Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?

2008-08-18T03:15:35Z

RoyS: New page: I absolutely agree that it is possible to convert or find religion. Not only atheists, but people from many religions suddenly have a reawakening and convert, for example, to Christianity...

I absolutely agree that it is possible to convert or find religion. Not only atheists, but people from many religions suddenly have a reawakening and convert, for example, to Christianity. However, there are many circumstances in which a person does not simply have such a reawakening. People often convert to another religion for reasons such as being able to marry someone. Is is possible for someone to force himself or herself to change one's religion or to believe in a religion if one is formerly an atheist? Also, is it possible for someone to force himself to become an atheist? --[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 23:15, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-08-18T03:12:46Z

RoyS: /* Religious debates */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion]]
# [[Adoption and Abortion]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Is president Bush ignoring human rights violations in China?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?|Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama trails McCain in polling before the Democratic convention, will they choose Hillary instead?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?| Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?|Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?| If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?|Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?|Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Conservapedia:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Discussion:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Democratic Party

2008-08-14T18:42:36Z

RoyS: /* History */

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name = Democratic Party
| party_articletitle = Democratic Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|200px]]
| website = [http://www.democrats.org www.democrats.org]
| headquarters = 430 South Capitol Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Howard Dean]]
| houseleader = [[Nancy Pelosi]]
| senateleader = [[Harry Reid]]
| foundation = 1792 or 1820's
| ideology = [[Liberal|Liberalism]] [[Progressive|Progressivism]] [[Neoconservatism]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Populism]]
| socialpolicy = [[Liberal|Liberalism]]
| colors = Blue (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}

The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. Its leadership is [[liberal]], in contrast with [[conservative]] voters who tend to support the rival [[Republican Party]].<ref>See [[political spectrum theory]]</ref> Members and supporters of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats, and historically the party has sometimes been called the "Democrat Party," which the party considers a pejorative term. The Democratic Party is the recipient of 85% of all [[Corporation|corporate]] lobbying [[money|cash]] according to ''Roll Call'' newspaper's top-20 list of corporate influence donations.<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010753 Comfy With K Street Democrats tell business to pay up or else], Stephen Moore, OpinionJournal.com, October 19, 2007.</ref> However, this is likely due to corporate donors' tendency to support the majority party in Congress,<ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6359.html], Jeanne Cummings, politico.com, October 15, 2007.</ref> as when the [[Republican]] party was in power the situation was reversed.

The Democrats currently control the [[110th United States Congress]] together with the majority of State governorships and legislatures.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> According to a Pew Research Center poll, 50 percent of Americans identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35 percent for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> However, Democrats have served out only three of the last ten presidential terms. The AP/Ipsos Poll reports that the Democratic-majority U.S. Congress currently has a 26% approval rating.<ref>[http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr080110-1topline.pdf&id=3782 AP/Ipsos Poll], January 7-9, 2008.</ref>

On June 7th, 2008, with the concession of [[Hillary Clinton|Senator Hillary Clinton]] the Democratic nominee for the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 presidential election]] is Senator [[Barack Obama]] of [[Illinois]]. The most recent president who was a Democrat was [[Bill Clinton]], who served from 1993 to 2001.

In 2007, the democratic leadership in Florida broke the party rules by moving their primaries up. This disqualified their delegates from the [[2008_Presidential_Election#Democratic_Strategy|2008 Presidential Primary Election]] 2008 Democratic National Convenetion.<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersberg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref> The ''St. Petersberg Times'' quotes a letter from Florida Senator [[Bill Nelson]] and others Democratic members of the Florida Congressional delegation sent to DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]] protesting a move by the Committee to violate individual [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights]],
{{Cquote|It always has been a priority of our party to protect the rights of every eligible American to vote," the letter said. "We would hope the DNC will continue to honor this right.}}

The Democrats ended up seating all of Florida's delegates but they will only have half of a vote each at the convention. A full Michigan delegation with half-votes was seated as well, but Obama was assigned all of Michigan's uncommitted delegates, and four Hillary Clinton delegates were transfered to Barack Obama, allegedly to compensate for the Barack Obama supporters who didn't vote because he removed his name from the Michigan ballot.

Giving each delegate half a vote was the minimum penalty possible, leading some to question whether the Democratic Party is serious about punishing states for moving up their primaries.{{fact}}

==History==
The Democratic Party was founded in 1792 by [[Thomas Jefferson]] as a congressional caucus to fight for the [[Bill of Rights]] and to oppose the elitist [[Federalist Party]] led by [[Alexander Hamilton]], which fought for the [[Constitution]].

In 1798, the party was officially named the "Democratic-Republican Party", and in 1800 Jefferson was elected as the first Democratic [[President of the United States]]. Jefferson, a member of the landed gentry and a slave owner, served two terms as president with distinction, and was succeeded by another Democrat, [[James Madison]], in 1808. During Madison's tenure, the United States fought the [[United Kingdom]] in the [[War of 1812]]. James Monroe, another Democratic-Republican, was elected president in 1816 and led the nation through a time commonly known as "The Era of Good Feelings". In this period, the party dominated American politics with little opposition. Monroe was followed by John Quincy Adams who won the hotly contested election of 1824, becoming the first son of a former president to be elected president.

[[Andrew Jackson]], who defeated Adams in the 1828 election and signed into law the [[Indian Removal Act of 1830]],<ref>[http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/UHS/APUSH/1st%20Sem/Articles%20Semester%201/Artiles%20Semester%201/Remini.htm Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal], by Robert Remini.</ref> according to the Democratic National Committee's website is "considered — along with Jefferson — one of the founding fathers of the Democratic Party".<ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/06/our_history.php Democratic National Committee, ''Our History''], retrieved 25 March 2007.</ref> Annual Jefferson-Jackson Day celebrations nationwide by local chapters of the Democratic Party commemorate the two founders of the Democratic Party.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001949.html String of Successes Enlivens Democratic Party], Michael D. Shear, ''The Washington Post'', 22 February 2007.</ref> The Indian Removal Act, enforced through a series of dishonest dealings with native people such as the Treaty of Dancing Rabitt Creek and the Treaty of New Echota, resulted in the wholesale deportation of Native Americans from the Southeastern states to Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma).<ref>http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/</ref>

The Jacksonian period also saw the expansion of the voting franchise as most states did away with, or decreased property requirements for, voting. The beneficiaries of the expansion of the franchise, however, were nearly all white males.

During and after the period of the Civil War, the Democratic party was noted for being heavily supportive of the institution of slavery. In fact, its views were in direct opposite of the newer Republican party, which opposed slavery and believed that the vile institution should be eliminated. It would be many years before the Democrats recognized that they needed to hide their views about slavery in order to attract support and become more in line with the mainstream Republican Party.

Democrat [[Franklin Roosevelt]], who served as President from 1933 to 1945, led the United States during the [[Great Depression]] and throughout most of the [[Second World War]]. He remains the only President elected to four terms. Under his successor [[Harry Truman]] the United States emerged a victor from World War II and articulated the Doctrine of [[Containment]], which committed the U.S. to stop the spread of global [[Communism]]. Truman ordered the Berlin airlift in 1948 and sent U.S. troops to Korea in 1950.

==Policies and criticism==

In June 2005, at the U.S. Capitol Democrats held a mock impeachment inquiry into President's Bush's foreign policy. Concurrently, a rally was being held at the Democratic National Party headquarters where some activists handed out [[anti-Semitic]] materials, claiming that an Israeli company had warning of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], and an "insider trading scam" on Wall Street had occurred simultaneously.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War], Dana Milbank, ''Washington Post'', June 17, 2005.</ref>

The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national platform, however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions. <ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php] , http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php, March 6, 2005</ref>

===Economic policy===
In the field of economic policy, Democrats favor high progressive taxes, higher government spending and increasing the minimum wage.

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]].<ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref>

The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.

Democrats take the stance of wanting to help low-income Americans by increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans.

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref> A poll conducted by [[Fox News]] released in October 2007 found that 1 in 5 Democrats – nearly 10 million voters – think the world will be better off if the [[United States]] were to lose the [[War in Iraq]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War], FOX News Poll, October 04, 2007.</ref> The poll found this sentiment 3 to 4 times higher among Democrats than among moderate, centrist, and Republican voters.

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] claims a long-standing opposition to school vouchers.<ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' warned that opposition to vouchers might alienate some traditional Democratic voting blocs:
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education."<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Healthcare===
The Democrat fondness for heavy government intervention into the marketplace and social engineering means that a significant proportion of their base and of their candidates for the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election ideologically favor introducing a system of [[socialized healthcare]]{{fact|date=January 2008}}; regardless of the crippling tax burden this would require to sustain itself and the low standard of care achieved by socialized health programs in other countries compared to the United States.{{fact|date=January 2008}} However, many first world nations such as France and Britain do have socialized healthcare systems, and are ranked 1 and 18 by the [[World Health Organization]]<ref>http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html</ref>, respectively, compared to the United States' rank of 37. Therefore, many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal healthcare]] to be a priority because of the appeal to voters without any kind of [[health insurance]]. Among the leading proponents for this idea include [[Barack Obama|Sen. Barack Obama]] and [[John Edwards|Sen. John Edwards]]; the latter formerly being the running mate to [[John Kerry|Sen. John Kerry]] in the [[2004 Presidential Election]].

===Gay Rights===
Democratic lawmakers and opinion-formers consistently favor measures such as the establishment of [[same-sex civil union]]s, [[gay marriage]] and [[gay adoption]] of children over defense of the [[traditional family]]. Likewise they are vigorous in attempting to amend [[hate crime]] laws, which some experts maintain would make criticism of the [[homosexual lifestyle]] illegal;<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54535 Christian belief a [[hate crime]] under plan], WorldNetDaily, March 3, 2007. </ref> while at the same time supporting efforts to disseminate favorable opinions regarding [[homosexuality]] through channels such as the mainstream media and even the educational system in the face of opposition from churches and religious authorities, a broad coalition of [[Republican Party|Republican]] and Independent politicians. Democrats reject the idea of a [[Homosexual agenda]] preferring to speak in terms of [[Gay rights|gay rights]] when this issue is raised. The Democratic Party is the recipient and beneficiary of funding from homosexual lobbying groups and can be seen by their positions as the United States' largest and most powerful ''de facto'' supporter of the Homosexual Agenda.<ref>[http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000158 Human Rights Campaign], opensecrets.org </ref>

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Both historically and today, [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party, and a number of Democratic office-holders, such as Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]] and Massachusetts Senator [[Ted Kennedy]], are Catholics. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].

