Senator McCain is not too old. I guess people make this argument because they believe that old people can't make reasoned judgments or something along those lines. Maybe I just don't understand why being old is a problem so please enlighten me.

If you base your argument on judgment, than Obama must be way too young to be President. Let's look at his latest lack of judgment or obvious flip flop. I awoke this morning to see that Obama is flipping his stance on offshore drilling? Why? Because just the opposite has happened in the polls in Florida than what his judgment told him would happen. Over 60% of Floridians, a key battleground state, favor offshore drilling which is the opposite numbers of where this stood in the 2000 and 2004 elections where a grand majority of Floridians supported the ban on offshore drilling.

Flip flop. Flip flop. I guess when oil hits $4.00 a gallon you better make better judgments on what people need and want.

So, if McCain is too old because of his perceived senility a la Reagan, then judgment should be a key factor in your decision. And Obama's youthful judgment is baring much fruit these days. Remember the surge!

An old cliche is true here as well - perception becomes reality and politics is unfortunately all about perception. Senator Obama went to Iraq and to the other places he visited to answer Senator McCain's criticism and to strengthen his perceived weakness in foreign policy. Therefore, the argument can be made that it was a ploy.

Like any political ploy, you always run the risk of going too far and angering the people you are trying to reach. I believe this was true with Obama's trip because he made a couple of critical mistakes that the McCain campaign was hoping he would make - he played directly into their hands.

First, he made a grave mistake by canceling his trip to see the wounded troops where he couldn't bring cameras. In other words, he left the perception that he would only go to places where he could get media attention. It was okay for him to have cameras while shooting three pointers, a very Kennedyesque attempt at looking athletic and young but it wasn't okay to go to a tough place like an hospital where he would have to confront his own comments that this is a useless war. Victory McCain because the perception from the Iraq portion of the trip ended badly and Obama has had to acknowledge he probably should have gone.

Second, he proved he is very popular with the German people in a grand, and pictueresque way. The perception he was trying to create is that he is Presidential and the world loves him. And guess what, he is right. However, he failed to realize that no German citizen can legally vote in our Presidential elections. He admitted failures of the US government to a nation that has never fully healed the atrocities levied against the world in WWII - granted, they never will be able to heal those wounds fully.

The elitist left side of America gave him rave reviews for healing the wounds caused by President Bush. However, the blue collar workers who are likely going to decide this election felt that he betrayed the American people and those same people are somewhat proud that Bush has taken a tough stance against the world.

So, yes it was a ploy and a ploy that will hurt up until election day. Remeber that he is Senator Obama and not President Obama - not yet anyway.

No more news stories on Stevens today except hidden in the back pages.

I have a question I desperately need answered. Did Obama disclose his sweetheart land deal with Tony Rezco - yes, the one that he made well over $100,000 in equity almost instantly? If he did, where is the outrage and the indictment against Obama? Oh wait, he is a Democrat so there is no need to pursue it. I get it. If you are a Republican, you get blistered and indicted. If you are a Democrat, you get a pass because you are running a historic campaign and it is "our time." Our time for what? To have a person who is President who acknowledges a boneheaded deal that gave the perception of corruption?

And I guess CreateDebate only hires Democrat bloggers as well. I was being considered for a position writing in the various political column until I opposed a Democrat and favored a Republican in my writing - low and behold since then I can't even get a response as to whether I got the job.

Hmmm...objective sight, eh?

Compare the facts between Senator Obama and Senator Stevens. Why the indictment against Stevens while Obama gets a free pass? Could it be that unfashionable "R" behind Senator Stevens' name?

Obama Says He Regrets Land Deal With Fundraiser

Senator Bought a Parcel From His Neighbor, a Now-Indicted Political Operative

By Peter Slevin

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, December 17, 2006; Page A06

CHICAGO. Dec. 16 -- Antoin "Tony" Rezko is a political insider, an energetic Chicago dealmaker and campaign fundraiser often in the headlines for being on the wrong side of good government. Indicted in October on influence-peddling charges, he also has a habit of befriending prospective political stars.

One of them was Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who was offered a job by Rezko in the early 1990s while a top student at Harvard Law School. Obama did not take it, but over the years, the two men stayed in touch, and Rezko backed Obama's successful 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, raising money and contributing his own.

