Can someone help me, this confuses me to no end.

I'm sincerely asking this. I know Republicans have different views on taxes and economic stuff, but on the gay thing....It usually goes hand in hand that a Republican politician will not support you, and in fact consider you a lesser person than they are simply because you are gay.

Now as I said, I can understand if you like their stance on money, but how could you give overall support to someone who basically thinks of you as a lesser person and immoral.

I seriously don't get that, Can someone help me? Maybe I'm missing something. Not trying to start a huge thing, just looking for serious answers.

Chill-Trick

Coming out of the closet here--- I am a Republican because of my tax stance, but plan to vote for the Democrats this November because of the continued alienation of gays both in the party and the society. I used to just overlook their stand on gays for a long time thinking that there would be a change of views but I was dead wrong. Picking Palin as a running mate didn't help me stay in the republican wagon, and the running mate was actually the decision factor for me to vote Democratic. If McCain had picked a better running mate who stays out what I do in bed, I may stay with the republicans.


I am not going to speak for all gay republicans, but I think my fellow gay republicans are so scared of having a democrats run this country because they will lose the wealth they built. Mostly, my political views come from being around gay republicans for a long time, the circle of friends who I consider family--- however, being away from them really helped me listen to the other side without bias or prejudice. I know that they (my republican friends) are disappointed with Bush, and to tell you the truth, they don't even really like McCain, but they just couldn't admit that they supported the wrong party for a long time.

I stopped talking politics with my friends--- the last time we did, I ended not speaking to them for weeks. I can see where they are coming from but couldn't really verbalize it, but they just can't see why I have changed my trust with the party. The fact that I am very commited to my partner and our future together, and and their relationship with their partners are very different with mine, that I have to support the presidential candidate who is less opposed to gay rights.

I am still optimistic for the Republican party--- and I may even vote for local government officials that are republicans, but my new principle is, vote for the person, not the party.

So Chill-trick--- I wouldn't even try to get what the gay republicans see in the party--- it's so hard to understand. If you see them a mile coming at you, avoid them (JUST KDDING). The best approach is leave them alone, or plainly avoid the topic with them. I know a couple of gay rep who are actually very open to political dialogues, and are so cool to bring opposing views, but in general politics are really a devil to talk about. Because even gay Democrats can be as argumentative as gay republicans to a point of personally attacking you--- and I have seen it both ways. But I gotta give you the credit for opening this subject, and I am so sure I have opened myself for criticism from both gay Democrats and Republicans... but really, is it really worth having a fight about politics?

JEFF

Jeffrey that was a great post.

What befuddles me about (most) gay republicans is that taxes are their number one issue and gay rights rank way on down the line. Are most gay republicans so rich that it makes that much of a difference taxwise?

I know in my case, paying higher taxes would be greatly offset if my partner and I had the over 1,000 benefits that married people have. And whichever one of us dies last, will not get social security benefits from their deceased partner (just as a quick $-related example). My partner of 23 years is currently unemployed and we're paying out the ass for his Cobra insurance and I could save a bundle if he could be on my insurance. I just don't get the tax issue when there are so many other issues that would enhance our lives as gay people if the GOP would allow it to happen. It just seems like gay republicans are shooting themselves in the foot....along with mine.

Again, thanks for your thoughtful and informative post. I hope that nothing I wrote is offensive to you. I don't talk politics with my gay GOP friends....so we can stay that way.

Interesting thread. The Republican gay friends I have who are planning on voting for McCain basically all tell me the same thing, that being, "The gay issue isn't a big thing," or "Being gay is way down on the list for me...I'm more concerned about taxes, national security...". A few of my buddies also say stuff like, "McCain's the lesser of two evils," or "Obama is just way too left, too extreme."

I don't know if it makes a difference, but all these guys are what people would, I guess, label as "straight-acting/looking" sports type guys, guys who are not at all politically involved, not into the scene, etc. Again, I don't know if that means anything; I'm just sharing that info.

I don't join them in their voting for McCain, but they all know that there's no way I am voting for Obama. Barack lost my vote a couple weeks ago, and I've become more comfortable with that decision.

I am curious to know, Crew Chief, how did he lose your vote?

Is that code for closeted? Not into what "scene"?

I had debated even mentioning that, but in light of this thread's subject, I figured I should (I stated that elsewhere here, btw).

