Changes

It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach.  That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama.  Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent.  Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia [[Bill Clinton]] article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google).  I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat.  If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach.  That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama.  Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent.  Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia [[Bill Clinton]] article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google).  I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat.  If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)