Just like playing “Where’s Waldo” can you find Mayor McCue in the sea of people at Obama’s Inauguration?

Help in the adventure of “Where are people.” Chief Roberts, Michelle Obama, President Bush.

U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan is just to Obama’s left with a Green Bay Packer hat near the rail

If you find McCue, post it up where he is.  McCue is telling people he just 100 feet from Obama. 

Click Here To Look

You might have to try going to the site at a different time, as the server does get busy from all the people looking.

Need help selecting a Presidential Candidate

Take these tests and then look at the issues.

http://glassbooth.org/

http://www.gotoquiz.com/candidates/2008-quiz.html

Obama on the Issues:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

McCain on the Issues:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

Obama backs away from McCain's debate challenge

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall.

Please Read the full Article.

McCain would crush Obama in more debates.  If it is not scripted for Obama and he doesn’t have the questions before hand, he wouldn’t know what to say.  What does Obama stand for?  Why no town hall debates?

Here is an email I received

“Randy, I'm a Democrat and I support Obama.  However, one bill he's purposing to sign if he gets elected might change my vote.  My mother’s place of work had a meeting about it.

This could change the whole workforce everywhere if Obama is elected.

Source and full article Here”

Indeed, Big Labor is launching its largest political campaign in its history, and this year, more than ever, Big Labor means Big Money.  The two largest union coalitions — the AFL-CIO and the "Change to Win" Federation, a coalition of labor unions formed in 2005 as an alternative to the AFL-CIO — admit that they will spend at least $300 million on federal elections alone.  When combined with political action committees, local unions and other union funders, at least $1 billion of pro-union money is being dumped into electioneering.  You can bet the union bosses expect a lot of "change" from Obama next year on labor law.  An Obama administration — possibly coupled with a filibuster-proof Senate — will feel a real sense of obligation to repay Big Labor that supported them.

Top on the Big Labor agenda is the "Employee Free Choice Act" (EFCA), which is better described as the Employee 'No Free Choice' Act.  If it passes, employees would be subjected to a "card check" system, which effectively requires them to declare publicly their support or opposition to unionizing their shop.  Without the protection of the secret ballot, workers would be subject to coercion and deceptive practices by pro-union forces.  Mandatory card check union drives will mean that millions more American workers will be forced to join unions and facing the "choice" between paying union dues or being fired.  Both President Bush and John McCain have said they would veto this union power grab, while Obama is a co-sponsor and leading advocate.

Another pro-union bill on the fast track is the misnamed "Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.”  If it becomes law, the bill would force state and local governments to collectively bargain with union officials over all contracts involving police officers, firefighters, and paramedics.  This would be required even in "Right to Work" states that currently guarantee workers the right to choose whether or not to join a union.  Public safety employees would no longer be permitted to bargain individually and could be forced to accept the union's "representation" — like it or not.  The bill would also facilitate union efforts to stamp out the proud tradition of volunteer firefighting.  It would create massive unfunded mandates by imposing significant additional costs on state and local governments which are not reimbursed by the federal government.

Like the other bills, the police and firefighter unionization bill has so far been blocked — barely — in the Senate, backstopped by a Bush veto threat.  But it would likely be unstoppable under an Obama presidency.  One of Obama's pet projects is the Patriot Employers Act, which he introduced last August.  The bill offers incentives — in the form of tax breaks — to employers that comply with a litany of Big Labor demands.  To get these tax breaks, companies need to agree to eliminate secret ballot elections for unionizing in their shop and to enforce a gag rule on truthful speech about the downsides of unionization.

An Obama White House will also seek law changes that prohibit permanent replacement of striking workers.  Under current law, an employer has the right to continue operating during a strike by hiring replacement workers.  In advocating a ban on striker replacements, Obama's message is clear — union-ordered strikes would be automatic winners, and American workplaces would come to a screeching halt in the face of extortionate union demands.

Obama would also invariably promote the ultimate, though rarely spoken, goal of Big Labor: ending the rights of "Right to Work" states to preserve the rights of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union.  All Right to Work protections would be eliminated by repealing Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act.  Without this provision, forced unionism would prevail in all states, and states could not protect private sector workers from union demands to pay dues to them as a condition of employment.  This would be a huge win for unions and pro-union candidates — literally billions of additional dollars in new coerced dues would flow into Big Labor's coffers which could be used to support pro-union candidates.  So the union bosses have found their man.  With their billion-dollar bet on Barack Obama, they know that the payoff of new union coercive powers will be worth the trouble.

McCain campaign charges Obama playing race card

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

If Obama wins in November, Jim Doyle wants to be the Ambassador to Ireland.

City of Milwaukee’s Mayor Tom Barrett wants to be Wisconsin’s Governor, but first Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton would get the remainder of Doyle’s time as Governor (2010). 

That will obviously set off a chain of events such as Barbara Lawton becoming the Governor and what if the first thing she does is fire Wisconsin DOT Secretary Frank Busalacchi?

Who would fill that position, the Lieutenant Governor’s and the city of Milwaukee’s Mayor spot (in 2010)?

This is all “What If’s” just something to ponder.

Anti-Obama Bloggers Question Why Google Froze Their Accounts

Some bloggers opposed to Barack Obama say they suspect Obama's supporters — with the assistance of Google — may have tried to censor them when the Internet giant froze their Web sites for five days last month.