With regard to [[Protestantism|Protestant]] Christians, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in particular are associated with the [[Republican Party]]. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestant Christians and from secular and atheist white voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestant Christians (and, indeed, among orthodox Catholics) contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]]. One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.

Democrats also generally believe that religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the ACLU. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Legislature, and as a result when Justice [[Roy Moore]] posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==Democratic Presidents==
* [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)
* [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)
* [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)
* [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)
* [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)
* [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)
* [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)
* [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)
* [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)
* [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)
* [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)
* [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)
* [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)

==See also==
*[[Phonemarks]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Democrats|Articles about '''Democrats''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]

[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Essay:Torture

2008-08-13T17:10:09Z

RoyS: New page: This is an essay in progress about "torture": what constitutes it, when it is legal, and when it is necessary. I would love some feedback as I begin to write it.

This is an essay in progress about "torture": what constitutes it, when it is legal, and when it is necessary. I would love some feedback as I begin to write it.

Time Line of Lenski Incident

2008-08-13T15:59:23Z

RoyS:

This page contains a time line of the incident between editors of Conservapedia and [[Richard Lenski]], who has refused to disclose important data despite the fact that his research is publicly funded. In response, Conservapedia has asked that all of his data be disclosed.
==June 2008==
*June 9- "Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab" printed in New Scientist 
*June 10- Data of Lenski paper published in PNAS
*June 13- Conservapedia sends first [[Lenski dialog|letter]] questioning some of the claims in the paper

==July 2008==

==August 2008==

==Future==

Time Line of Lenski Incident

2008-08-13T15:58:36Z

RoyS: /* June 2008 */

This page contains a time line of the incident between editors of Conservapedia and [[Richard Lenski]], who has refused to disclose important data despite the fact that his research is publicly funded. All of the events occurred in the year 2008.

==June 2008==
*June 9- "Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab" printed in New Scientist 
*June 10- Data of Lenski paper published in PNAS
*June 13- Conservapedia sends first [[Lenski dialog|letter]] questioning some of the claims in the paper

==July 2008==

==August 2008==

==Future==

Time Line of Lenski Incident

2008-08-13T15:56:12Z

RoyS: /* June 2008 */

This page contains a time line of the incident between editors of Conservapedia and [[Richard Lenski]], who has refused to disclose important data despite the fact that his research is publicly funded. All of the events occurred in the year 2008.

==June 2008==
*June 10- Data of Lenski paper published in PNAS
*June 13- Conservapedia sends first [[Lenski dialog|letter]] questioning some of the claims in the paper

==July 2008==

==August 2008==

==Future==

Time Line of Lenski Incident

2008-08-13T15:56:01Z

RoyS: /* June 2008 */

This page contains a time line of the incident between editors of Conservapedia and [[Richard Lenski]], who has refused to disclose important data despite the fact that his research is publicly funded. All of the events occurred in the year 2008.

==June 2008==
June 10- Data of Lenski paper published in PNAS
June 13- Conservapedia sends first [[Lenski dialog|letter]] questioning some of the claims in the paper

==July 2008==

==August 2008==

==Future==

Talk:Time Line of Lenski Incident

2008-08-13T15:53:27Z

RoyS: New page: I created this page because it seems useful to have a general time line. Most importantly, it is a place for administrators such as Aschlafly to add various pieces of information (i.e. th...

I created this page because it seems useful to have a general time line. Most importantly, it is a place for administrators such as Aschlafly to add various pieces of information (i.e. the dates of the responses from PNAS) so we can keep a record. --[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 11:53, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Time Line of Lenski Incident

2008-08-13T15:51:55Z

RoyS: New page: This page contains a time line of the incident between editors of Conservapedia and Richard Lenski, who has refused to disclose important data despite the fact that his research is pub...

Debate:Is Conservapedia neutral or onesided?

2008-08-12T19:17:16Z

RoyS: /* Conservapedia is neutral */

{{debate}}
== Conservapedia is neutral ==

It really depends what you are asking. Yes - conservapedia is neutral to FACTS. One could argue that Conservapedia is one-sided because sometimes it omits a point of view, but the truth is that most of these people are liberals who simply do not accept that the truth often sides with a particular point of view that they do not like. Neutral does not mean using falsehoods to balance out an article - it means telling the facts as they are.--[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 15:17, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Conservapedia is one-sided ==
Conservapedia is necessarily one-sided. That side is the early 21st century American socially and politically conservative, predominately White and Christian side. The tone is unyielding toward these values, which is why Conservapedia repels users from other perspectives. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 10:27, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

It's obvious to anyone who reads one of the major articles here that Conservapedia is not neutral. The wiki has a conservative bias. The sysops make only a token effort to appear neutral, if that. (My standard disclaimers apply: I won't respond to responses to this, etc., etc.) [[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 19:51, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikiproject:News

2008-08-12T14:45:59Z

RoyS: /* Members */

Hello, and welcome to Wikiproject:News. We are a project trying to improve both the "In the News" section and the "Previous Breaking News" articles by subject. The immediate purpose of the "Previous Breaking News" is to allow editors to review news articles they might have missed while away from the site. The ultimate purpose of the "Previous Breaking News" is to update the corresponding Conservapedia articles.

==Members==
''If you are a liberal, or are offended by the news articles on the Main Page, do NOT sign up.'' We are not going to put liberal items on the Main Page, so your suggestions will be ignored and you will be removed from this project. To sign up simply put <nowiki>*~~~~</nowiki>.

Since Conservapedia administrators have edit rights to the "In the news" section of the Main Page, Admins are automatically members of Wikiproject:News and do not need to sign up.

* [[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 10:45, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:AgnethaF|AgnethaF]] 14:43, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 10:52, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 22:58, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
* [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

==Subprojects==

===In the news===
This subsection is for suggestions for the "In the news" section of the Main Page. The news section is '''not''' trying to be unbiased. News items will be biased toward conservative, Christian people and views.

[[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]] the Guidelines. Make your suggestions [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|here]].

===Previous Breaking News===
This subsection is for updates to the [[Wikiproject:News/Previous Breaking News|Previous Breaking News]] by Subjects. The ultimate purpose is to use the previous news articles to update the corresponding Conservapedia articles.

Algebra

2008-07-27T02:06:54Z

RoyS: /* Basic Algebra */

'''Algebra''' is a major branch of [[mathematics]] that analyzes the relationships between quantities or items. In higher math the principle fields of algebra are [[linear algebra]], which focuses on matrices, and [[group theory]].<ref>The name algebra comes from the [[Arabic]] word ''al jebr'', which means reduction or "reunion of broken parts" [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/algebra Algebra] as mentioned in a book ''Hisab al-jabr w'al-muqabala'' translated as ''Science of the Reunion and the Opposition''. This text was written in in about 830 AD by [[Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī| Mohammad ibn-Musa al-Khwarizmi]] of [[Baghdad]]. See the [http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/Museum/alkhwa.html Biography of Al-Khwarizmi]</ref>

== Basic Algebra ==

Algebra is a generalization of [[arithmetic]] in which letters stand for numbers in order to accomplish this purpose. Ordinary arithmetic deals with ''specific'' numbers, treated individually: 4 + 7 = 11.

Algebra generalizes these operations by using variables or letters instead of specific numbers. These letters are called [[unknown|unknowns]]. For example,

:x + y = 11

By using unknowns, algebra can go beyond individual number facts and express general relationships between ''sets'' of numbers. Thus, the equation above represents ''every pair'' of numbers that add up to 11:
*x could be 4 and y could be 7
*x could be 5 and y could be 6
*x could be 10 and y could be 1.

Note that this list is infinitely long, because x could be 12 and y could be -1, for example. Moreover, x could be 10.5 and y could be .5.

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Algebra]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]

Talk:Letter to PNAS

2008-07-25T21:05:40Z

RoyS: /* Completion of the cc: list */

: It's an excellent draft, DinsdaleP. I made a few minor revisions above. After others improve this, then I'll plan on sending it to PNAS later this week. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}
::I like it. I'll sign my name to it when the time comes.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:35, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

Thanks for the feedback - When applying changes, please keep in mind that the "Text" section in the final version needs to be 250 words or less. If there are important points to add that would exceed this limit, they could be added to the main [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study]] article instead since PNAS is being asked to respond to the full list there, and not just the summary. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:47, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