But to answer your question--I don't know if it would be wise to go into details. No, it's not because it'd be a 10-page explanation; rather, it's because I don't know if I want to deal with those fire-breathing folks here who are probably going to blast me to kingdom come as some closeted Republican. Nothing could be further from the truth, to be honest with you.

Having said that, miller, there are several reasons. Permit me to BRIEFLY summarize them as bullet points. If someone really wants to know details, fine, but I hope no one cares. That'd save me time.

• His choice of running mate (Biden was the ONE guy whom I didn't want him to pick)--to me this clinched it. His biggest single executive decision and he blew it IMHO.
• His arrogance (and I thought the holier-than-thou Repubs were bad!)--the speech in Invesco Stadium really bothered me. And what was with that Mt. Olympus-type backdrop?!? Made me feel like Obama thought he was Zeus descending to his people. All this on the heels not too long ago of his Obama European World Tour. I'm sorry, but I get irked by anyone who runs around acting like he did.
• His total lack of any real accomplishments (I'm watching the convention speakers last week and I noticed one commonality: none of them mentioned any Obama accomplishment! I'm sitting there thinking, "Hmm. Just what HAS he done? He's a kid in a man's game.")
• Absolutely no experience (thinner than even Miss Alaska's resume)
• His flip-flopping on numerous issues (shows his appalling political expediency)
• His proposed policies, including his lack of understanding basic Economics with respect to a couple things. I'm old enough to remember the horrible presidency of Jimmy Carter. I struggle to survive as a career-changed teacher. Obama's economic policies would lead us not into a recession but a depression. (And no, this doesn't mean I think McCain's policies are sent from Heaven.)
• His class warfare rhetoric. I am SO sick of ANY damn politician playing this card!!! It pisses me off to no end. They scream unity but love pitting classes against each other.
• His ties to the Chicago Democratic political establishment. (This is where I wish MIB was here, because he and fantomas used to share their disdain for this.) Illinois is an absolute mess due to the idiots who run the city, Crook County, and the state, and Obama hails from this group. He's a protege of retiring State Senator Emil Jones, a hack and scumbag if there ever was one. I'm sometimes ashamed to admit to people that I'm a Democrat because outsiders think all Dems in Illinois are corrupt.
• OK, and this is probably more illogically emotional, but I'm being honest: there's just something about the way he carries himself that lately has irritated me. I get this feeling of smugness and an air about him that I liken to sun-sniffing Republicans.

It's late, miller. If I think of anything else, I'll edit the post. I just tried to be honest since you did ask me. I'm sure people will now begin to question my loyalty, my sanity, and everything else, but I guess I should be used to that. I've been an umpire for many years, so I've grown accustomed to people questioning my intelligence and sanity.

Crew Chief, thank you for your opinions. while I may not agree on some of them, some do have merit. At least you have the intelligence and courage to post your opinions. For that, I respect you. Now go do the right thing and vote Obama!

I'm a Republican for one simple reason:

I'd rather maximize our independence from the state and then look after those who can't make it on their own, rather than maximize our dependence on the state for the sake of those who can't make it on their own.

I watched almost the entire convention on C-SPAN, and I saw a number of speakers mention Barack Obama's concrete achievements. The man served as a Illinois state senator for 8 years and authored or coauthored a number of bills. He served as a faculty member for 11 years at the University of Chicago's Law School, one of the best universities in the world (not just the US). He was a practicing lawyer for 9 years. He has been a US Senator for nearly 4 years, and has introduced, coauthored, cosponsored or successfully introduced amendments a number of bills (and I previously posted links to some of these) and resolutions. I have asked this before about Hillary Clinton (whom I would have voted for in a heartbeat), but I'll also ask it about John McCain: what bills other than McCain-Feingold (an excellent piece of legislation that runs counter to the stands he is now taking) has he authored? What is his successful legislative record after 30 years in the Senate?

Also, speaking of Obama and the Illinois Democratic Party, the reality is that yes, he is a protegé of Emil Jones, but let's not ever forget that when he ran for the US Senate seat in 2004, he was NOT the party's pick. That was Dan Hynes, a hack whom Mayor Daley, Governor Blagojevich, and all the rest were supporting. NOT Obama. He not only defeated Hynes and SIX other candidates (including a multimillionaire sleazebag named Blair Hull), but then went on to defeat the Republicans' sorry pick. In fact, Obama received more votes in the primary than all the Republicans combined, in a state that has regularly elected Republicans at the state level. Remember, he replaced a Republican (Peter Fitzgerald) US Senator, and his votes did not solely come from Chicago, its suburbs, Rockford, Urbana, and East St. Louis, but from all across the state.

