McCain hits a homerun with VP choice.

Sarah who? Has anyone heard of this woman, Alaskans aside, prior to today?

I've heard of her; she's gained a solid rep pertaining to ethics reform. AMY: Other than she is a reputable choice, saying she's "more qualified to "lead America" than Barack Obama" simply reveals your partisan nature. You like her, so she's better. Not credible. Obama has 4 years at the Federal level. Using experience at levels of government as a guide, she's less qualified than Bill Clinton in 1992...

Before she was Govenor, which has been less than two years, she was the mayor of a town of 6,500 people. She has the experience as, strike that, she has a long background of, strike that, she has the foreign, strike that. What does she have? No national or foreign experience, little to none as a Govenor. Is this the person you would want running our country if something would happen to McCain? Is this the person you want presiding over the Senate? I don't think the women who supported Hillary are going switch over to McCain just because he selected a women for VP. I give the Hillary supporters a lot more credit than that. I will be very impressed if the Republicans can sell this one! LOL

A journalism major from the University of Idaho? Are you kidding me? A homerun? She dosn't even have enough experience to step up to the plate!

<P mce_keep="true">Do you have something to say about McCain and Sarah Palin? Visit our <A href="http://community.livinglakecountry.com/forums/t/56257.aspx" target=_blank mce_href="http://community.livinglakecountry.com/forums/t/56257.aspx">forum question</A> on the topic. </P>

Its offical Mccain has jumped the shark!

I dont get how you can be Pro capital punishment but anti-abortion. A life is a life right? She sounds confused

The Shoe Guy: How come all the lefties want people on death row to live, but wish to murder unborn babies? A life is a life right?
However, I agree with Sarah Palin on capital punishment. The world is a better place when henious murderers, rapists, child killers, etc. are not in it.
As for Sarah Palins experience - she's been involved in government longer than Obama. No foreign experience - so what - McCain makes up for it. Obama has none. She could teach Obama a thing or two on how to get things done. He's clueless. Even his biggest supporters cannot come up with any reasons he's fit to lead the country, other than he's black and speaks well.

Hey Im pro capital punishment and pro abortion. For all I care they could do then both in the same place. A life is a life right?

Obama has 4 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee...so that's 4 years more than Bush in terms of foreign policy experience. Obama was in the Illinois State Senate for 7 years. Saying Obama has no experience and it being true are 2 different things.

Re Life: I support capital punishment and the rights of women to choose or not choose an abortion. I don't think they should execute and abort in the same place, the the effect is the same.

Victor: Obama is not running against George Bush. Obama did absolutely nothing while on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Foreign Policy experience? Both Obama and Biden have continually been wrong on issues in regards to foreign policy. Against the surge (it worked), Obama against the war in Iraq (we won).
Biden was for the Patriot Act before he voted against it. Biden claimed elections in Iraq would be "ugly". Biden was against qualified judicial nominees and blocked their appointments. In 2006 Biden wanted to divide Iraq and withdraw American troops. Of course, he changed his mind later (after hearing from other Democrats as to how stupid his idea was). On almost every important foreign policy issue, Biden has been shown to be wrong. And he's going to guide Obama? The blind leading the blind.
And exactly what did Obama do while in the Illinois Senate (besides continually vote to kill babies born alive during abortions?). Nothing. And he's been running for President during his 143 days in the United States Senate.

Jeez, you dismiss without citing evidence. Obama did not vote to kill babies, but I guess you'd see anyone who is pro-choice as voting to kill babies, so if that's your definition, it's pretty reactionary. One might argue Bush did nothing in his 8 years as governor but run for president....and kill a lot of capital prisoners....every single one...not 1 innocent person...ever...nope, kill them all...

Victor: In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infants Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late term abortions. That means no medical help. Such babies would be left to die. If that isn't voting to kill babies, what is?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfL_H7zg1QI

Exodus 12:29

And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord (Obama) smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt (Illinois)...