: I think if i would have presented some draft of that quality to my supervisor i think i would not have reached the door of his office alive and in one piece. It starts with the fact that the correct citation of the article is missing. Please use the appropriate form, inclucing journal number and page. Please have a look at other PNAS Letters. Restate the central issue you criticise in the first sentence, then explicitely describe what your claim about the same issue is and state using what method you come to your conclusion. Keep a neutral tone. Don't make requests. It is obvious that the original author should respond (please look at PNAS for examples of responses, which are published at the same location). Plese fill in your numbers and precise arguments at the points where i left the dots in the following suggestion ('''Please note that nothing of this is my opinion, i just tried to rephrase your opinions in a way that they have the chance to be exposed to a broader view - i skipped tyhe details, because i will not rephrase your arguments, just the structure'''):
: Recently ...... inferred from their experiments (1) that ...... . We analyzed the statistical analysis in terms of ..... and conclude that several variables do not scale as .... . Using hypothesis tests under such circumstances is, in our opinion, ...... , and we do not understand how the authors of the original publication ..... their results.
: The replay experiments yield an ..... scaling with .... . We do not find a consistent value of ..... between the experiments. Furthermore the statistical deviation due to ...... in each sample set does not allow to infer ..... with a sufficient precision. This lack of scaling makes, in our opionion a constant or random source of contamination a likely explanation for a random observation of the ...... dependence of the mutation rate claimed in the paper. The following calculation supports this hypothesis: ....... .
: Furthermore we point out that Fig. ... contains a serious disagreement with .....: while the data would suggest ..... from gen. ..... the figure suggests .....
: We find the material cited in the original article (2)...(n) about the same long-time experiment not to describe the following procedures and experimental constants in a way accessible to us: Handling of ..., contamination rates of ...., and ..... We would kindly ask the authors to clarify these issues. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:48, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::No offense taken. I have no experience in these types of submissions, and would appreciate it if you could restructure the submission improve the quality while adhering to the 250-word limit. As I suggested above, it makes the most sense to incorporate these revisions into the main page for this article, where length is not an issue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:52, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::: I realized that you have obviously not much experience in it; getting the right tone for a scientific publication is hard and i had to try it quite some times on conferences and i still dont get it right sometimes - and from what you said seem to be a student. Sadly, it is against my conviction to rephrase the original arguments in the right way because it would make me an co-author of argumentations i strongly object. In case you did not realize it, helping here to get the structure right doesn't mean i agree - actually the two reasons i would like to see it published is because then the (wrong) idea that scientific journals are not accepting criticism could be obviously be put aside and because i would like to see the needed scientific rigorousity applied to the arguments presented here, because this would put this discussion onto a scientific basis. Quite frankly - i am a liberal by the standards of this site. But i believe the discussion must be carried out with all respect to define the borders of science. The more effective the discussion is carried out, the better the outcome will be. I am willing to listen, as i have proven here, even when beeing treated by people like Mr. Schlafly as if I would be one of his students, while evaluating his qualification in natural sciences quickly shows that i more likely could supervise him in the issues he discusses here (which is something he has proven all along). Regarding that, i am close to giving up, but nevertheless i have seen that a lot of conservatives actually are willing to lead this discussion in a scientific way, which is something, which fulfills me with hope. I recommend you not to fight a fight in where you don't understand the arguments. Don't pick up arguments from others. If you can not fill in the missing words, numbers and arguments in my text, i cant help you. I see what Mr. Schlafly believes, however i do not know how to get the calculation right to support his hypothesis (random or contant mutation rate) - and, this is most likely not because of a lack of statistical knowledge. The only way i would see is to use the rudest form of descriptive statistics and agreggate the data in a very specific way, while ignoring the structure of the experiment - and ignoring the fact that the authors pointed out the problem they see and adressed them. So i can only give oy a few hints (maybe i can form a short contibution to conservapedia; i am just thinking about the title):

:::: If you claim something is wrong, put your opposing claim in a positive formulation, with a supporting calculation, in contrast . Even if the calculation is simple, this is very important to provide it. E.g. we estimate a rate of x+-y per z for dataset N, in which we aggregated generations a,b,c,d, etc .... In the end, you should either prove a mathematical mistake (which was not done) or shoe you hypothesis is more likely.

:::: Don't be rude. You are not the referee and you are not member of a commitee to examine scientific misbehaviour. Dont act like one (and even referees have a friendlier tone usually). Dont act like an personal enemy either. Don't ask for retraction of the article. It is up to the author to make the conclusion respond or retract. This happens more often than you may think as a response to an critisism (actually it's fun to read the "reply section" of scientific journals - sometimes you find things like: "yes, the commenter was right we copied the paper and retract it"). And you are never requesting, but you are kindly asking. Everybody understands that "kindly asking" does not mean "kindly asking" in this context.

:::: Always give full and specific citations which back your claims. Give it in the form required by the specific journal. General citations like "materials on his website" will make your text bein trown out in the editorial screening (because you can not expect that somebody read trough all information to find something backing you claim - this is your job). See for specific styles [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style]]. Ypu may even reference a page/paragraph/eq/figure number to point the reader to what you mean (for papers longer than 4 pages i usually do that).

:::: Run a style checker over your text to eliminate common style mishaps.

:::: '''Most important''': go to your university library. Take the time to just read a few PNAS Letters and replys, and the original articles (Try to finde some with an easy understandable subject). Understanding how these are written and how authors usually reply will help you to get your one right. You are writing against somebody who has twenty years of experience in a field of publishing in natural sciences. You seem to have little experience and Andrew Schlafly, honestly, neither. This game is an uphill battle and unfair game anyway. Make sure you maximize your chances by understanding the rules of the game.

:::: Focus on a single you are sure about. It is better to present one claim well that two claims badly.

:::: Good luck. You will need it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 14:22, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Stitch75", you seem to think that the truth depends on whether PNAS accepts it. It doesn't. Lenski's paper is badly flawed regardless of whether he admits it, PNAS admits it, or you admit it. That's the beauty of the truth: it doesn't require admission by anyone. I'm fine with Lenski and PNAS refusing to admit the flaws in their paper. After all, if they really cared about quality then I doubt they would have published their flawed paper after merely 14 days or less of peer review.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:38, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
I tend to agree with you Andy. I say we get this thing sent to PNAS and see what happens. If they refuse to answer it then we know what that means, and if they thumb their noses at you that's fine too. However I have a little more faith than you in the system and I hold out hope that they'll respond to our queries. Anyway lets get this thing sent. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:50, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

I'd like to thank Stitch75, because he took the time to explain his points constructively, and I learned something from them. (I'm actually an IT Specialist in my 40's, not a full-time student, but learning is a never-ending process and I appreciated the lesson). I consider myself bound by the same ethical constraints on editing that he mentioned, because these objections to Lenski's work are Mr. Schlafly's, not my own. I tend to believe that the Lenski experiment was properly executed, but I'm a strong believer in the scientific process, and Mr. Schlafly's objections deserve a fair hearing whether one believes in them or not. My contribution is to help in the process of getting these objections to the proper forum, namely PNAS, and leaving the response up to them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:20, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Stich has given you brilliant advice, and you throw it away. He has told you that your letter will not get published, and it will have nothing to do with it's content. And when it doesn't get published you will claim it as a victory. If you take his advice and continue to take it, you will make it so no one can simply claim your letter wasn't accepted because it didn't match the criteria set out for letters to PNAS. Now if you have a well written and correctly laid out letter, and then it isn't published, at least you have a leg to stand on.

As a lawyer I would have expected you to understand that certain documents need to be written in set styles, and obey certain rules. Have you published anything (this isn't meant to be derogatory, it's a geniune request), I am positive you must have done so. When you did your citations would have had to be correctly arranged, and many other rules obeyed. Law suits are written up in a set style, and no one would dream of simply scribbling a note and saying check out this website, and expect to be taken seriously. So why do you expect a scientific journal to accept whatever you send them? Follow the procedures, then you have a right to complain if nothing happens. [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 10:12, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==How about this

I'm not going to say I know much about the science but I made this suggestion a few days ago (in the article page). It is certainly a lot shorter, and I think a little more polite. What do you think Andy

==Word Count==
Is the 250 limit for the body text - the 'meat' of the letter? Or everything? [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 11:42, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: I believe it applies only to the Text portion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:44, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Completion of the cc: list==

I don't think it's appropriate to submit without specific names in the cc: list. If those were meant to be placeholders then they need to be filled in ASAP. Also, the inclusion of congressional representatives overseeing funding does nothing but add an implied threatening tone to the submission. If this is about questioning his science as reported in the PNAS, then let's keep it focused there - PNAS has nothing to do with the funding of his research and this detracts from the focus of this submission. For that reason, I'm also removing the "refusal to provide data" line from this text, because it's out of the scope for what should be discussed with PNAS. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:44, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with what you have said. I think we should send out a separate letter to the congresspeople. There are two separate, though very related issues. The rigor of the experiment (this is what PNAS deals with) and the fact that such research is given funding (Congress and the watchdog groups have to do with this part). Lets address the first problem before we look at the second. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 17:05, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Link in Letter==
Andy or any of the other sysops: I think it would be a very good idea if you locked the page which the letter refers too. This is necessary, because the last thing we want is to be embarrassed by liberal vandalism that does not reflect what Conservapedia is really about. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 16:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me - good idea. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:59, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks. Also, we should completely check all of the sources and make sure each is completely verified, because we don't want are argument to be made less credible by some silly mistakes. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 17:02, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Letter to PNAS

2008-07-25T21:02:05Z

RoyS: /* Link in Letter */

: It's an excellent draft, DinsdaleP. I made a few minor revisions above. After others improve this, then I'll plan on sending it to PNAS later this week. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}
::I like it. I'll sign my name to it when the time comes.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:35, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

Thanks for the feedback - When applying changes, please keep in mind that the "Text" section in the final version needs to be 250 words or less. If there are important points to add that would exceed this limit, they could be added to the main [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study]] article instead since PNAS is being asked to respond to the full list there, and not just the summary. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:47, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