Seven blogs run by Democrats who oppose Obama’s nomination for the presidency were incorrectly flagged as spam sites by Blogger, the hosting service Google has owned since 2003.  Google says it was an automated response from a spam filter.

But the bloggers believe that Web surfers who support Obama took advantage of a loophole in Blogger’s system that allows readers to report spam blogs, the artificial Web sites that abound on the Internet and are used to promote other sites.

"It appears that [Blogger's] policy can be manipulated by people determined to shut down the free exchange of ideas," said Carissa Snedeker, whose blog, BlueLyon, was among those that were frozen.

Rest of the story

Could it be possible that Obama supporters are treated differently and given special leeway?  Naw, that would not be fair and we all know they play fair.

Citizens United takes on the pro-Obama bias in the media and the love crush they have on Obama.

You can check out the ad now and full-length documentary film - Hype: The Obama Effect," which Citizens United plans to release in early September.

Citizens United is running the commercial on Fox News through the end of the week.

Check it out

http://www.citizensunited.org/

Here is the article that the New York Times would not print and asked the McCain camp to rewrite.  While a news media should be fair and balanced that is not always the case.  If you want to buy a media outfit, you could influence what is printed and what is not.  I do think that if you let one party write the other should if you are reporting news.

On to blogs.  They are one sided and don’t have to be fair.  I was asked where are McCain’s flip-flop posts from me.  This from a Liberal blogger who does post the McCain flip-flops, but he himself doesn’t post the Obama ones.  He doesn’t have to.  The blog is opinioned.  Thus fair and balance doesn’t have to be there.  That blogs are slanted and sided and that is the point.

“It is mostly, as you'll see, a response to Democratic contender Barack Obama's views on what to do in Iraq -- and a response to the opinion piece written by Obama that the Times published on July 14. Obama's column was called "My Plan for Iraq."” – USA Today

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/07/new-york-times.html

July 21, 2008

Op-Ed piece by Republican presidential contender John McCain

Sent to The New York Times

Source: The McCain campaign

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless.”  Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats.  The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy.  I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington.  Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent.  "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007.  "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."  Now Sen. Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.”  But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.”  Even more heartening has been progress that's not measured by the benchmarks.  More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists.  Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City -- actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Sen. Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops.  All that has changed is his rationale.  In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years.  It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months.  In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost.  If we had taken his advice, it would have been.

Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence.  He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness.  The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Sen. Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help.  The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover.  The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Sen. Obama charges.  A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves.  As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind.  I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons.  This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq.”  Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to hear what they have to say.  During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."

- 3 -

It’s been reported today that Jason Furman has joined Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign as Economic Policy Advisor.  Needless to say, we find Furman’s positions on Wal-Mart disturbing.

Furman made big waves in 2005 with his paper “Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story,” which openly supported the Wal-Mart business model and helped the company.

Wal-Mart’s low price-low wage model has made American communities poorer, not richer.  Wal-Mart drives American manufacturing overseas, depresses wages and benefits and routinely does whatever it can to dodge its city and state taxes.

Unfortunately, Jason Furman’s got it wrong.

From Walmartwatch.com

Whoever said that Wal-Mart doesn’t mostly fall on political battle lines obviously doesn’t want to admit the truth.

Obama Changes His Stance on his Website to Reflect "Current Events"

Obama has removed criticism of the Troop "Surge" in Iraq on his Website this weekend.  His website described the Surge as a "problem" that did not reduce any violence.  Obama stuck deep within the democrat party lines and was heavily against the surge.

Obama’s site used to read, "The surge is not working.”  The statement also said that it was the work for the Sunni sheiks to curb the violence, not the US military.

Insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.  Now Obama’s new plan states an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops.  An Obama aide states they often update the site to reflect changes in "current events.”

Source: www.nydailynews.com

This is not a flip-flop, just a change of Obama’s mind.  People can change their minds.  As new information is found, things change.  He is just adapting to change, that is all.

Media Excuse Obama’s False Advertising

What happens when the “fact-checkers” don’t check facts and the “watchdogs” don’t watch?  Consider the case of those who claim to be watching politicians for lies and deceptions and pretend to analyze Senator Barack Obama’s new patriotic “Country I Love” television ad, airing in 18 states.

Read it Here

While this type of thing happens all the time, the Liberal mainstream news media tend to let it slide for the Democratic candidate.

10 Questions to Test Your Allegiance to Barack Hussein Obama

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl_obama_quiz.htm

From our sister network.

Does Obama truly care about minorities?

By Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer

Saturate-Desaturate Process Darkens Obama in Clinton Attack Ad

Internet Clinton critics are accusing them of deliberately darkening an image of Barack Obama in their latest attack ad.  Shown on the popular website DailyKos are identical images of the same picture with one having an obviously darker tone.

According to Jay Carson, a Clinton spokesman, the darkening was a result of a common production technique known as "saturation-desaturation".  Mr. Carson said both campaigns use this technique and no hidden agenda was behind the Clintons doing so.

Bloggers have compared the Clinton's darkening of Obama's picture to Time Magazine doing the same thing with an image of OJ Simpson after his murder arrest in 1994.  There have been no statements pertaining to the allegations from the Obama camp.

I just wonder if the media has adjusted the color on Condoleezza Rice at anytime?  She would make a great President or Vice President.  I know she said she doesn’t want to run, but I think she will be on the ticket as Vice President.  That is my prediction.   

Source Here