Well, Obama did support the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ207.107 ), which President Bush signed into law in 2002 after near-unanimous Congressional support and a statement by NARAL Pro-Choice America that it had no objection to the legislation. The federal Born Alive Act (on which Senator Obama did not have an opportunity to vote but for which he has expressed support) offers two sets of definitions. It first defines “person,” “human being,” “child,” and “individual” – when used in federal legislation – as including a “born-alive infant.” It then defines a “born-alive infant” as a member of the homo sapiens species that has been completely expelled or extracted from its mother and, after expulsion or extraction, either breathes, has a beating heart, has an umbilical cord pulsation, or has definite movement of voluntary muscles.

The statute adds that the definitions apply regardless of whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction resulted from natural or induced labor, C-section, or induced abortion. The statute then states that it may not be read to expand or contract legal rights applicable to members of the human species prior to their being born alive.

Put simply, according to the statute, any person who is completely born has all of the same basic rights under law as any other person who is completely born, regardless of whether or not it was wanted. Even if the person’s mother was attempting to terminate the life of the fetus within her, once it is completely outside of her body and alive, its status changes and the law treats this person no differently from any other. Unlike the Born Alive Act, however, the Illinois law does not define its terms. It therefore seems likely that Obama refused to support the Act because of its ambiguity. ne could read the Illinois Liability Act as unclear on the question of whether it applies more broadly than the Born Alive Act – to include the fetus still inside its mother’s womb, with part of its body expelled, and regardless of how early in pregnancy the abortion occurs.

There is, in fact, good cause for concern about ambiguity in the Liability Act, given what it does say about the meaning of “born alive.” It explains that “[c]hildren who are born alive as the result of an induced labor abortion or any other abortion are in special need of protection due to the fact that the intent of their birth is to cause the death of the born child.” If one is speaking of all abortions, as the statute purports to do, this statement is not quite accurate. An abortion provider’s intent is generally not to cause the death of a born child. The provider’s intent, on the contrary, is ordinarily to cause death prior to the emergence of a “born child,” assuming that “born child” refers to a live birth following complete expulsion or extraction from the mother’s body. We are thus left to guess at the meaning of “born child,” because the statute – unlike the Born Child Act – does not tell us that the definition entails complete expulsion or extraction and at least hints at the possibility that it does not.

Therefore, when Obama’s critics claim that he opposed a statute that is “similar” to the federal Born Alive Act, they are missing (or perhaps disregarding) a critical distinction between the two statutes and, accordingly, between infanticide (the act of killing of an infant who has completely exited the mother’s body) and abortion. (I have found some of my supporting evidence here: http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/colb/20080813.html ).

Another link regarding smearing Obama with the false infanticide label: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/04/the-next-smear-against-ob_n_116891.html .