: I think if i would have presented some draft of that quality to my supervisor i think i would not have reached the door of his office alive and in one piece. It starts with the fact that the correct citation of the article is missing. Please use the appropriate form, inclucing journal number and page. Please have a look at other PNAS Letters. Restate the central issue you criticise in the first sentence, then explicitely describe what your claim about the same issue is and state using what method you come to your conclusion. Keep a neutral tone. Don't make requests. It is obvious that the original author should respond (please look at PNAS for examples of responses, which are published at the same location). Plese fill in your numbers and precise arguments at the points where i left the dots in the following suggestion ('''Please note that nothing of this is my opinion, i just tried to rephrase your opinions in a way that they have the chance to be exposed to a broader view - i skipped tyhe details, because i will not rephrase your arguments, just the structure'''):
: Recently ...... inferred from their experiments (1) that ...... . We analyzed the statistical analysis in terms of ..... and conclude that several variables do not scale as .... . Using hypothesis tests under such circumstances is, in our opinion, ...... , and we do not understand how the authors of the original publication ..... their results.
: The replay experiments yield an ..... scaling with .... . We do not find a consistent value of ..... between the experiments. Furthermore the statistical deviation due to ...... in each sample set does not allow to infer ..... with a sufficient precision. This lack of scaling makes, in our opionion a constant or random source of contamination a likely explanation for a random observation of the ...... dependence of the mutation rate claimed in the paper. The following calculation supports this hypothesis: ....... .
: Furthermore we point out that Fig. ... contains a serious disagreement with .....: while the data would suggest ..... from gen. ..... the figure suggests .....
: We find the material cited in the original article (2)...(n) about the same long-time experiment not to describe the following procedures and experimental constants in a way accessible to us: Handling of ..., contamination rates of ...., and ..... We would kindly ask the authors to clarify these issues. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:48, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::No offense taken. I have no experience in these types of submissions, and would appreciate it if you could restructure the submission improve the quality while adhering to the 250-word limit. As I suggested above, it makes the most sense to incorporate these revisions into the main page for this article, where length is not an issue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:52, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::: I realized that you have obviously not much experience in it; getting the right tone for a scientific publication is hard and i had to try it quite some times on conferences and i still dont get it right sometimes - and from what you said seem to be a student. Sadly, it is against my conviction to rephrase the original arguments in the right way because it would make me an co-author of argumentations i strongly object. In case you did not realize it, helping here to get the structure right doesn't mean i agree - actually the two reasons i would like to see it published is because then the (wrong) idea that scientific journals are not accepting criticism could be obviously be put aside and because i would like to see the needed scientific rigorousity applied to the arguments presented here, because this would put this discussion onto a scientific basis. Quite frankly - i am a liberal by the standards of this site. But i believe the discussion must be carried out with all respect to define the borders of science. The more effective the discussion is carried out, the better the outcome will be. I am willing to listen, as i have proven here, even when beeing treated by people like Mr. Schlafly as if I would be one of his students, while evaluating his qualification in natural sciences quickly shows that i more likely could supervise him in the issues he discusses here (which is something he has proven all along). Regarding that, i am close to giving up, but nevertheless i have seen that a lot of conservatives actually are willing to lead this discussion in a scientific way, which is something, which fulfills me with hope. I recommend you not to fight a fight in where you don't understand the arguments. Don't pick up arguments from others. If you can not fill in the missing words, numbers and arguments in my text, i cant help you. I see what Mr. Schlafly believes, however i do not know how to get the calculation right to support his hypothesis (random or contant mutation rate) - and, this is most likely not because of a lack of statistical knowledge. The only way i would see is to use the rudest form of descriptive statistics and agreggate the data in a very specific way, while ignoring the structure of the experiment - and ignoring the fact that the authors pointed out the problem they see and adressed them. So i can only give oy a few hints (maybe i can form a short contibution to conservapedia; i am just thinking about the title):

:::: If you claim something is wrong, put your opposing claim in a positive formulation, with a supporting calculation, in contrast . Even if the calculation is simple, this is very important to provide it. E.g. we estimate a rate of x+-y per z for dataset N, in which we aggregated generations a,b,c,d, etc .... In the end, you should either prove a mathematical mistake (which was not done) or shoe you hypothesis is more likely.

:::: Don't be rude. You are not the referee and you are not member of a commitee to examine scientific misbehaviour. Dont act like one (and even referees have a friendlier tone usually). Dont act like an personal enemy either. Don't ask for retraction of the article. It is up to the author to make the conclusion respond or retract. This happens more often than you may think as a response to an critisism (actually it's fun to read the "reply section" of scientific journals - sometimes you find things like: "yes, the commenter was right we copied the paper and retract it"). And you are never requesting, but you are kindly asking. Everybody understands that "kindly asking" does not mean "kindly asking" in this context.

:::: Always give full and specific citations which back your claims. Give it in the form required by the specific journal. General citations like "materials on his website" will make your text bein trown out in the editorial screening (because you can not expect that somebody read trough all information to find something backing you claim - this is your job). See for specific styles [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style]]. Ypu may even reference a page/paragraph/eq/figure number to point the reader to what you mean (for papers longer than 4 pages i usually do that).

:::: Run a style checker over your text to eliminate common style mishaps.

:::: '''Most important''': go to your university library. Take the time to just read a few PNAS Letters and replys, and the original articles (Try to finde some with an easy understandable subject). Understanding how these are written and how authors usually reply will help you to get your one right. You are writing against somebody who has twenty years of experience in a field of publishing in natural sciences. You seem to have little experience and Andrew Schlafly, honestly, neither. This game is an uphill battle and unfair game anyway. Make sure you maximize your chances by understanding the rules of the game.

:::: Focus on a single you are sure about. It is better to present one claim well that two claims badly.

:::: Good luck. You will need it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 14:22, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Stitch75", you seem to think that the truth depends on whether PNAS accepts it. It doesn't. Lenski's paper is badly flawed regardless of whether he admits it, PNAS admits it, or you admit it. That's the beauty of the truth: it doesn't require admission by anyone. I'm fine with Lenski and PNAS refusing to admit the flaws in their paper. After all, if they really cared about quality then I doubt they would have published their flawed paper after merely 14 days or less of peer review.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:38, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
I tend to agree with you Andy. I say we get this thing sent to PNAS and see what happens. If they refuse to answer it then we know what that means, and if they thumb their noses at you that's fine too. However I have a little more faith than you in the system and I hold out hope that they'll respond to our queries. Anyway lets get this thing sent. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:50, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

I'd like to thank Stitch75, because he took the time to explain his points constructively, and I learned something from them. (I'm actually an IT Specialist in my 40's, not a full-time student, but learning is a never-ending process and I appreciated the lesson). I consider myself bound by the same ethical constraints on editing that he mentioned, because these objections to Lenski's work are Mr. Schlafly's, not my own. I tend to believe that the Lenski experiment was properly executed, but I'm a strong believer in the scientific process, and Mr. Schlafly's objections deserve a fair hearing whether one believes in them or not. My contribution is to help in the process of getting these objections to the proper forum, namely PNAS, and leaving the response up to them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:20, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Stich has given you brilliant advice, and you throw it away. He has told you that your letter will not get published, and it will have nothing to do with it's content. And when it doesn't get published you will claim it as a victory. If you take his advice and continue to take it, you will make it so no one can simply claim your letter wasn't accepted because it didn't match the criteria set out for letters to PNAS. Now if you have a well written and correctly laid out letter, and then it isn't published, at least you have a leg to stand on.

As a lawyer I would have expected you to understand that certain documents need to be written in set styles, and obey certain rules. Have you published anything (this isn't meant to be derogatory, it's a geniune request), I am positive you must have done so. When you did your citations would have had to be correctly arranged, and many other rules obeyed. Law suits are written up in a set style, and no one would dream of simply scribbling a note and saying check out this website, and expect to be taken seriously. So why do you expect a scientific journal to accept whatever you send them? Follow the procedures, then you have a right to complain if nothing happens. [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 10:12, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==How about this

I'm not going to say I know much about the science but I made this suggestion a few days ago (in the article page). It is certainly a lot shorter, and I think a little more polite. What do you think Andy

==Word Count==
Is the 250 limit for the body text - the 'meat' of the letter? Or everything? [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 11:42, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: I believe it applies only to the Text portion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:44, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Completion of the cc: list==

I don't think it's appropriate to submit without specific names in the cc: list. If those were meant to be placeholders then they need to be filled in ASAP. Also, the inclusion of congressional representatives overseeing funding does nothing but add an implied threatening tone to the submission. If this is about questioning his science as reported in the PNAS, then let's keep it focused there - PNAS has nothing to do with the funding of his research and this detracts from the focus of this submission. For that reason, I'm also removing the "refusal to provide data" line from this text, because it's out of the scope for what should be discussed with PNAS. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:44, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Link in Letter==
Andy or any of the other sysops: I think it would be a very good idea if you locked the page which the letter refers too. This is necessary, because the last thing we want is to be embarrassed by liberal vandalism that does not reflect what Conservapedia is really about. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 16:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me - good idea. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:59, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks. Also, we should completely check all of the sources and make sure each is completely verified, because we don't want are argument to be made less credible by some silly mistakes. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 17:02, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Letter to PNAS

2008-07-25T20:57:26Z

RoyS: Please read this if you are a sysop

: It's an excellent draft, DinsdaleP. I made a few minor revisions above. After others improve this, then I'll plan on sending it to PNAS later this week. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}
::I like it. I'll sign my name to it when the time comes.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:35, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

Thanks for the feedback - When applying changes, please keep in mind that the "Text" section in the final version needs to be 250 words or less. If there are important points to add that would exceed this limit, they could be added to the main [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study]] article instead since PNAS is being asked to respond to the full list there, and not just the summary. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:47, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

