User talk:Mleikam

Your liberal edits to Obama's page are not worthy. Everyone knows Obama can give good speeches and the page doesn't need the gloss. Now, if you had included eloquent liar, I would have to agree. You didn't take my advice and find another article to edit, subsequently- you were blocked. Since you didn't reinsert posted and deleted content, I gave you a reasonable block of one week, unlike like Egen. Also, Huffington Post is not a valid citation for it is a liberal hate site. This is a conservative website. While liberals may contribute, it is not ConservLiberapedia. --Jpatt 13:13, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

This is taken from the "liberal hate site" Huffington Post:

NBC's focus group of undecided Pennsylvania voters had the Illinois Democrat winning by roughly a 60-40 split. Frank Luntz's focus group, over at Fox, showed undecided voters leaning towards Obama because of his position on health care. CBS's focus group of independents had the Democratic nominee winning the debate at 39 percent to McCain's 27 percent, with 35 percent of the respondents saying it was a tie. Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a Democratic polling firm, had a focus group of undecideds leaning to Obama by a margin of 42 percent to 24 percent.

Meanwhile, SurveyUSA interviewed 741 debate watchers in the state of Washington, 54 percent of whom thought Obama was the "clear winner" compared with McCain's 29 percent. That same polling firm had the first debate as a tie. In tonight's survey: 42 percent of respondents said McCain was too forceful.

And the CNN focus group of undecided voters in Ohio had the margin at an even wider spread: Obama 54 percent to McCain's 30.

So unless you are contending that HP lied about numbers which are easily verified elsewhere, it doesn't matter that it is a liberal paper. HelpJazz 13:35, 8 October 2008 (EDT)