That said, I was also disappointed with Biden as the pick, but compared to Palin, there's no choice for me. This woman's beliefs not only are anathema to everything I believe in the world, but her blatant lying and hypocrisy on the very first day she was introduced to the country and world sealed the deal.

BUT: if anyone does not want to vote for Obama-Biden or McCain-Palin, there are choices. If you are ultraconservative or libertarian or both, there's Bob Barr. If you're ultraliberal or a Green, there's Cynthia McKinney. If neither of these choices appeal to you, there's Ralph Nader. If you still haven't found the right person, there are other parties often on the ballots. So people should choose the candidates who most appeal to them. Obviously some gay people like aspects of the conservative platform and support it, though the party kicks gay people in the ass every chance it can get. I always wonder about straight Republicans like Cheney or Phyllis Schlafly or the LaHaye family, who have lesbian, gay, bi and trans family members: how do you square your religious faith and your ideology with the basic fact that your party denies equal rights and often attacks your own family members? Is that not a problem?

In other words, "Let them eat cake." The rich, connected GOP denizens have already taken care of the first part of that statement. However, they've conveniently neglected the latter half.

I don't know if it was "intelligent" posting what I posted, but maybe it was "courageous" considering how I feel like a minority of one here.

Notwithstanding what fantomas above posted, I personally don't believe those are "accomplishments," which are to be distinguished from "achievements" in my eyes. Hell, our current president has a Master's from Hardvard, so Obama's Univ. of Chicago ties are basically meaningless to me.

Also, Obama was in the Senate less than two years before he decided to run for president. I'm also a bit troubled by the fact that this guy has not, if my estimate is correct, ever held down one job for more than a year-and-a-half or two years.

Now, I must admit I have a little bias against a U.S. Senator--any Senator--running for president. Many have tried, only 2, IIRC, have been elected. There's a reason why they usually don't win, and part of that reason is because they're a typical product of Washington, detached from reality and having no clue about what the real world is all about. Does anyone here truly believe that Obama, who likes to divide this nation into warring classes like some GOP policies actually do, is "one of the people"? I certainly don't.

I simply cannot stand one bit someone who to me comes across as an arrogant, sun-sniffing (a term I use to refer to those whose heads are always stuck up sniffing the sun), know-it-all--a person who thinks he's been annointed. Yes, I admit I probably sound like Republican talking points. I'm sorry if that's what it seems to be, but it's not. I come from a family of Eastern European, lifelong Democrats, and I can tell you that my opinion seems to be shared by many of them, and it's not like they're supporters of McCain, either. They're all just VERY turned off by Obama. As my great aunt said this summer at a family event, "I've never seen someone with an ego as big as this guy." When I asked her if that meant she was voting for McCain, she scolded me and said, "I've never seen someone as old as him run for president."

Interesting take, and as others have said and I agree, its your opinion and your entitled to it, but I couldn't disagree any more when you connect arrogance to Obama. No one, and I mean NO ONE IMO has held any more arrogance that George W. Bush. His its my way or the highway, or your either with us or against us, should go down in history as some of the most divisive comments a President has ever echoed, oh, and then don't forget his famous " bring it on." And Dick Cheney is bringing up the rear.
There is just no comparison in my opinion.

Except that Bush isn't running for president, thank God. I'm not talking about Bush and Cheney, btw. I don't disagree with your assessments of them, either.

I'm talking about Obama, and it's not just my opinion, to be honest with you. I really, truly, believe he's very arrogant. He just rubs me the wrong way, and with his changing positions more than I do when getting plowed by some hot stud, well...I just shook my head in disappointment. Truthfully, I just feel so disgusted and disappointed by the whole election choices we have. I'm thinking about writing my name in. I think this country would be much better off if run by an umpire.

