Obama has Rev. Wright, Ayers, and Tony Rezko. McCain has: Liddy Keating Charlie Black Fred Malek Karl Rove George W. Bush etc. etc. etc. Not to mention Palin's crazy pastors and secessionist America-hating buddies.

Actually, no. The only person on your list with any significant connection to Obama is Wright.

Neither Ayers nor Rezko bear mention in relation to Obama.

Your McCain list, however, is spot-on.

Deez-

I agree with you on Ayers.  The only real connection I've seen so far is that Ayers held a fundraiser for Obama at his place once.

However, Obama was friends with Tony Rezko, who is a scumbag.  Now, this doesn't mean that Obama did anything wrong (and nothing has been proven) but if we're playing the 'guilt by association' gotcha game, then Rezko is certainly a valid association.

Keep in mind, this is coming from an Obama supporter.  My main point was the McCain has plenty of Ayers/Rezko type 'associations' and even one in which he may have appeared complicit in shady business (Keating, for which he has apologized)

Not quite! Looks like McCain has a connection to Ayers too. Oops! (from huffpo)

On Wednesday morning, John McCain's campaign released a list of 100 former ambassadors endorsing the GOP presidential nominee.

Second on the list, though her name is misspelled, is Leonore Annenberg, currently the president and chairman of the Annenberg Foundation and widow of ambassador and philanthropist Walter Annenberg. Ms. Annenberg was herself the "chief of protocol" at the State Department under President Reagan.

If the last name sounds familiar, it's because it also graces the name of the Chicago education board where Barack Obama and William Ayers sat in the room six times together.

They all have someone.  Point is this is not resonating with voters, in my opinion, not now.  Priorities have shifted from inflammatory campaign tactics to real issues, namely the economy.  People are nervous and engaged this time around, in fact I think it is dangerous for McCain, specifically Palin, to keep at this Ayers' association.  Yeah, her base eat it up, but beyond them, I doubt it. Not only do they look desperate and out of touch, but I think they risk insulting many with this stupid irrelevancy.  At least I hope so.

Agreed, Tommy.

I start to wonder if McCain's campaign lapses have been somewhat intentional:

Prior to the VP debate, Palin bombed the Katie Couric interview (and a couple others), lowering her expectations.  (She did fine)

Prior to the 2nd Pres debate, McCain's campaign went extremely negative, leading some of us to believe he would get nasty during the debate (he didn't)

Obama's trying to make the campaign all about the economy, McCain's trying to make the campaign all about Obama. Jeff Christie nailed it about the Republicans this election - they need to get McCain into the White House and keep him ineffective after that.

There's also more to this election than the economy and Barack Obama's history, such as the 9 Grandparents, abortion, national security, illegal immigration, homosexual rights, and the WOT. Neither one has really made much of an emphasis on what they're going to with any of these issues. For now it seems to be all about the economy and all about Barack Obama, which is making this election very one dimensional.

It's because the economy is front and center in the news and where most people's attention is right now.  The rest of the issues are taking a back seat.

"It's because the economy is front and center in the news and where most people's attention is right now.  The rest of the issues are taking a back seat."

And Justifiably so! Grampy, along with Gramm, Keating, the last eight years of BushCo, and a few Democrats over the years have helped destroy this economy of ours.....

These people have no shame.... they played these games with our economy as if it was their game to play alone..... they demanded no refs or umps, got their way... and when they fumbled... they demanded the ref's and the umps to come in and save them the embarrasment of having to acknowledge that they fumbled in the first place!

Anyone else would end up in prison!

Even a corporate owned media can't stay silent on this issue forever?

Interesting gem from junk mail:

"After a debate like last night ... where do you turn?

From an economic standpoint, it's getting harder
and harder to tell the 2 candidates apart isn't it?

On one hand, you have Obama saying the following:

"I'm only going to raise the taxes on small
businesses earning over $250K / year" ....well
that's great ...except for the fact that businesses
struggling to make money don't hire employees.

Only when a business is making money can it possibly
hire some folks to work for them.

Think about it for a second, if you had a business
making $150k/year, would you be in a position to
hire someone at $50K per year?

Keep in mind that government employment related
taxes already add another $10K, or so, to that tab plus
the benefits that add another 20% which brings the
cost of this new employee to approximately $70K / year.

So now we're talking about a business having to make
a decision to hire someone that will consume almost 50%
of their income ... that's a scary thought for a business
owner. Take a 50% pay cut or just work harder????

Hmmm... tough decision ...and tough decisions are usually
the ones we procrastinate upon at best and refuse to make
at worst.

And the businesses that can afford to hire are now being
told that their taxes are going up and they'll have less
money ...so let's guess how this affects their hiring
decisions. Pretty easy to see the ugly outcome here.

But then there's McCain...

In a strange twist of Republican fate, we now have the
"conservative" side of the aisle that wants to buy up all
the bad mortgages and become the worlds largest
landlord (after communist China that is) ...and this is
on top of the already disastrous $700B bailout package.

