I'm just going to preface this by saying that I neither agree nor disagree with what this person wrote, but I find it interesting nonetheless... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-oped0916byrnesep16,0,188873.story I have still have alot of research to do regarding both presidential candidates, though. I'd like to know what you all think of this...
At the end of everything, they're ALL politicians who are going to say what needs to be said in order to get elected. I'd just as well prefer to go with the lesser of the two evils in regards to my vote. There are only 2 clear-cut choices for president and I only see one who is worthy of the job. The president does NOT need to be a boy-scout, that was Jimmy Carter's un-doing during his presidency. This country desparately needs to move in a different direction because many of us are a lot worse off then we were 8 years ago, and I for one don't feel any safer during this post-9/11 era.
It appears to be a battle between the democrats in the Illinois legislature and the democratic Governor. I don't see why Obama has to be faulted because he has not made a "30 second phone call" to put pressure on (yet another so-called mentor) Emil Jones. I found another article - http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1126380,CST-NWS-ethics26.article - stating that the Governor rewrote the bill and added more restrictions that the legislature is not happy with. The article also says: "Even if the rewrite is overridden, the campaign-finance rules could stay in place. That's because Blagojevich signed an executive order banning people with state-agency contracts of $50,000 or more from making campaign contributions to himself, other state constitutional officeholders, legislators, candidates for state office and state political parties." That is the primary issue the author in the original article was addressing. Most of the hits Obama is taking is rooted in folks he has no authority over (Emil Jones, Reverend Wright, William Ayers) not a direct result of his own actions. On the other hand, Palin has refused to meet with investigators in the "troopergate" scandal -- something she is directly involved in.
I have no idea who this Dennis Byrne guy is, but this is the dumbest article Ive ever read. So because Obama, who is a u.s senator, doesnt butt his nose in state legislative affairs, he's complicit* in curruption within the state? Hmm...how could a "reporter" best serve his reading audience? Report about the curruption and lack of refrom in his state, bringing it to light?...or write right-wing biased articles that try to smear quite possibly the most popular person in the state? I can just see the new mccain ad... "Barack Hussien Obama...he says he will bring change...but just recently he personally called and worked with his former mentor, Emil Jones, on killing reform legislation in his home state of chicago. John mccain...AND SARAH PALIN!...real mavericks who will bring the chang you deserve! Im john mccain and im a lying sack of sh*t!"
I won't be surprised. The e-mail "hacking" and Palin's coverups would be covered but not as much as Obama's.
It appears he made that phone call after all.... http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/09/obama-phone-cal.html