After Antoin "Tony" Rezko, right, leaves the Chicago federal building with his attorney in October after pleading not guilty to influence-peddling. (By Nam Y. Huh -- Associated Press)

Who's Blogging?

Read what bloggers are saying about this article.

The Truth About Obama

Mikey Likes It!

The Brutality of Reason

Full List of Blogs (68 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles

On washingtonpost.com | On the web

Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle

del.icio.usYahoo!

RedditFacebook

In June 2005, in what Obama now describes as a "boneheaded" mistake, Obama and Rezko's wife bought adjacent properties on Chicago's South Side, closing the deals on the same day. Seven months later, wanting a bigger yard for his $1.65 million house, Obama bought a slice of the Rezko property for $104,500.

After news of the deal broke last month in the Chicago Tribune, Obama said he had erred by creating the appearance that Rezko had done him a favor by selling him a portion of the lot. For the first time since he entered the national spotlight, the 45-year-old freshman senator found himself on the defensive, discussing a personal decision he had come to regret.

"There's no doubt that this was a mistake on my part. 'Boneheaded' would be accurate," Obama said in a telephone interview Friday. "There's no doubt I should have seen some red flags in terms of me purchasing a piece of property from him."

Obama recently donated to charity $11,500 that Rezko had contributed to his federal campaign account.

There have been no allegations that Obama, whose political fortunes are soaring as he mulls a run for president, broke the law or committed any ethics violations. He said he has done no government business with Rezko, who is facing charges in two unrelated criminal cases.

But leaders of Chicago watchdog organizations describe Obama's behavior as a surprising error in judgment, particularly for a politician noted for his tactical skills, his ambition and his support of state and federal ethics legislation.

"It's disappointing because there has been speculation about Tony Rezko, and whether he was crossing ethical lines, for a number of years," said Cynthia Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.

Jay Stewart, executive director of Chicago's Better Government Association, said, "Being a lawyer, he did everything by the book, but there's a higher expectation of him."

To Chicago political observers, it made sense that Rezko tried to get close to Obama. A Syrian-born businessman whose fortunes seemed to rise and fall with his latest deal, Rezko was known for cultivating politicians, including Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) and Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.).

Rezko created a real estate development company and operated dozens of Chinese eateries and pizza restaurants. After Blagojevich rode into office in 2002, Rezko emerged as a friend and close adviser. He recommended people for significant state jobs and, a federal grand jury charged, soon tried to shake down investment firms that wanted to do business with Illinois.

You should vote for Senator Ted Stevens. Why?

The proof is in the details of the case. There are a number of important facts to consider before passing final judgment on an icon of the Senate, who has often championed issues on both sides of the aisle. Can't we give the man who single-handedly ushered Title IX through the US Senate some benefit of the doubt? Do you know and understand Title IX? Title IX leveled the playing field between men and women athletic teams at the university and high school level - this was not a popular stance with his Republican colleagues. So please take a collective breath and consider the facts before passing final judgment.

First, a criminal making deals to stay out of prison is often not a credible source. Mr. Allen of VECO fame is just that - a convicted criminal trying to do whatever he can to lessen his jail sentence.

Second, the justice department indicted Senator Stevens for not reporting gifts under the US Senate ethics rules. They did not indict him on bribery or corruption charges because they knew they could not prove a quid pro quo. What does this mean? It means they cannot prove Senator Stevens ever did anything for VECO in return for political favors.

Third, relating to the lack of reporting of gifts, Senator Stevens submitted paid bills in the amount of $130,000 to VECO and he maintains these were the only bills he ever received. It is possible that he believed that was more than enough to cover the renovations of his vacation property. Given the scope of the renovations, one can argue that Senator Stevens is out of touch with the reality of construction costs. This is a far cry and a legal mile from knowingly and willingly taking gifts and purposely avoiding reporting them on his Senate ethics reports.

His political opponets will continue to report that this is a case without a defense and they are wrong. Here is the prediction of the year: Senator Stevens will win re-election relatively easily after the citizens of Alaska are allowed to objectively sort through the lies and the truth. My guess is Senator Stevens is out of touch with the realities of cost but he is not a criminal. I look forward to the year 2009 when Senator Stevens returns to the Senate floor wearing his Incredible Hulk tie and he once again takes on his own party and supports a worthy cause like Title IX.

Where is the cry about Senator Obama's sweetheart land deal in Illinois? Did he report that deal on his Senate ethics report? The answer: No!