Originally Posted by aaronssongs

Your name says it all.....you can't spell.

Originally Posted by saltwn

One thing's for sure. There is still racial prejudice in this country. And if anything can be used to attack a political opponent, it will be. Little spurts of attacks may be farmed out to emailers, bloggers and talk show hosts, but the race issue will be present along with anything else these two candidate's parties can dream up.

Originally Posted by dabateman

There is quite a difference between race baiting and merely repeating the attacks that have already been made. Even you know that.

Originally Posted by aaronssongs

Nice try...but no cigar. It's clear that Obama is going to play "Chicago-styled" politics....a no holds barred approach, because after all, winning the election is "everything". Don't think for one minute the Republicans aren't going to pull out all the stops (dirt, the kitchen sink, and the kit and kaboodle), to use against him. Why shouldn't he do the same?
He tried to campaign, downplaying "race"...but others would not have it.
Even Hillary joined the fray. Now, he's going to pre-empt. Bully, for him.
And you can keep that "typical white people" stuff to yourself...so many white folks are voting for him, on the merits, that it's not even funny.

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

What are his "merits"?
What does his history show of being a uniter?
What is his foreign policy experience?
What is his experience as a military leader?
What is experience in the economic realm?
What are his qualifications for POTUS?

Originally Posted by foundit66

If only these standards were applied for the 2000 election, maybe we wouldn't have this Bush disaster after-taste in 2008!

George W. Bush's Resume

Originally Posted by Idealogically Promiscuous

News flash: BUSH ISN'T RUNNING THIS YEAR AND THE QUESTIONS WERE ABOUT OBAMA'S MERITS.

Originally Posted by foundit66

Oh. I fully get that.
What I am doing is exposing how funny it is that these concerns were GLARINGLY ABSENT when we had a REPUBLICAN candidate for whom these same concerns should be voiced.

It's a demonstration that these questions are REALLY being prompted out of party politics...

Originally Posted by foundit66

Oh. I fully get that.
What I am doing is exposing how funny it is that these concerns were GLARINGLY ABSENT when we had a REPUBLICAN candidate for whom these same concerns should be voiced.

It's a demonstration that these questions are REALLY being prompted out of party politics...

Originally Posted by Brian

Maybe on Fox, but not with most newspapers, not on the internet, not with most major networks, and certainly not when he actually won the election, the guy was doomed from the very start. So to now suggest that any concerns were "GLARINGLY ABSENT" is absurd, shouting it does not make it any more believable.