Kennedy? You know the guy that deregulated the airlines and telephones and invented managed health care? I agree that he was a poor choice because each of those laws was an utter failure, but it was the president’s attempt to reach across the isle in the sprit of bipartisanship so he let that bill be written completely by the democrats. I see you disagree with that move as well.

I have to disagree with you here. What need reforming are the teachers. The students mostly do and learn what is taught. If the corrupt teacher wanting to get the pay raise cheats by teaching the test instead of the curriculum then the students suffer while the teachers profit. I taught at the Lake Grove School a billion years ago and if you tell the student something it was taken as fact for the most part. If you fill the skulls full of mush with just what is on the test then the child has no context and the information is meaningless. At the time I was teaching phonics and the “new” thing was see it say it. This is where the schools started to go wrong. They believed that once a child learns the alphabet that if a child sees the word they should be able to say what they see. Five years later and five years of ignorant children later they came up with the “new” thing called phonics. Remember the ‘new math’? From there we went to social promotion so a child would not have hurt feelings at failure and graduate with his class just as illiterate as when he went into school. It is so bad now that colleges have to teach what is taught in high school before they can allow the student to enter college. They send them to community college for four years to get a two year degree. I took a community college course and had to get a letter from my school that my diploma was an academic one rather than a social one.  The only way to put a stop to this is no child left behind but the corrupt teachers instead of teaching cheated because up until then they were never forced to produce results only pass the student. What craziness is this to expect the student to read and write and do math without a calculator? And to add insult you want to hold the teacher accountable for the students they are charged with teaching? That’s crazy talk!

I know that this is not true in all cases but it happens enough to fail the system the students and the nation. without reforming the teachers nothing will get fixed, get rid of tenure and make the teachers produce is what I want to see. The parents are also to blame because they don’t make time for their children and to check on what is being taught. An example of a corrupt teacher would be my daughter’s Spanish teacher. She said my daughter had no aptitude for languages and was failing my daughter. I wrote a letter to the teacher and the principle wanting to know how the teacher knew this. I mean since my daughter was born in the Philippines and speaks the two main languages there then moved to the US at age 3 and learned English before she went to pre K so she spoke three languages prior to going to this Spanish class. My daughter was placed in the advance class and passed with honors. So now she is fluent in four languages. Had I listened to that teacher as most parents do the child would have never been able to learn a language because the teacher said so. I just happened to be lucky enough to catch that one because if it had been math or science I would have had no choice but to take the teachers word.

My friend’s son was born in West Virginia and the schools suck there. When they moved to Florida he was put in the learning disabled class to help catch him up. Five years later he was still in the learning disabled class because the school gets extra money for learning disabled children. I demanded she put the child in the regular tenth grade. She was scared because the teachers all recommended against it. She did it any way. He graduated with an academic diploma rather than an attendance diploma. He was not learning disabled but the system was going to cripple him for life just to feed the beast. These were the nightmares prior to NCLB. With an attendance diploma you can’t get into college unless you get a GED. So if the teachers and administrators do their JOB then the children have a chance. If the teachers are corrupt then even with NCLB the child is doomed.

YOu are trying to get on my good side!  At least on that we can agree - but my viewpoint is that any federal intrusion into education is a mistake!

BTW:  If Bush was in Congress that would have been called the Kennedy-Bush Plan.