<P>Victor:&nbsp; From Jill Stanek, Chicago nurse who first brought Obama's infanticide voting record to light:</P>
<P>"The cornerstone bill was the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which defined legal personhood. This definition was identical to the federal BAIPA which was drafted from the definition of "live birth" created by the World Health Organization in 1950 and adopted by the United Nations in 1955....</P>
<P>Here I will only post links to Obama's actions and votes on the cornerstone bill, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The bill number changed every year it was reintroduced.</P>
<P>2001</P>
<P>Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection </P>
<P><A href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1095.html" mce_href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1095.html">http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1095.html</A></P>
<P>Go here to view Obama's "no" vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 28, 2001.</P>
<P><A href="http://www.jillstanek.com/Senate_Committee_Vote_32701.pdf" mce_href="http://www.jillstanek.com/Senate_Committee_Vote_32701.pdf">http://www.jillstanek.com/Senate_Committee_Vote_32701.pdf</A></P>
<P>Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001, pages 84-90</P>
<P><A href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf" mce_href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf">http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf</A></P>
<P>Obama's "present" vote on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001</P>
<P><A href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1095_03302001_030000T.PDF" mce_href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1095_03302001_030000T.PDF">http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1095_03302001_030000T.PDF</A></P>
<P>2002</P>
<P>Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act</P>
<P>Go here to view Obama's "no" vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 6, 2002. (ABC inadvertently coped bill #1663, a companion bill. The vote for the Born Alive bill, #1662, was identical.)</P>
<P><A href="http://www.jillstanek.com/Senate_Committee_Vote_3502.pdf" mce_href="http://www.jillstanek.com/Senate_Committee_Vote_3502.pdf">http://www.jillstanek.com/Senate_Committee_Vote_3502.pdf</A></P>
<P>Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 28-35</P>
<P><A href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf" mce_href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf">http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf</A></P>
<P>Obama's "no" vote on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002</P>
<P><A href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1662_04042002_014000T.pdf" mce_href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1662_04042002_014000T.pdf">http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1662_04042002_014000T.pdf</A></P>
<P>2003</P>
<P>Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act</P>
<P><A href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&amp;GAID=3&amp;DocTypeID=SB&amp;LegId=3910&amp;SessionID=3&amp;GA=93" mce_href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&amp;GAID=3&amp;DocTypeID=SB&amp;LegId=3910&amp;SessionID=3&amp;GA=93">http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&amp;GAID=3&amp;DocTypeID=SB&amp;LegId=3910&amp;SessionID=3&amp;GA=93</A></P>
<P>Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. They sent Born Alive to the infamously liberal Health &amp; Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama.&nbsp; <A href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/committees/members.asp?GA=93&amp;committeeID=85" mce_href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/committees/members.asp?GA=93&amp;committeeID=85">http://www.ilga.gov/senate/committees/members.asp?GA=93&amp;committeeID=85</A></P>
<P>As can be seen on the Actions docket, Obama held Born Alive on March 6, 2003, from even being voted on in committee. It is also important to note from the docket that on March 13, 2003, Obama stopped the senate sponsor from adding the lately discussed clarification paragraph&nbsp; &nbsp;from the federal BAIPA, to make the bills absolutely identical.&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp;<A href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082sam001&amp;GA=93&amp;SessionId=3&amp;DocTypeId=SB&amp;LegID=3910&amp;DocNum=1082&amp;GAID=3&amp;Session" mce_href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082sam001&amp;GA=93&amp;SessionId=3&amp;DocTypeId=SB&amp;LegID=3910&amp;DocNum=1082&amp;GAID=3&amp;Session">http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082sam001&amp;GA=93&amp;SessionId=3&amp;DocTypeId=SB&amp;LegID=3910&amp;DocNum=1082&amp;GAID=3&amp;Session</A>=</P>
<P mce_keep="true">&nbsp;</P>

As I said in my previous post, and according to the law professor from whom I got most of my evidence, it's the Illinois law's AMBIGUITY that probably led Obama to oppose it...the definition of terms are very important in such laws.

There was no AMBIGUITY in the bill and Obama knows it. He sure is looking for wiggle room on this one, knowing his stance is scary to a lot of people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4B3O9uUc-4

Your opinion vs. a bona-fide law professor...gee, hard call to make...

I read the pdfs. It's clearly about ambiguity of the law.

It's a bit extreme to make the "voting to kill babies" accusation.

Baloney, Victor and jmark: There was no ambiguity. The language of the Federal bill and the bills introduced in Illinois were the same. It's a fact.

From WorldNetDaily:
The Illinois bill did not include a provision that explicitly avoided entanglement in the abortion debate, as the federal bill did. It is inaccurate for any reporter, commentator, or surrogate for the McCain campaign to suggest otherwise.
This was in response to Bennett's assertion that "the 2003 bill had exactly the same language as the federal bill, and Barack Obama voted against it."

Bennett was absolutely right, NARAL and Obama are absolutely lying.

The definition of "born alive" was the same in both versions. It was copied from the World Health Organization definition of "born alive" created in 1950, which the United Nations adopted in 1955.

Your citation of "WorldNetDaily" is revealing: It's Wikipedia entry is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily . It sounds like a reactionary wingnut site. I suppose I could claim that Jews rule the world, cite Der Sturmer, and have the same credibility as you...

On page 87 of the pdf Obama questions the constitutionality of the Illinois bill. The web site Victor provides offers additional insight, from a law professor at Cornell Law School. Amy, your argument is unconvincing. I think you owe Obama an apology.