Personally, I can't wait to stop paying my mortgage
so I can get my interest rate reduced and my mortgage
amount cut to reflect the new value of my home.

So Carlos, I ask again these 2 simple questions:

1. Who is going to pay for all of this?

2. Are Obama and McCain both insane (or just
saying anything it takes to get elected)?

Thank god for one bit of reality ... campaign
promises have a way of not getting filled once the
candidate is elected.

After all, before it can go from being a "promise"
to a "reality", a lot of things need to happen. Not
the least of which, it needs to get funded into the
budget.

And based upon the latest financial crisis, loss of jobs,
loss of tax revenues, etc., there simply is not enough
money to pay for all these grand "master plans".

Which brings us right back to the old adage of; "the
more things change, the more they stay the same"."

(and after that it just goes into some WAHM scam)

DaWuss, I'll reply as I usually do to this conservative position that suggests that businesses won't hire people because their taxes are too high;

If you consider an employee a net expense, you probably shouldn't even consider starting a small business. 

Oh, sure.  It's easy to be first when you're concise.

Try being verbose like me and we'll see how fast you are...

I agree colonel.  It is like there is some basic disconnect between conservatives and how business is run.  It is not a necessary consequence that people will lose their jobs due to the owner supposedly paying higher taxes.  A cost/benefit analysis is always in play.  Does the worker add value to the business to a greater degree than they cost the business or can someone do the job with a greater contrast between their cost and benefit to the company?  Why do conservatives often ignore this basic rule so often?

"If you consider an employee a net expense, you probably shouldn't even consider starting a small business."

Why?  An employee IS an expense.  Correct me if I'm wrong though, aren't business taxes, actually paid on profits, not gross income.  So if your business is teetering on the verge of going over the $250,000 level it seems to me that hiring a new employee would be a GREAT way to get back below that limit.  Sounds like a plan for MORE hiring, not less!

Here's a little trick you can use, DAWUSS, when you get stuff like that.  When you get to the part that says:

Only when a business is making money can it possibly
hire some folks to work for them.

Think about it for a second, if you had a business
making $150k/year, would you be in a position to
hire someone at $50K per year?

...you can stop reading.  They're implying that the logical answer is "no".

The truth is that companies, big and small, hire people in order to make MORE money.  A company's income is derived from what its employees produce.  That's why they ask you to think about it only for a second.  That's how long they thought about it.

I realize this concept is a bit too deep for a lot of conservatives.  Learn who they are, and ignore them.

companies... hire people in order to make MORE money. 

Stop it, Neon, you've just destroyed the GOP platform ! Companies hire people as a charitable favor to the less ambitious.

Don't forget Grampah's crazy pastors, which he actively sought out...

Rod Parsley, Rev. Hagee....and there was one other nutbag wasn't there?

I was watching Hannity last night, and he was camped outside Schiavone's house interviewing two nurses who say that they actually witnessed Schiavone responding to parts of Steve Chapman's video clip.  Doctors say that it was an involuntary reflex to Dobbs prompting as evinced by her complete disregard of the context of Chapman's opinion.

I'm no doctor, but it sure doesn't seem like there's a lot of brain activity behind those eyes.  I'm beginning to question Hannity's veracity...

I'm no doctor, but it sure doesn't seem like there's a lot of brain activity behind those eyes.  I'm beginning to question Hannity's veracity...

Brain activity levels is something Sean Hannity has in common with Terry Schiavo....

Yeah, sorry 'bout that.  I was referring to Schiavone with the "brain activity" comment, and it wasn't until too late that I realized that putting the name "Hannity" so close to it that I had created understandable ambiguity.

In my defense, when has the void behind Hannity's eyes ever been questionable?

Steve Chapman tried to do a balanced (and interesting) piece - Louise and Lou tiptoed through the tulips and cherry-picked in classic Bety Boop style for a comic book partisan angle - genuinely stupid !  C'mon, Liddy is a convicted felon who still deals in toxic grease, still a Nixon apologist - Ayers is not.  End of story.  Lou and Louise, go sit in the corner for a couple of weeks . .  nobody'll miss you.

Yeah jerry,

I just sent Louise an e-mail....She's probably just one of the sycophants in Lou's stable.

Isn't G. Gordon Liddy, like Chris Baker, another talk show host that McCain includes among his friends?

Excerpt form Wikipedia about William Ayers.  You can read the whole thing there.  Does he sound like a real dangerous guy if Chicago holds him is such high esteem? 
In fact, he now sounds like a person dedicated to do right for his fellow citizens.

Ayers worked with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley in shaping the city's school reform program,[36]and was one of three co-authors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant proposal that in 1995 won $49.2 million over five years for public school reform.[37] In 1997 Chicago awarded him its Citizen of the Year award for his work on the project.[38] Since 1999 he has served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty, philanthropic foundation established as the Woods Charitable Fund in 1941.[39]According to Ayers, his radical past occasionally affects him, as when, by his account, he was asked not to attend a progressive educators' conference in the fall of 2006 on the basis that the organizers did not want to risk an association with his past.[40]