What the candidates' words really mean
The upcoming election is so critical to the future of this country that we really need to understand the candidate commitment to their words and the American people.
Rev. Warren did an interview with both McCain and Obama at Saddleback recently which exposed the two for their experience and conviction. (Fencepost writer) Anne Krick of Wheaton apparently believes that Obama's lengthy answers were thoughtful and nuanced while McCain's were quick, emotion packed, and simply telling people what they wanted to hear. Therefore, her choice is Obama.
It is unfortunate that one of the meanings for nuance is "Difference in Meaning". So, Anne Krick will be voting for Obama because he says something but means something differently. Now, add to Obama's voting record of "Present" over 180 times as a Senator, shows he is unable to hold conviction to anything he says or believes and cannot decide on important issues.
Obama's appearance was so bad at Saddleback, his advisers needed to make up a story that McCain received the questions in advance.
The real result of this interview was an Obama that took time to think about how he could spin a question without really answering it. Yes, this will take more time than McCain's commitment to his beliefs, which provided him the ability to answer questions precise, quickly, and to the point.
The decision is easy: If you want a president who cannot make a decision and says something different from he really means, vote for Obama - but be prepared to get what you deserve. After all, he has done so much for Illinois.
If you want a president with experience and has the conviction of his words in the best interests of all Americans, vote for McCain.
Carl Palash
Carol Stream