<P>Victor and Jmark: &nbsp;I do not disagree that Obama questioned the consitutionality of the bill. &nbsp;However, his reasoning and later votes are what is the question. &nbsp;He voted for infanticide. &nbsp;Plain and simple. &nbsp;If you want to try to defend his actions and complain about my reference to Worldnetdaily, go ahead.</P>
<P>I can also question the validity of an opinion from a leftie lawyer from Cornell, Victor.</P>
<P>Maybe this will source will meet with your approval - <STRONG>Washington Post, August 20, 2008: </STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG>(regarding the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and Obama):</STRONG></P>
<P><EM>"Obama, then a state senator, opposed the measure in 2001, saying it crossed the line of constitutionality and "essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a pre-viable child, or fetus." </EM></P>
<P><EM>As a committee chairman in the state Senate in 2003, Obama supported GOP efforts to add language to the act, copied from federal legislation, clarifying that it would have no legal impact on the availability of abortions. Obama then opposed the bill's final passage. Since then, he has said he would have backed the bill as it was written and approved almost unanimously the year before. </EM></P>
<P><EM>Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the NRLC, charged that Obama is trying to have it both ways because the IL bill he opposed was virtually identical to the federal law he said he would support. </EM></P>
<P><EM>Obama aides acknowledged yesterday that the wording of the state and federal bills was virtually identical. But, they added, the impact of a state law is different, because detailed abortion procedures and regulations are governed by states. Johnson and others are oversimplifying the situation, aides said." </EM></P>
<P>Obama's voting record is going to help bring an end to his&nbsp;quest&nbsp;for the&nbsp;&nbsp;Presidency.</P>

He voted present. You got nothing but Rovian spin.

There are now 3 issues at hand here. The first is the issue that Amy originally raised...that Sarah Palin is qualified to be a vice-presidential candidate. No disagreement there (though I take issue with her statement that Palin's experience is superior to Obama's...an issue now playing out in the "MSM"). The second issue is the charge of support for infanticide on the part of Obama. I believe that such a charge is absurd; the perspective one takes on the issue of Roe v. Wade colors one's opinion of the people on both sides of the argument. Amy opposes Roe v. Wade, so supporters can support infanticide. I support Roe v. Wade, so supporters can approach issues of ambiguity, reaching all the way back to Roe itself, with its focus on the viability of the fetus. The third issue is the one raised in the last sentence of Amy's post above, the one of voting record. For the first time since Kennedy, a serving senator will be president, whether Obama or McCain. Why so long? Voting records. Members of the legislative branch, Congress, deal with ambiguities, bills at various stages, and compromise, the give-and-take of the legislative process. That give and take provides weaponry against presidential candidates, as Kerry found out 4 years ago. The argument against him was idiotic then, and against Obama now. To expect legislators to take different votes at different stages of the legislative process, and then condemn them for it, makes us hypocrites. This is why governors have been presidential candidates, and successful ones, for the last couple of decades. Presentation of their records is easy...that of legislators, complex. That is why your criticism of Obama's state vs. federal legislative record is simplistic and does a disservice to him, and all of us. If we are going to understand the complex world around us, we need to place things in perspective. By doing a hatchet job on a candidate because he/she voted one way one day, then different the next, we dissuade people from thinking about this complex world. But remember...what do you get with legislators moving to the White House? Someone used to compromise in difficult situations. And the person with great interpersonal skills, with a history of community involvement, working across aisles while still maintaing party respect (Amy, you've called McCain a democrat-lite, remember?), respected by his Republican opponents at the state and federal level alike, and the superior complex thinker, is Obama.

Happy Labor Day.

Obama has done nothing while an Illinois State Senator, nor as a United States senator (except run for office of the President). His accomplishments are nil. Liberals always use a lot of words to explain Obama, what he stands for, his ideas, etc. but tell nothing about how he wishes to accomplish such things nor tell us what experience he has to say he can even understand how to do such things. Liberals can talk in circles all day long and not say a thing - its a fine art. Obama is very good at that. Just as he is attempting to explain away his vote for infanticide...lots of words, but not one clear concise statement that makes any sense.
Happy Labor Day to you, too, Victor!

A conservative blogger had this to say on Sept 5:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021433.php

"Is she the one we've been waiting for?"

So asks the Weekly Standard (with, I assume, at least a touch of irony) on the cover of its September 8 issue.

We conservatives have had a good time ridiculing the Obama phenomenon, especially its messianic feel -- the willingness of its adherents to pour so much hope and belief into such an empty, or at least incomplete, vessel -- and its elevation of "narrative" over substance.

It turns out that we were dying to have basically the same experience.