Obama's Fumble #3: Puppy in a sea of Pitbulls

This video is a campaign ad endorsed by Senior Senator Elizabeth Dole from North Carolina, running for another term in the Senate. Opposing her is a Presbyterian and former Sunday School teacher by the name of Kay Hagan, who has been on the North Carolina Senate since 1999. The reason for addressing her religious afflication is because of the "Godless" attack ad from Dole's campaign.

The ad is one of the most misleading ads seen on the campaign trail for a number of reasons:

1. Yes, Hagan attended the fundraiser in question. However, the fundraiser was not exclusively hosted by the Godless Americans. One of the 40 co-hosts of the fundraiser is a member the organization. Catholic John Kerry also attended this fundraiser.
   
   
2. That voice at the end? It was not Hagan's voice, but the voice of Ellen Johnson, the executive director of the Godless Americans PAC.
   
   
3. Just like the question that Colin Powell posed with the Muslim accusation of Obama, so what if the ad had even the slightly bit of truth in it? So what if Hagan was an atheist? Is there something wrong with being an atheist in this country?
   

It is amazing to see that, in this ad, atheists are treated as Arab-Americans and the religion of Islam in the media: grossly misrepresented and vilified.

Why is this a question in terms of Obama's campaign?

These are the ads and attacks he and his party is dealing with every day on the campaign trail. In a dog-eat-dog world, Obama has done his best to pay it cool while the McCain/Palin ads are getting dirtier and the rallies... let's not go there.

Yes, the Obama campaign has dished out some harsh ads (this internet one, in particular), but has not gone much on the attack. Sure, that may be all and good with this campaign, but what would happen if leaders of other foreign countries start to bully Obama through protests, press conferences denouncing his presence, and effigies? Will Obama stand his ground and defend himself or will he let the possible inaccuracies pollute the countries?

McCain is viewed by some to be an attack-dog with Sarah "Barracuda" Palin by his side. They have shown that they will attack if deemed necessary. Will Obama exercise the judgment to attack the inaccurate words said about him after January 20, 2009?

Though Obama's aggressiveness and judgment are not greatly questioned here in this post, it is a question to think about when Obama, viewed by some to be "inexperienced", deals with countries that may not view us in the greatest light. Will Obama attack the anti-Muslim sentiment among other inaccuracies in this country and around the world? Little has been shown by Obama to really answer that question.

Oh, as for Elizabeth Dole? Despite Hagan filing a defamation suit against her, Dole dished out another ad only confirming the first "godless" ad.



Classy, Dole, classy.

Obama's Fumble #2: Abortion.

This YouTube video is a compelling illustration of what the video states as "the Catholic vote". The video starts with a basic appeal to Catholic voters on what they should center their vote on:

This November, America's future hangs in the balance. Catholics across the nation will have the responsibility to make their voices heard. Many issues are at stake. Some (picture of baby) are more important than others (gas prices). No issue can be ignored but none are more critical to the foundation of our country than life and family. The family must be strengthened, not refined. Human life is paramount and must be protected from conception to natural death.

The Catholic vote clearly points to abortion being an extremely important issue for Catholic voters. Though poll numbers state that Obama is getting more of the Catholic vote, the question remains: Where does Obama stand on the issue of the most fragile of lives, the life of the human fetus?

How important is the issue of life to Obama if he decides not
to protect the most fragile? -- Helen Hughes/MCT

Let's use a three-point outline to explore Obama's possible "extreme" abortion views:

1. He opposed the partial birth abortion ban and voiced his displeasure of the ban being passed early 2008. Though the term 'partial birth' is debated, a partial birth abortion would occur in the second trimester (12 to 24 weeks). Mind you, babies have been born as early as 21 weeks into the pregnancy.
   
   
2. As a Senator, he opposed an act titled the Induced Infant Liability Act, which is similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Both acts extend protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion.
   
   
3. In late March 2008 at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania, Obama spoke about his sex education policies (YouTube link):
   

"When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

The language and actions Obama has shown in his short time in the Senate and in the blinding public eye has clearly explained his abortion views. In some ideas, especially the Pro-Life movement, his views are labeled as "extreme".

Yes, abortion is one of the numerous issues on the table for voters to consider, but unlike many issues, abortion deals with both the potential and the most fragile of life. Regardless if you are an Obama supporter or not, his abortion views should make one question his value on life from its beginnings to end.

If one believes a candidate doesn't truly value life, what is the motivation to vote for that candidate?

Obama's Fumble #1: Brandon Marshall?

Welcome to the first-post of "For Obama... and yet..."! For the last two weeks, leading up to the election, I will be detailing 6 reasons why some people who may be supporting Senator Barack Obama should be just a little weary on their choice, either serious issues like abortion or light-hearted issues. Personally, I have been on the Obama bandwagon for 2 years now. However, within those two years, my opinion on Obama has been swayed back and forth. I still know who I'm voting for November 4th, but am I still secure in that decision?

*******************************************************

For fantasy football fans, the art of selecting a team that can dominate its league week-after-week is almost as important a decision as choosing a college or an engagement ring. Each fantasy team owner has different biases that will dictate who he or she will choose. Some are more quarterback friendly, choosing three QBs to shore up the offense. Some try to get back with one running back star and a few no-names. Some go where most never venture into: building a team solely on a strong defense. Each strategy brings about positives and defenses, and at the end of the week, all that will matter is whether your team has a W next to its box score.

ESPN writer Rick Reilly attempts to venture into what a potential United States president would choose. According to Reilly's article, Obama was both hard to get a hold of (I wonder why) and a bit "bossy". The article exposes an interesting factor into Obama's thinking:

Ohhhh, so that's how it's going to be. "Well, I like Carson Palmer," I said. "He's due for a big week, plus he plays in Ohio and I figure that's a state you need, so …"

He looked at me like I'd stuck my elbow in his soup. "Man, this is more important than politics!" he insisted. "This is football!"

Before I hear radical McCain supporters jump on this and add another accusation to the campaign gems of "terrorist!" and "kill him!", let's dissect this. Picking a fantasy team isn't that much off from picking a Cabinet. You want a team that will take care of his or her position while building a collective force that can take care of whatever comes its way. Sure, the consequences are on completely different scales, but the preparation is still there.

Instead of dealing with established bureaucracy limitations on who Obama can choose, the ESPN fantasy game he was playing had a salary cap. According to the article, Obama did his homework and checked in on his fantasy stats, even as he was about to prep for the final debate.

Obama wishes Brandon Marshall was getting to that ball, rather than Jacksonville Jaguars safety Gerald Sensabaugh. -- Mark Reis/Colorado Springs Gazette/MCT

However, all the thinking and prepping in the world can not rectify a terrible Secretary of the Treasury, despite the credentials. The same can be said about picking Denver Broncos wide-receiver Brandon Marshall over Minnesota Vikings wide-receiver Bernard Berrian in Week 6. Obama may have believed Marshall had better credentials to bring his team more points, and yet Reilly's pick performed a bit better.

In order to construct the best team, one must be able to view any possible scenarios and choose the best players. Instead of listening to famed sportswriter's Rick Reilly's advice, Obama went with his choosing most of the time.

If Obama can not construct a successful team to perform to its best in fantasy, how could we trust his choosing in the future? Beating 4 out of 5 countries just won't cut it as the President of the United States.