: I think if i would have presented some draft of that quality to my supervisor i think i would not have reached the door of his office alive and in one piece. It starts with the fact that the correct citation of the article is missing. Please use the appropriate form, inclucing journal number and page. Please have a look at other PNAS Letters. Restate the central issue you criticise in the first sentence, then explicitely describe what your claim about the same issue is and state using what method you come to your conclusion. Keep a neutral tone. Don't make requests. It is obvious that the original author should respond (please look at PNAS for examples of responses, which are published at the same location). Plese fill in your numbers and precise arguments at the points where i left the dots in the following suggestion ('''Please note that nothing of this is my opinion, i just tried to rephrase your opinions in a way that they have the chance to be exposed to a broader view - i skipped tyhe details, because i will not rephrase your arguments, just the structure'''):
: Recently ...... inferred from their experiments (1) that ...... . We analyzed the statistical analysis in terms of ..... and conclude that several variables do not scale as .... . Using hypothesis tests under such circumstances is, in our opinion, ...... , and we do not understand how the authors of the original publication ..... their results.
: The replay experiments yield an ..... scaling with .... . We do not find a consistent value of ..... between the experiments. Furthermore the statistical deviation due to ...... in each sample set does not allow to infer ..... with a sufficient precision. This lack of scaling makes, in our opionion a constant or random source of contamination a likely explanation for a random observation of the ...... dependence of the mutation rate claimed in the paper. The following calculation supports this hypothesis: ....... .
: Furthermore we point out that Fig. ... contains a serious disagreement with .....: while the data would suggest ..... from gen. ..... the figure suggests .....
: We find the material cited in the original article (2)...(n) about the same long-time experiment not to describe the following procedures and experimental constants in a way accessible to us: Handling of ..., contamination rates of ...., and ..... We would kindly ask the authors to clarify these issues. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:48, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::No offense taken. I have no experience in these types of submissions, and would appreciate it if you could restructure the submission improve the quality while adhering to the 250-word limit. As I suggested above, it makes the most sense to incorporate these revisions into the main page for this article, where length is not an issue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:52, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::: I realized that you have obviously not much experience in it; getting the right tone for a scientific publication is hard and i had to try it quite some times on conferences and i still dont get it right sometimes - and from what you said seem to be a student. Sadly, it is against my conviction to rephrase the original arguments in the right way because it would make me an co-author of argumentations i strongly object. In case you did not realize it, helping here to get the structure right doesn't mean i agree - actually the two reasons i would like to see it published is because then the (wrong) idea that scientific journals are not accepting criticism could be obviously be put aside and because i would like to see the needed scientific rigorousity applied to the arguments presented here, because this would put this discussion onto a scientific basis. Quite frankly - i am a liberal by the standards of this site. But i believe the discussion must be carried out with all respect to define the borders of science. The more effective the discussion is carried out, the better the outcome will be. I am willing to listen, as i have proven here, even when beeing treated by people like Mr. Schlafly as if I would be one of his students, while evaluating his qualification in natural sciences quickly shows that i more likely could supervise him in the issues he discusses here (which is something he has proven all along). Regarding that, i am close to giving up, but nevertheless i have seen that a lot of conservatives actually are willing to lead this discussion in a scientific way, which is something, which fulfills me with hope. I recommend you not to fight a fight in where you don't understand the arguments. Don't pick up arguments from others. If you can not fill in the missing words, numbers and arguments in my text, i cant help you. I see what Mr. Schlafly believes, however i do not know how to get the calculation right to support his hypothesis (random or contant mutation rate) - and, this is most likely not because of a lack of statistical knowledge. The only way i would see is to use the rudest form of descriptive statistics and agreggate the data in a very specific way, while ignoring the structure of the experiment - and ignoring the fact that the authors pointed out the problem they see and adressed them. So i can only give oy a few hints (maybe i can form a short contibution to conservapedia; i am just thinking about the title):

:::: If you claim something is wrong, put your opposing claim in a positive formulation, with a supporting calculation, in contrast . Even if the calculation is simple, this is very important to provide it. E.g. we estimate a rate of x+-y per z for dataset N, in which we aggregated generations a,b,c,d, etc .... In the end, you should either prove a mathematical mistake (which was not done) or shoe you hypothesis is more likely.

:::: Don't be rude. You are not the referee and you are not member of a commitee to examine scientific misbehaviour. Dont act like one (and even referees have a friendlier tone usually). Dont act like an personal enemy either. Don't ask for retraction of the article. It is up to the author to make the conclusion respond or retract. This happens more often than you may think as a response to an critisism (actually it's fun to read the "reply section" of scientific journals - sometimes you find things like: "yes, the commenter was right we copied the paper and retract it"). And you are never requesting, but you are kindly asking. Everybody understands that "kindly asking" does not mean "kindly asking" in this context.

:::: Always give full and specific citations which back your claims. Give it in the form required by the specific journal. General citations like "materials on his website" will make your text bein trown out in the editorial screening (because you can not expect that somebody read trough all information to find something backing you claim - this is your job). See for specific styles [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style]]. Ypu may even reference a page/paragraph/eq/figure number to point the reader to what you mean (for papers longer than 4 pages i usually do that).

:::: Run a style checker over your text to eliminate common style mishaps.

:::: '''Most important''': go to your university library. Take the time to just read a few PNAS Letters and replys, and the original articles (Try to finde some with an easy understandable subject). Understanding how these are written and how authors usually reply will help you to get your one right. You are writing against somebody who has twenty years of experience in a field of publishing in natural sciences. You seem to have little experience and Andrew Schlafly, honestly, neither. This game is an uphill battle and unfair game anyway. Make sure you maximize your chances by understanding the rules of the game.

:::: Focus on a single you are sure about. It is better to present one claim well that two claims badly.

:::: Good luck. You will need it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 14:22, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Stitch75", you seem to think that the truth depends on whether PNAS accepts it. It doesn't. Lenski's paper is badly flawed regardless of whether he admits it, PNAS admits it, or you admit it. That's the beauty of the truth: it doesn't require admission by anyone. I'm fine with Lenski and PNAS refusing to admit the flaws in their paper. After all, if they really cared about quality then I doubt they would have published their flawed paper after merely 14 days or less of peer review.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:38, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
I tend to agree with you Andy. I say we get this thing sent to PNAS and see what happens. If they refuse to answer it then we know what that means, and if they thumb their noses at you that's fine too. However I have a little more faith than you in the system and I hold out hope that they'll respond to our queries. Anyway lets get this thing sent. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:50, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

I'd like to thank Stitch75, because he took the time to explain his points constructively, and I learned something from them. (I'm actually an IT Specialist in my 40's, not a full-time student, but learning is a never-ending process and I appreciated the lesson). I consider myself bound by the same ethical constraints on editing that he mentioned, because these objections to Lenski's work are Mr. Schlafly's, not my own. I tend to believe that the Lenski experiment was properly executed, but I'm a strong believer in the scientific process, and Mr. Schlafly's objections deserve a fair hearing whether one believes in them or not. My contribution is to help in the process of getting these objections to the proper forum, namely PNAS, and leaving the response up to them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:20, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Stich has given you brilliant advice, and you throw it away. He has told you that your letter will not get published, and it will have nothing to do with it's content. And when it doesn't get published you will claim it as a victory. If you take his advice and continue to take it, you will make it so no one can simply claim your letter wasn't accepted because it didn't match the criteria set out for letters to PNAS. Now if you have a well written and correctly laid out letter, and then it isn't published, at least you have a leg to stand on.

As a lawyer I would have expected you to understand that certain documents need to be written in set styles, and obey certain rules. Have you published anything (this isn't meant to be derogatory, it's a geniune request), I am positive you must have done so. When you did your citations would have had to be correctly arranged, and many other rules obeyed. Law suits are written up in a set style, and no one would dream of simply scribbling a note and saying check out this website, and expect to be taken seriously. So why do you expect a scientific journal to accept whatever you send them? Follow the procedures, then you have a right to complain if nothing happens. [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 10:12, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==How about this

I'm not going to say I know much about the science but I made this suggestion a few days ago (in the article page). It is certainly a lot shorter, and I think a little more polite. What do you think Andy

==Word Count==
Is the 250 limit for the body text - the 'meat' of the letter? Or everything? [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 11:42, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: I believe it applies only to the Text portion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:44, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Completion of the cc: list==

I don't think it's appropriate to submit without specific names in the cc: list. If those were meant to be placeholders then they need to be filled in ASAP. Also, the inclusion of congressional representatives overseeing funding does nothing but add an implied threatening tone to the submission. If this is about questioning his science as reported in the PNAS, then let's keep it focused there - PNAS has nothing to do with the funding of his research and this detracts from the focus of this submission. For that reason, I'm also removing the "refusal to provide data" line from this text, because it's out of the scope for what should be discussed with PNAS. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:44, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Link in Letter==
Andy or any of the other sysops: I think it would be a very good idea if you locked the page which the letter refers too. This is necessary, because the last thing we want is to be embarrassed by liberal vandalism that does not reflect what Conservapedia is really about. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 16:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-07-25T15:06:45Z

RoyS: /* Analysis of State by Region */

[[Image:Presidential election map.gif|right|thumb|350px|Battleground states]] The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and ended on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref> Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]] is expected to win the Republican nomination, while [[Barack Obama|Senator Barack Obama]] is the presumptive nominee for the [[Democratic Party]].

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
If eligible to do so, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 may mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election. In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''Fox News Sunday''.

==Differences between 2008 and other elections==
In 2008, [[CNN]]-[[YouTube]] held the first debate in which the questions asked of the nominees in each party came primarily from YouTube viewer submitted videos. The debates received high ratings, however, CNN was criticized for not picking questions that were 'tough' or pertinent enough. One such example was during the Democratic Debate, when CNN chose to ask a question from a snow man, talking about [[global warming]]. During the Republican debate, some claimed that many of the questions were from Democratic supporters just meant to embarrass the Republican candidates. For example, a question over whether or not homosexuals should serve in the U.S. military was asked by retired general and gay activist Keith Kerr, an adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The internet has also played a major role in the election, with then-Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and Democratic candidate Barack Obama being very active on the internet.

== Analysis of State by Region ==
Because of the [[electoral college]] system in the United States, it is extremely important to analyze each presidential election by each state. We can group these states into regions.

=== New England ===
With the exception of [[New Hampshire]], [[Barack Hussein Obama]] is almost certain to win almost every state in this region, which tend to be very liberal. The only exception is in New Hampshire, where [[John McCain]] is well liked and George Bush won in 2000. This state is sure to be competitive in 2008. On the other hand, with only four electoral votes, the impact on the election will not be as great as some other battleground states. It would be very embarassing if Obama lost a state like Massachusetts or Rhode Island

=== Mid-Atlantic ===
[[New York]], [[Delaware]], and [[Maryland]] are solidly Democrat and will vote for Obama this election. [[New Jersey]] is somewhat of a swing state; however, at this point it can be considered safely Obama based on polling numbers. [[Pennsylvania]] is a very important swing state for both candidates, as it has 21 electoral votes, fifth most in the nation, and has both liberal and conservative elements. In recent years, the state has moved toward becoming Democrat. However, it is not yet at that point yet, and will still be focused on heavily by both candidates during this election cycle. McCain still has a very good chance because Obama, being the elitist candidate, has been unable to connect with the working-class citizens of Pennsylvania. By talking straight on the issues such as gas prices, and providing legitimate solutions, McCain is reasonably popular in this region.

