<p>I find it amusing how the Republicans feel they have to link McCain and Hillary together when slamming Obama. Do you think this will make us think you’re not Republicans?</p>
<p>…and for a brief reality check:
1.) According to the Obama’s tax return, Michelle made about $274,000 from her job at UofC in 2006, not $300K+. <a href=“http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/obama_2006_tax_return.pdf[/url]”>http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/obama_2006_tax_return.pdf</a> (LaxAttack’s source for the higher figure is?)
2.) In terms of pork potential, a state legislator probably has more to offer the U of C Med Center than a federal one.</p>
<p>But never mind, because….You’re not going to get this through some people’s minds Lax. Not going to happen. There may be some open minded people; secure in themselves to take critique; but the majority of the Obama attackers aren’t going to get it. :)</p>
<p>Hunt; are you the type of person who votes strictly along political party lines? I’m not. I’ve never hidden the fact that I am a conservative republican. But for what it’s worth, I have voted for democrats on many occasions. I voted once for Bill Clinton and once for Carter. I’ve also voted for Regan, Bush, and Bush.</p>
<p>The only think i link McCain and Clinton together on is that both of them are more experienced and better leaders than Obama is. In my opinion, the most important characteristic/attribute of a potential president of the United States is leadership. That is their job. They aren’t a law maker. They don’t legislate. They aren’t judicial in nature. They aren’t economists or environmentalists. They are leaders. They fill the executive branch.</p>
<p>As such, they need to be able to lead the country. Lead the citizens to see beyond themselves and to have vision. To be able to help themselves. They need to lead the congress to get both sides to work together to legislate in the best interest of the country. They need to lead the nation in balancing economics, the environment, energy, etc… They need to be able to lead our military to obtain their objective. They need to lead by example for our allies and other nations in working out peaceful coexistence, trade, aid, etc… That is the president’s job. To be a leader. </p>
<p>I don’t agree with a lot of things McCain believes in. Nor do I agree with a lot of what Clinton believes in. With Obama, I don’t know what he believes in. Too many of his positions are rhetoric of either “no comment” or “I’ll have to study it”. He’s not a leader. Because the president doesn’t make laws, I am not to worried if McCain or Clinton were president. They still require the support of the House and senate to enact any law or position they want. I am much more likely to vote along party lines for a senator or representative than I am for president. Mind you, I don’t think that McCain or Clinton are all that good of a choice. Just that they happen to be the 2 better choices of what’s available. When it comes to the primaries, I usually decide which democrat and which republican I will support. If either gets to the general election, that is who I will probably vote for. If Clinton and McCain are the 2 that are left standing, then that is a unique position I am in. I don’t know which of the two I would vote for. </p>
<p>Obama, at least CURRENTLY, won’t get my vote. I don’t believe he has the leadership experience or ability to be an effective leader. I don’t think he has the other experiences needed to make him effective. The more people concentrate and praise his accomplishments in college, the less I respect him as a viable candidate. I’ve said it too many times. When a person’s highlights and accomplishments in their life is from when they were in college, that is a very weak resume.</p>
<p>If I were a Republican, I guess I’d be promoting Hillary, too.</p>
<p>As per Wikipedia:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmmm, I wonder if this person gets to dictate grants to hospitals and stuff like that.</p>
<p>kluge - coincidentally, I read an article in the March 10 New Yorker today about Michelle Obama and it specfically states that “just after Barack was elected to the United States Senate” Michelle’s pay was raised from $121,910 in 2004 to $316,962 in 2006. The article then states that there were letters (or at least one angry one) to the Chicago Tribune complaining about the pay raise and calling it suspicious, and that U of C defended it saying they were just raising Michelle’s pay to the same level as the other VPs at the hospital.</p>
<p>(really and for true, it was just accidental that i just read the article in the issue that arrived yesterday - i didn’t google it in order to post it)</p>
<p>This doesn’t explain why it’s different in the tax return though.</p>
<p>Maybe the tax return is the income after contributions to pension plans or something. How in the world did you get ahold of their tax return? That’s scary.</p>
<p>They released their tax return, I believe.</p>
<p>Can anyone explain to me from the time Obama admitted he was not experienced to become POTUS, what changed? In that short time period, did his mentor,“old uncle” counsel him that he was ready? I don’t get it!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People like Hillary Clinton and John McCain became the alternative.</p>
<p>oops. The New Yorker said the pay raise was in 2005. My mistake.</p>
<p>I know the Obamas “released” the return, but how does an “ordinary” person find it on the internet? That link gives you all 23 pages of tax return! I thought when pols release stuff like this it wound up in places only reporters and news media types know about. Or do we now know what kluge does for a living…hmm</p>
<p>Mercymom, one word: Google. :)</p>