I fortunately don't have any friends who are Republicans because I just wouldn't be able to stomach it, but I do have acquaintances who are Republicans. They vote Republican based on money issues and social issues. Many are pro life, worry about national security, and know that Republicans won't tax them to death. Why Democrats can't get more of an edge on national security I don't know. Oh I know why. Its because the Republicans paint the picture that if you are against a war than you are anti-American and don't support the troops. Yeah...people who don't know any better lap that shyt up every time. I know one gay muslim black Republican. He votes Republican for money issues. But how any black person can be a Republican is beyond me. Look at that convention crowd. I think I counted the number of black people there on one hand and still had fingers left, no interracial couples, no out gay or lesbians, few latinos. Looking at the diversity of the Democratic convention compared to the Republican convention is startling and I'm surprised that none of the commentators have brought this up in their coverage. Is Obama's resume thin? Absolutely. Does he come off as arrogant at times? Yeah I've seen that. I think thats more part of his smooth confidence more than it is arrogance. I respect everyone's opinion and everyone votes based on their own personal experience, but I am glad I have converted several Republicans this election who realize that you don't replace old garbage (i.e. Bush/Cheney) with new garbage of the same party trying to now say they are reformers and will bring about change. I remember that same argument in 2000...it was called compassionate conservatism.

I am not a Republican. I could not join a party that has demonized gays and lesbians and who wish to put discrimination back into the constitution by an amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The Republicans have moved away from the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. That's a shame.

Having established that, I do share some values, which the Republicans at one time held dear. These include beliefs in individual responsibility and small government that does not intrude into individual citizen's lives. Also, I am for a strong foreign policy centered on national security. Republicans of late have sought to smear Democrats as weak on national security. They forget what Democratic administrations such as FDR's and Truman's achieved on that score. Looking at Jimmy Carter's record, I have to admit there is ground for a great deal of criticism, but Carter should be acknowledged for his role in helping to put an end to many Latin American dictatorships. As for Clinton, though he presided over a hearty economy, I look back at his years and think what a waste. So much could have been accomplished had he shown guts at times ("Don't ask, Don't Tell" was a cave-in), or been less worried about personal failings (Sudan fiasco). He also vacillated at times when more direct action could have proven decisive (the Balkans). He embraced Yeltsin too much and he could have called for a new Marshall Plan, but he shares these failings with the first Bush.

As for other social issues, well I'm all over the board on that one. As for abortion, well, if are pro-life, you have to ask yourself...will the Republicans actually end it? It appears that they'll just throw it back to the states. The Democrats have to be perceived less as the party of "abortion on demand." Most Americans accept abortion as a necessary evil, but want restrictions on it. NARAL can be at times as frustrating as the NRA. And if you are truly pro-life, what about stands on the death penalty? Republicans are hypocritical here, but Democrats of late fail too much on the death penalty, caving in to appear "tough on crime." Yeah, be tough...but life without parole works better as a deterrent. Also, pro-life stands need to be mindful of the care of the poor. As I said, I'm a firm believer in individual responsibility, but helping hands are needed as well. "Compassionate conservatism" has some merits. The dole is also necessary at times. There has to be some medium.

On the immigration front, well we need secure borders, but most illegal aliens/undocumented immigrants are here for a better life. I thought Bush's plans and McCain's as well had some merits, until the xenophobic elements within their party took over. Not heirs to Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt on that score! Pity...

I count Republicans among my friends and relatives. For relatives, it's the tax issue. Many are libertarian, who are coming around to issues such as gay marriage. I am also lucky in that I am from a milieu where homosexuality may have been an uncomfortable issue to them at first, but acceptance, love, and understanding was never in doubt. HornFan, the example of your life with your partner of 23 years is a powerful statement in our favor. Thank you.

At one time, I thought how could so and so be Republican, because he/she is black or gay? I've come to understand that there are a variety of issues and only a small percentage are motivated by one or two. In other words, I know no one who embraces entire platforms, Republican or Democrat. There are no absolute determinants for political affiliation, as there are none for any groups. I could go on, but I fear that I may become a gas bag, and besides I'd like to hear responses first...

You could make a brief YouTube video.

I like this young self-described Republican's take on Sarah Palin as VPILF.

I think gay Republicans have a similar problem with Obama: PIWICF.

(That's "President I wish I could f***.")

Chill Trick, I was really drawn to your question. I can sympathize because in my youth, I felt exactly as you did. How on earth could any gay person of good conscience vote, or heaven forbid, actually BE Republican?!? I was pretty much just like all the liberals on this board. I hated the Republican party and hated conservative politics in all possible variations. You have no idea how much I used to rail against Ronald Reagan (the man who has since become my greatest political hero).

Lemme guess, at this point you're thinking, "What the f*ck went wrong with this guy?"