=== South-Atlantic ===
[[Washington, D.C.]] is overwhelmingly liberal and will vote for Obama; however, with three electoral votes its significance is limited. [[Virginia]] is an extremely competitive state; despite the relative success of Republicans in the state in the past, polling indicates that this year, the election is dead even. In the Carolinas, John McCain still has a substantial lead. Obama may be slightly more competitive in these states if he mobilizes the African-American population. However, right now they are not exceptionally close. [[Georgia]] is the state where a third-party candidate can make the most difference. At this point, John McCain is still considered the clear favorite. However, if [[Bob Barr]] takes away a significant portion of the Republican vote, and as in the rest of his life, Barack Obama succeeds because he is lucky, the Democrats still have a tiny chance. [[Florida]] is a very close swing state, most famously known for its role in [[Election 2000]]. In recent years, recognizing, for example Barack Obama's naive declaration that he would meet with leaders such as [[Fidel Castro]], Floridians have leaned Republican. An important constituency in this state is the [[Jewish]] population, dismayed by Obama's refusal to recognize that [[Israel]] is our most important ally. Cuban-Americans are also very important.

=== Deep South ===
John McCain will do very well in the deep south. This includes the states of [[Texas]], [[Alabama]], [[Mississippi]], [[Louisiana]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Arkansas]], [[Tennessee]], [[Kentucky]] and [[West Virginia]]. This area is very [[conservative]], and many of these states have not voted for a Democrat in a long time. Here, John McCain is very popular, and there should be no contest. Although Obama believes in a fifty-state strategy, it is unlikely that such a strategy will be helpful in getting out the vote in these states. In states like Kentucky, West Virginia and Arkansas, the fact that Obama is so elitist will hurt him. Had [[Hillary Clinton]] become the nominee for the Democrats, she would have had a much better chance, especially in Arkansas where she was the First Lady. If she is Obama's vice presidential pick, it is still unlikely that he will be able to win these states.

== Battleground States ==
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

[[CNN]] declares that the outcome in [[McCain]] v. [[Obama]] is a toss-up in only 12 states, totaling only 154 electors:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html</ref> (Most recent poll numbers, and polling outfit)

#Wisconsin (Obama 50% - McCain 37%, [http://www.news.wisc.edu/15313 University of Wisconsin])
#Iowa (Obama 48% - McCain 38%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#New Hampshire (Obama 48% - McCain 43%, [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_mccain_vs_obama-195.html#polls Rasmussen])
#Ohio (Obama 48% - McCain 39%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b03c08ab-30b9-463d-8be2-5cb118e05b74 Survey USA])
#Pennsylvania (Obama 45% - McCain 43%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/election_2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election2 Rasmussen])
#Nevada (McCain 46% - Obama 40%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Michigan (Obama 47% - McCain 39%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Minnesota (Obama 52% - McCain 34%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/minnesota/election_2008_minnesota_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Florida (McCain 45% - Obama 41%, [http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1180 Quinnipiac])
#Missouri (Obama 48% - McCain 43%, [http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/84EC6E3C5EAE4FF586257484000FDDED?OpenDocument Research 2000])
#Virginia (Obama 49% - McCain 42%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9901f8fc-034e-4a1d-ab36-f6e5c918614e Survey USA])
#Colorado (Obama 48% - McCain 42%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/colorado/election_2008_colorado_presidential_election Rasmussen])

In addition, there are four states leaning Democratic totaling 37 electoral votes, and eight states leaning Republican totaling 69 electoral votes. The addition of these states to the battleground puts 24 states and 260 electoral votes in play.

== Republican Strategy ==

The Republican Party nominee is Senator John McCain, who received a majority of the delegates on the March 4th primaries.

===Swing States (Great Lakes Region)===
Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008. This is confirmed by recent polling. However, due to the location of the Republican Convention in Minnesota, and if Governor Pawlenty is chosen as McCain's vice presidential pick, the state, with ten electoral votes, can come back into play. The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.{{fact}

===Other Important Swing States===
Moreover, it is very important for republicans to hold Ohio and Florida. Fortunately, both states have tended to lean republican in the last two presidential elections. Although Florida was disputed in election 2000, it went to Bush undeniably in 2004. Virginia will also be heavily contested this year.

===Declared Republican Party Candidates===
[[John H. Cox]]

UN Ambassador [[Alan Keyes]]

Senator [[John McCain]], [[Arizona]]

===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]].

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]] He withdrew after a defeat in [[Florida]], on which he had depended on heavily. He endorsed John McCain afterwards.

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]. He withdrew from the race once McCain recieved the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. He also promised to support McCain as the nominee, thus giving his endorsement to him.

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008 and endorsed Governor Mike Huckabee.

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th, withdrew June 12, 2008.

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]], suspended his campaign after poor showings on [[Super Tuesday]] and later endorsed John McCain.

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]].

Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]. He endorsed [[John McCain]] of Arizona.

Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].

===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.
*Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]] - endorsed John McCain.
*[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]
*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee
*Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]
*Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]
*Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]
*Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]
*Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]

===Potential Republican Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*[[Haley Barbour]] - Governor of [[Mississippi]]
*[[Matt Blunt]] - Governor of [[Missouri]]
*[[Sam Brownback]] - U.S. Senator from [[Kansas]]
*[[Jeb Bush]] - former Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Tom Coburn]] - U.S. Senator from [[Oklahoma]]
*[[Charlie Crist]] - Governor of [[Florida]]]
*[[Jim DeMint]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Bill Frist]] - former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader from [[Tennessee]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]] - former Mayor of [[New York City]]
*[[Lindsey Graham]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Mike Huckabee]] - former Governor of [[Arkansas]]
*[[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] - U.S. Senator from [[Texas]]
*[[Bobby Jindal]] - Governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Joe Lieberman]] - U.S. Senator from [[Connecticut]]
*[[Bill Owens]] - former Governor of [[Colorado]]
*[[Sarah Palin]] - Governor of [[Alaska]]
*[[Tim Pawlenty]] - Governor of [[Minnesota]]
*[[David Petraeus]] - Commanding General, Multinational Force [[Iraq]]
*[[Colin Powell]] - former United States [[Secretary of State]]
*[[Condoleezza Rice]] - United States Secretary of State
*[[Tom Ridge]] - former Homeland Security Secretary and Former Governor of [[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of [[Massachusetts]]
*[[Mark Sanford]] - Governor of South Carolina
*[[Michael Steele]] - former Lt. Governor of [[Maryland]]
*[[Fred Thompson]] - former U.S. Senator from Tennessee
*[[John Thune]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Dakota]]

== Democratic Strategy ==
As usual, the best strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the cratering popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.

However, evaluating the race in [[Electoral College]] terms forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.

Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections.

Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year was [[Bill Richardson]], who was cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it has been difficult for Democrats to carry the state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate.

The ''move on masses'' of the blogosphere require that any Democratic candidate frame the election as an attack on George Bush. Since they can't run against the President, the attack will be on ''Bush Politics'', chiefly the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts. That stance will be echoed repeatedly regardless of whatever real situation taking place in Iraq (where American forces turned over strategic control of the last province, Al Anbar) or in the economy (where the Dow hit record highs, before accounting for inflation, as recently as October 2007 and unemployment is near all time lows). The blogosphere led democrats to be overconfident in 2004, over estimating their voting support among young people who actually vote. However, with Democrats in control of both houses this election remains critical.

===Declared Democratic Party Candidates===

Senator [[Barack Obama]], [[Illinois]]

=== Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===

Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]].

Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]] Suspended her campaign after Obama reached the number of needed delegates. She endorsed him shortly afterwards.

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]] and later endorsed Senator [[Barack Obama]].

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]. He withdrew after losing in all of the early primary states. He later endorsed Senator Obama after Obama won the North Carolina primary.

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]. He withdrew to seek the Libertarian party nomination (which he lost to Bob Barr.) He also endorsed Green Party Candidate, Jesse Johnson. <ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/democratic-candidate-gravel-endorses-green-party-presidential-hopeful/ </ref>

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref> He withdrew to keep his seat in the House of Representatives.

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]]<ref>
[http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power. He later endorsed Senator Obama.

Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa. He endorsed [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]]

===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]
*Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]
*Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]
*Former Vice President [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]
*Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]
*Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]

===Potential Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
*Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
*General Wesley Clark (Ret.)
*Senator Hillary Clinton of New York
*Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota
*Former Senator and 2004 Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards of North Carolina
*Governor [[Ed Rendell]] of [[Pennsylvania]]
*Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico
*Governor [[Ted Strickland]] of [[Ohio]]
*Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa
*Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia
*Former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia
*Senator [[Jim Webb]] of Virginia

==Third parties and Independents==
===Libertarian party===
The [[Libertarian Party]] selected former Representative [[Bob Barr]] of [[Georgia]] as its 2008 presidential candidate on May 25, 2008.<ref>http://www.lpconvention.org/</ref> Former Democratic canididate [[Mike Gravel]] sought the Libertarian nomination but lost to Barr.<ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/25/libertarians-pick-barr-as-presidential-nominee/ </ref>

Barr has, on his campaign website, linked to a proposed Libertarian strategy laid out by a member of his campaign staff. Although Barr has not officially claimed this as his strategy, the link appears to be a tacit endorsement. The strategy is called the "gold states" strategy. Instead of waging a 50-state campaign with the aim of securing 270 electoral votes and an outright electoral college win, Barr would focus on about 18-20 states where neither Obama or McCain has strong support. Winning that number of states could net Barr from 180-200 electoral votes, and would exceed either Obama or McCain's number and prevent either of them from reaching 270. Under US Constitution Amendment 12, with no candidate having an electoral vote majority, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, which would have to choose the president from the top three electoral vote getters. At this stage, Barr could argue that as the top electoral vote recipient, he should become the President, and might draw support from conservative Democrats displeased with Obama's positions, and from Republicans who dislike McCain.

