I don't understand why people alwaysoften have to defend or attack each candidate on every point.
You would make much better arguments if you kept it rational. Obama and McCain both have their strengths and weaknesses. Both have things that everybody would be able to agree with if they weren't polarized by the political parties. I like the idea of the parties, but individual voters should be able to look beyond the party platform. When people argue for a single platform they just seem silly.
The running of the United States, our international policy, the economy and security are too important to gloss over with check lists and little inflammatory blurbs. It would also be appreciated if you would refrain mixing up facts with partisan myths.
The strength of discussing politics on the internet is that we can put aside 10 second blurbs, think through our posts, and say what we mean completely and clearly. Let's take advantage of that.
Candidates say a lot of things to get elected (and will vote that way during campaign season - Examples: McCain tax rebate, Obama surveillance). When they are in office they react to legislation according to their longer voting records. Of course, Senatorial voting records have very little to do with how an executive acts.
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