Please believe me when I say I thought about this long and hard. Hope this doesn't piss you off too much, but I can't answer your question. Wait, hold on. Actually, I can, and at great length. But is there any way I can respond so that you'll understand? No, because there was absolutely nothing anybody could have said to me in my mid-20's that would have helped me understand. And no, I'm not saying that I'm so damn evolved or anything, but I am obviously a very different person now compared to 15-20 years ago.

But I will say this. Since returning to the Catholic Church, I have never once, on a one-on-one basis, experienced any homophobia from a fellow Catholic (I'm pretty open about being gay, by the way). I've known and even been friends with a few born-again Christians, and same deal. Sure, they're worried about me because in their heart of hearts, they fear I'm going to hell Amazingly enough, though, they were so totally cool about my being gay. And yup, same deal with conservatives and Republicans (small sample size, however, since there are all of three in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts - well, two now that I've moved). My liberal friends (lots of those; it is Mass. after all), on the other hand, there were a few problems. Oh, they toed the line of political correctness, but with some there was trouble under the surface.

Well, yay for them!!! And I'm sure they'll all be only too happy to work to give you the right to be legally married to the man you love and have it recognized legally throughout the entire country, right?

Heh. The devil is in the details. But hey, they're TOTALLY cool!!!

Hi, Tom:

I wanted to come back and post here after the latest ad by Obama (remember, he approved it as required by law). The ad blasts McCain for being computer illiterate, even mocking him for not liking Email, etc. When I heard about this it really pissed me off, Tom. Does Obama not know that because of McCain's injuries suffered as a POW, typing is very painful for him?




I'm sure he can dictate to his wife who would Email for him, but that is admittedly tedious.

I disagree with so many of McCain's policies, but I am totally honest when I say I just can't help but admire and respect a man who spent 5 1/2 years in a box being tortured by the North Vietnamese. For Obama to insult and mock someone who cannot do something as a result of injuries from such torture is reprehensible and despicable.

Such a person does not deserve to be president.

Is there any criticism of McCain to which his supporters haven't responded with "POW"? I'm having trouble thinking of one.

I don't know about that. I work with patients who have only the ability to turn their head in order to change keys on a computer and they send emails and use the internet with adaptive technology.

The truth is that there is no reason for the leader of the free nation to not be computer literate or to be able to communicate with other heads of state via email or cell phone with the amazing work that has been done to create access for all with significant diabilities.

If the young men and women coming back from the war that he supports can do it, then the commander in chief can do it as well.

CC- I am not sure whether your interpretation is entirely correct or the meaning that was intended by Obama's campaign. If it concerns you and enough people make the same complaint to his campaign, then I am sure they would provide an explanation or sufficient apology. Just communicate your concerns to his campaign- it may be a good thing!!

Except that in this case it's true. I'm sure it is frequently overplayed, but in this instance it's accurate.




Actually, I did. I sent a polite Email expressing my disappointment and shock that they would run an ad like this. I also cited, after doing some research, that it turns out McCain is, in fact, quite technologically astute, and not just because he once was chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Committee. Apparently, my guess about his wife doing his Email was pretty accurate. McCain reads Emails daily and does ask his wife to type for him.

I do find it interesting that McCain himself doesn't mention his own inability to do certain things like use a keyboard, throw a ball, or many other things you and I take for granted. BTW, perhaps we ought to remind Senator Obama that during Bill Clinton's presidency, Clinton sent a grand total of two Emails.

I just can't believe it's come down to this. Why do I get the feeling that Obama is getting so desperate, resorting to tactics I'd expect from Republicans?

The funny thing is- I don't think the intent of the message by Obama was to make fun of a disability at all- it was to try to make the point that he is not able to relate to today's world and today's issues.... I would gather most people- Republican or Democrat are aware that he cannot type (his available range of motion gives no excuse why he shouldn't be able to type- so that part is very strange to me and would indicate his dislike of using a computer more than physical inability) or that he may or may not be ablt to use a cell phone. But with appropriate technology, he could definitely utilize both. Very FDR maybe- with not wanting people to know he was using a wheelchair.

I have to ask if you sent a similar email to the McCain campaign concerning their "Education" ad from earlier this week. I see little difference in how the McCain ad characterized Obama voting for a bill that would give school districts the ability to establish programs to educate children on how to avoid being molested as a blanket "teaching sex ed in kindergarten" statement and Obama's ad about McCain's technological literacy.