Although winning the largest number of electoral votes would assist Barr in making such an argument, it is not absolutely necessary. Given the close divide in the electoral vote in the 2000 and 2004 elections, Barr could throw the vote into the House by winning a handful of states to garner perhaps 15-20 electoral votes.

The House of Representatives currently has a Democratic majority, but it is important to note that under the US Constitution Amendment 12, the vote is not a straight vote of the members of the House. Instead, each ''State'' gets one single vote, and that vote is determined by the members from that State. Although many large states like California and New York have large Democratic majorities, these will be balanced by the many smaller Southern and Midwestern states with Republican majorities. A handful of states have an even number of House members, and are split down the middle for control.

===Constitution Party===
The [[Constitution Party]] held its convention in Kansas City, Kansas, on April 24 through April 27. The party nominated Pastor [[Chuck Baldwin]] over former U.N. Ambassador and Republican presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]].<ref> http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=751 </ref>

===Green Party===
[[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated in her bid for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives after voting against the [[Iraq War]] and being arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, won the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]]'s nomination for president at the party convention July 12, 2008. Running for Vice President on the Green ticket is "Hip-Hop activist and journalist" Rosa Clemente.<ref>http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=79</ref>

===Independents===
[[Ralph Nader]] announced his independent candidacy for president on February 24, 2008, to focus on "stem[ming] corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promot[ing] labor rights", issues he feels are ignored by the main parties.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb24/0,4670,APNader,00.html</ref> His [[running mate]] is former President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors [[Matt Gonzalez]].<ref>http://www.votenader.org/about/matt-gonzalez/</ref>

New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. However, he declared in a February 28, 2008, op-ed article in ''The New York Times'', "I am not—and will not be—a candidate for president," but added that "[i]f a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach—and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy—I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "I'm Not Running for President, but..."]</ref>

==Opinion polling==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Polling Outfit
! Date
! Sample*
! Obama (D)
! McCain (R)
|-
| [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll Rasmussen Tracking]
| 07/21 - 07/23
| 3000 LV
| 48
| 45
|-
| [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,390301,00.html Fox News Channel]
| 07/22 - 07/23
| 900 RV
| 41
| 40
|-
| [http://www.gallup.com/poll/109027/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Has-Modest-4Point-Lead.aspx Gallup Poll]
| 07/20 - 07/22
| 2640 RV
| 46
| 42
|-
| [http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/080723_Released.pdf NBC/WSJ]
| 07/18 - 07/21
| 1003 RV
| 47
| 41
|-
| [http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/JUL08a-Campaign08.pdf CBS News/NYT]
| 07/07 - 07/14
| 1462 RV
| 45
| 39
|-
| [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/abcpolls.pdf ABC News/Wash Post]
| 07/10 - 07/13
| LV
| 49
| 46
|-
| [http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1535315320080716 Reuters/Zogby]
| 07/09 - 07/13
| 1039 LV
| 47
| 40
|-
| [http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1192 Quinnipiac]
| 07/08 - 07/13
| 1725 LV
| 50
| 41
|-
| [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ibdtippjuly08.pdf IBD/TIPP]
| 07/07 - 07/11
| 854 RV
| 40
| 37
|}

*RV refers to registered voters, LV refers to likely voters.

Ramussen finds the favorable rating for each candidate at 55%.<ref>http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll</ref>

Most polling that has been done fails to include all the candidates who will actually be on the ballot in November. A Rasmussen poll on May 18, reported on a four-way race between Barack Obama, John McCain, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr. The poll, which was conducted before Barr became the Libertarian nominee and made a number of high-profile talk show appearances, found that Barr would finish in third place with 6% of the vote, and Nader with 4%.<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/will_third_party_candidates_tip_the_presidential_race</ref> Another poll conducted around that time showed Barr picking up 8% of the vote in [[Georgia]], seriously hurting McCain's chances of winning that state.<ref>http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_520_404.aspx</ref> It should be noted that in the actual elections, third party candidates such as Barr and Nader generally have much lower percentage of votes cast for them than they poll beforehand.

==Primaries and Caucuses==
===Iowa Caucus: January 3, 2008===
The first caucus in the 2008 presidential election cycle was the [[Iowa Caucus]]. The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus was [[Barack Obama]], who managed to beat national frontrunner [[Hillary Clinton]] and former [[North Carolina]] Senator, [[John Edwards]]. The official results were:
{| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Iowa caucus results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Barack Obama
| 38%
|-
| John Edwards
| 30%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 29%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 2%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 1%
|-
|}
Other candidates such as, [[Chris Dodd]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Mike Gravel]] did not gain a significant percentage. Because of the Iowa results, [[Barack Obama]] was expected now to beat [[Hillary Clinton]] in the upcoming [[New Hampshire]] primary. Also, [[Joe Biden]] and [[Chris Dodd]] both withdrew from the race because of their low showings in the Iowa caucus.

On the Republican side, [[Mike Huckabee]] defeated [[Mitt Romney]] by an even closer margin. The results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Iowa caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 34%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 25%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 13%
|-
| John McCain
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 10%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 3%
|}

Candidates such as [[Duncan Hunter]], [[Alan Keyes]] and [[John H. Cox]] didn't come out with a significant percentage. Romney's loss in [[Iowa]] set him back in the upcoming primary in [[New Hampshire]]. Huckabee's win however gave him surge in [[New Hampshire]] where he had before been very low in the polls. McCain's unexpected high showing in Iowa also gave him a little boost in New Hampshire.

===New Hampshire Primary: January 8, 2008===
The next milestone after the Iowa caucus was the New Hampshire primary. (Only the Republican Wyoming primary occurred on January 5, which was won by Romney.) On the Republican side, Mitt Romney's defeat in Iowa helped his most significant opponent, John McCain. Huckabee's victory in Iowa helped boost his campaign and gave him a higher showing than even he had expected. On the Democratic side, Obama's defeat of Clinton and Edwards led to the polls usually predicting a Obama victory in New Hampshire.
The winner for the Repbulicans was John McCain and for the Democrats Hillary Clinton. The Democratic results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36%
|-
| John Edwards
| 17%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 5%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}

Hillary Clinton's win was a setback for Obama and much-needed victory for Clinton. The polls reliability was most hurt with these results. (Mike Gravel didn't reach a significant percentage.)
The Republican results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 37%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 11%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 9%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 8%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|-
| Duncan Hunter
| 1%
|}

These results put the very survival of Mitt Romney on the line and intensified the upcoming Michigan primary. John McCain's victory helped boost his campaign and he predicted to go on to victory in Michigan and South Carolina. Huckabee also did well and placed an unusual third place.

===Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina===
Romney's second-place defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire, caused his campaign to focus all it's attention on the Michigan Primary on January 15th. He managed to defeat his rivals, John McCain and Mike Huckabee.
Since the Democrats had taken Michigan's delegates away, most of the candidates didn't even bother to get on the ballot. Clinton won easily, because she was one of the only major candidates to be even on the ballot.
Romney and the Democrats turned their attention to the Nevada caucus, while Republicans John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson looked to the South Carolina primary. (The Republicans had the South Carolina primary on the same day as the Nevada caucus, January 19th.)
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Nevada caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! Percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 51%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 45%
|-
| John Edwards
| 4%
|}

Hillary Clinton probably won because of her strong position on the Yucca Mountain issue, which was critical to Democratic caucus goers.
Romney easily won the Republican Nevada caucus, probably because it is close to Utah, a traditionally Mormon state. Duncan Hunter had been hoping for a strong finish in Nevada and decided to leave the race, because of his poor showings.

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP SC caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 33%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 30%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 16%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 15%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 4%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 2%
|}

McCain’s victory in South Carolina propelled him as the national front-runner. Mike Huckabee’s 2nd place defeat forced him to cut back in expenses due to lack of funds. Fred Thompson’s defeat was irreparable and he withdrew from the race shortly afterwards

The Democrats prepared for the primary in South Carolina on January 26th. Obama won the primary by a huge margin over Clinton and Edwards. This was a severe loss for Edwards since he had been born in South Carolina and was Senator for North Carolina. Obama probably won because of the state’s huge black population.

===Florida Primary: January 29, 2008===
Because Florida moved it's date to January 29th the Democratic party stripped Florida of it's delegates and the candidates agreed not to campaign there.
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 50%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 33%
|-
| John Edwards
| 14%
|-
| Joe Biden
| 1%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 1%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}
Florida was the last early primary state and after his loss, John Edwards suspended his campaign. (Although they had withdrawn, candidates Biden, Richardson and Kucinich still received votes. Mike Gravel didn't receive a percentage.)
The Republicans concentrated on Florida more than the Democrats, because the Republican party chose to remove only half of their delegates. Candidate [[Rudy Giuliani]] chose to ignore earlier primaries, hoping that a large win in Florida, with its strong transplanted New Yorkers contingent, would propel him to the nomination. Unfortunately, with earlier wins, John McCain and Mitt Romney both gained momentum and began to lead Giuliani in the polls.
The Republican results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 36%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 3%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|}

The results caused Giuliani to exit the race the next day and endorse the primary winner, John McCain. (Although Fred Thompson had withdrawn he got some support anyway.)

===Super Tuesday: February 5, 2008===
Super Tuesday held the largest number of presidential primary's and caucuses. Twenty-four states were held for one or both parties were held on this date.

*The Democratic results were:
*Candidates
*Hillary Clinton, 9 states won, ([[American Samoa]], [[Arizona]], [[Arkansas]], [[California]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]], [[New Mexico]], [[New York]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Tennessee]].) Number of delegates won, 826.
*Barack Obama, 13 states won, ([[Alabama]], [[Alaska]], [[Colorado]], [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Idaho]], [[Illinois]], [[Kansas]], [[Minnesota]], [[Missouri]], [[North Dakota]], [[Utah]].) Number of delegates won, 838.