Frankly I'm happy the Democrats are starting to throw some mud. It's not a fair fight when your opponent is consistently hitting you below the belt and rabbit punching, and you are only trying to land "legal punches". If you're going to play dirty, you can't cry foul when the opponent gives it right back.

Here's a nice compendium of McCain's ridiculous TV ads:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk

For some reason, I don't think Crew Chief sent a nasty email to the McCain campaign about those. I'm still trying to wrap my head around how a person can interpret "John McCain sucks at computers" as having anything whatsoever to do with those 5 1/2 years in a Vietnam prison camp.

I haven't seen this Obama ad but it can't be any worse than the ads from the GOP, so I wholeheartedly approve, whether it was actually approved by Obama or not.

Then we Democrats deserve to lose, for if we are going to justify petty, childish actions by saying, "Well, THEY do it, too...", then we're no better than they are. Someone needs to step up and say enough is enough.

Yeah and sometimes you need to pop a bully in the face to make him respect you. As I recall, it was McCain who promised "a clean campaign". And you call Obama a flip-flopper.

You're proving my point. I don't care what McCain does. I'm not supporting him or condoning what he says/does. It's Obama about whom I'm more disgusted, particularly because he's supposed to be this agent of "change."

But you've also said that you're not supporting Obama. So why do you care at all?

Because I had hoped to support Obama. I possessed the hope that he would indeed be different. Instead, he's no better than all the rest of them, unfortunately.

I care about the system, and I think what has been happening is pretty sad.

Sorry, but I want to win. Obama can't be an agent of change without winning.

I'm afraid that even he has no idea of who he is anymore, with his changing positions on a seemingly constant basis. The more things "change," the more they stay the same.

And McCain can't remember who he is, or was. "Maverick." What a pathetic joke...but the joke will be on us if Gramps and Debbie From Accounting win.

Agreed.
I think this op-ed piece by a conservative columnist who probably shares your views gives the best summation of the changing balance in this country.

I don't think there was ever a time when I could consider myself ideologically Republican I have admired the true maverick words and actions of Barry Goldwater (ironic that his given name and Obama's nickname are the same). That, plus the fact that he was one of the most striking looking of many physically attractive Republicans, drew my eye as well as my intellectual attention as a kid forming his political opinions on a nearly self-subsistent farm.

But my immediate instincts were to go through the process that the writer is pursuing in my link above. The "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" philosophy is limited to those who have bootstraps they solely own.

Co-sign sportlife

No matter who wins this election, there will be change...the change that comes with every new administration. You will have a new Cabinet. There will be a new set of powers-that-be around either Obama or McCain. There will be new issues, problems, and crises to deal with.

Beyond that, there won't be much change. I may be proven wrong, but there will be no major withdrawal from Iraq for some time if either candidate wins. Obama's campaign conceded that some months ago. As for the economy, well neither candidate is offering anything drastically new. The other major issues, i.e. health care, immigration, social security...well, there might be some tweaking around, but no major overhaul of anything that would smack of substance.

One area where there might be long-term change is Supreme Court appointments. There each candidate would appoint persons whose interpretations of the Constitution differ. But then again, which President was it who appointed who he thought was a conservative, but who turned out to be very liberal? You never know.

All this talk of change is overblown. Each better articulate what he means by it in a clearer manner.

And don't forget that every president is constrained in his (and in the future, her) actions by Congress. Neither McCain nor Obama will have a Congress that will allow them to implement their fuzzy notions of change.

Politics is the art of the possible, but change may not be truly possible.

You know, I don't see how Obama's attack ad concerning McCain's computer illiteracy is remotely in the same league as McCain's ads against Obama. McCain has basically called Obama a traitor saying he'd rather lose a war and win an election, he said Obama didn't visit the troops because no media was allowed, he said Obama wanted to teach explicit sex ed to kindergartners, and that Obama called Palin a pig. All of those ads are demonstrably false. Obama saying McCain doesn't email is just as bad? If this is Obama's big attack ad, then I'd say he's going awfully soft on him.

McCain has also said he is learning how to get online. He says this without mentioning how his POW injuries have hampered his efforts. Only mentioning his injuries after Obama "attacked" him. That being said we should all rest easy in regards to McCain's computer skills as one of his aids has said "John McCain is aware of the internet." Maybe he'll ask Ted "series of tubes" Stevens for advice if he needs it.