*GOP Super Tuesday primary results
*John McCain, 9 states won, (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma). Number of delegates won: 602.
*Mitt Romney, 7 states won, (Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah). Number of delegates won: 201.
*Mike Huckabee, 5 states won, (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia). Number of delegates won: 152.
*Ron Paul, 0 states won. Number of delegates won: 10

===February 9th Primaries===
The next major primary after Super Tuesday was on February 9, 2008. The Democrats held contests in [[Louisiana]], [[Nebraska]] & [[Washington]]. The Republicans held three other contests in [[Kansas]], [[Louisiana]] & [[Washington]].
Governor Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, but lost to McCain in Washington by a close margin. Barrack Obama won all three Democratic contests, and also won the Maine caucus, the next day on February 10th.

===Potomac Primary: February 12, 2008===
The next primary-date was the Potomac primary on February 12. It is called that because the three states; [[District of Columbia]], [[Maryland]] and [[Virginia]], which all were near the Potomac River, had their primary date on the same date. John McCain won all three Republican contests, while Barrack Obama won all of the Democratic contests.

===Super Tuesday 2: March 4, 2008===
After Obama won his 11th consecutive victory on the February 19th primaries in [[Wisconsin]] and [[Hawaii]], Clinton was desperate to win the March 4th primaries in [[Ohio]], [[Texas]], [[Rhode Island]] & [[Vermont]]. Huckabee also needed more victories to prevent McCain from reaching the needed 1,191 delegates for the Republican nomination.

Clinton won all of the states except for Vermont, which Obama won. McCain won all of the primaries, causing Governor Huckabee to leave the race that evening.

===Pennsylvania Primary===
After Clinton's victories on Super Tuesday 2, both Democrats looked ahead to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. Obama lost some popularity after video clips were shown of his Pastor, Rev. [[Jeremiah Wright]], saying "God damn America!" during a sermon. Obama also commented about people bitterly clinging to guns and religion because they were upset with Washington policies. Clinton beat Obama by 9 percentage points, continuing the long drawn-out contest between the two. John McCain was able to easily win the primary as the Republican party's presumptive nominee.

===Guam Caucus===
On May 3rd, Guam held its Democratic caucuses. Out of more than 4,500 votes, Senator Obama won by 7 votes. The results gave Obama 2 pledged delegates and Senator Clinton 2 pledged delegates.

===Indiana and North Carolina Primary===
Both Indiana and North Carolina held their primaries on May 6th. Heading into the primary, registered African American voters reported receiving "robocalls" telling them they were not registered to vote. The calls were traced back to an organization called "Women's Voices Women Vote". The organization included members close to the Clintons. The calls ended with an order from the state Attorney General. Senator Obama proceeded to win the primary with 56.1%.

Leading into the Indiana primary, the polls were very close, with neither candidate leading by more than the polls' margin-of-error. Senator Clinton was looking for a large win to follow up on the Pennsylvania primary, with much the same demographic as PA and Ohio. Senator Obama, though, surprised many in the news media and the Clinton campaign by losing by only a small margin, 50.56% - 49.44%. With the near-split of the delegates in Indiana, combined with his win in North Carolina, the media began to declare Senator Obama as the nominee, although he had not yet reached the necessary delegate count.

===West Virginia Primary===
With a strong working-class demographic, Senator Clinton was expected to win the West Virginia primary on May 13th. Polls leading into the primary had her up 29 points on Senator Obama. The final vote tally exceeded the polls, with Senator Clinton winning 66.99% - 25.67%.

===Oregon and Kentucky Primaries===
The Oregon primary was a mail-only primary--the only such primary in the nation. Democratic voters received ballots in the mail between May 2nd and May 6th, and had to be received by county election officials by May 20th. Polling leading up to the primary showed Senator Obama with a 10-15% lead over Senator Clinton. Obama held a rally on May 18th at the Tom McCall Waterfront Park in Portland which drew an estimated 72,000 people. It was the largest rally Obama had held, more than doubling the 35,000 that came out to see him in Pennsylvania. By the end of the vote tally, Obama had won the state primary 58.5% - 40.5%.

The Kentucky primary, held the same day, was long believed a lock for Senator Clinton. The voter demographic mirrored the West Virginia primary, with a heavy working-class population. Senator Clinton easily won the primary, 65.5% - 29.9%. The large win, though, was drowned out in the media by Senator Obama's win in Oregon, and more importantly, by the endorsement of Senator Obama by former opponent and former vice presidential candidate, John Edwards.

===Puerto Rico Primary===
With Clinton behind in both pledged and superdelegates at this point in the race, every primary and delegate became even more important to forestall Obama reaching the necessary number of delegate to clinch the nomination. Clinton's strategy was to win out the primaries and work to convince superdelegates to support her nomination at the party convention as the best chance to beat McCain. Thus Puerto Rico, usually an afterthought in previous elections, rated visits by both candidates before the June 1st primary. Heading into the primary, Clinton led in two polls by 13% each time. The results beat poll expectations, with Clinton winning the primary 67.7% - 31.27%.

===Montana and South Dakota Democratic Primaries===
The last Democratic primaries were held on June 3rd. Senator Obama needed to win one of the primaries, and merely come close in the other to clinch the nomination. In Montana, Obama got the win he needed, defeating Senator Clinton 56.3%-41.25%. In South Dakota, Senator Clinton won, but with a close enough margin to give Obama the final delegates necessary. The result of the primary was 55.35% - 44.65%. Senator Obama was in Saint Paul, Minnesota, the site of the Republican Nominating Convention, to accept the party's unofficial nomination. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtL-1V3OZ0c Barack Obama Democatic Nomination Victory Speech]</ref>

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: United States]]

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-07-25T14:59:41Z

RoyS:

[[Image:Presidential election map.gif|right|thumb|350px|Battleground states]] The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and ended on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref> Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]] is expected to win the Republican nomination, while [[Barack Obama|Senator Barack Obama]] is the presumptive nominee for the [[Democratic Party]].

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
If eligible to do so, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 may mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election. In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''Fox News Sunday''.

==Differences between 2008 and other elections==
In 2008, [[CNN]]-[[YouTube]] held the first debate in which the questions asked of the nominees in each party came primarily from YouTube viewer submitted videos. The debates received high ratings, however, CNN was criticized for not picking questions that were 'tough' or pertinent enough. One such example was during the Democratic Debate, when CNN chose to ask a question from a snow man, talking about [[global warming]]. During the Republican debate, some claimed that many of the questions were from Democratic supporters just meant to embarrass the Republican candidates. For example, a question over whether or not homosexuals should serve in the U.S. military was asked by retired general and gay activist Keith Kerr, an adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The internet has also played a major role in the election, with then-Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and Democratic candidate Barack Obama being very active on the internet.

== Analysis of State by Region ==
Because of the [[electoral college]] system in the United States, it is extremely important to analyze each presidential election by each state. We can group these states into regions.

=== New England ===
With the exception of [[New Hampshire]], [[Barack Hussein Obama]] is almost certain to win almost every state in this region, which tend to be very liberal. The only exception is in New Hampshire, where [[John McCain]] is well liked and George Bush won in 2000. This state is sure to be competitive in 2008. On the other hand, with only four electoral votes, the impact on the election will not be as great as some other battleground states. It would be very embarassing if Obama lost a state like Massachusetts or Rhode Island

=== Mid-Atlantic ===
[[New York]], [[Delaware]], and [[Maryland]] are solidly Democrat and will vote for Obama this election. [[New Jersey]] is somewhat of a swing state; however, at this point it can be considered safely Obama based on polling numbers. [[Pennsylvania]] is a very important swing state for both candidates, as it has 21 electoral votes, fifth most in the nation, and has both liberal and conservative elements. In recent years, the state has moved toward becoming Democrat. However, it is not yet at that point yet, and will still be focused on heavily by both candidates during this election cycle. McCain still has a very good chance because Obama, being the elitist candidate, has been unable to connect with the working-class citizens of Pennsylvania. By talking straight on the issues such as gas prices, and providing legitimate solutions, McCain is reasonably popular in this region.

=== South-Atlantic ===
[[Washington, D.C.]] is overwhelmingly liberal and will vote for Obama; however, with three electoral votes its significance is limited. [[Virginia]] is an extremely competitive state; despite the relative success of Republicans in the state in the past, polling indicates that this year, the election is dead even. In the Carolinas, John McCain still has a substantial lead. Obama may be slightly more competitive in these states if he mobilizes the African-American population. However, right now they are not exceptionally close. [[Georgia]] is the state where a third-party candidate can make the most difference. At this point, John McCain is still considered the clear favorite. However, if [[Bob Barr]] takes away a significant portion of the Republican vote, and as in the rest of his life, Barack Obama succeeds because he is lucky, the Democrats still have a tiny chance. [[Florida]] is a very close swing state, most famously known for its role in [[Election 2000]]. In recent years, recognizing, for example Barack Obama's naive declaration that he would meet with leaders such as [[Fidel Castro]], Floridians have leaned Republican. An important constituency in this state is the [[Jewish]] population, dismayed by Obama's refusal to recognize that [[Israel]] is our most important ally. Cuban-Americans are also very important.

== Battleground States ==
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

[[CNN]] declares that the outcome in [[McCain]] v. [[Obama]] is a toss-up in only 12 states, totaling only 154 electors:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html</ref> (Most recent poll numbers, and polling outfit)

#Wisconsin (Obama 50% - McCain 37%, [http://www.news.wisc.edu/15313 University of Wisconsin])
#Iowa (Obama 48% - McCain 38%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#New Hampshire (Obama 48% - McCain 43%, [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_mccain_vs_obama-195.html#polls Rasmussen])
#Ohio (Obama 48% - McCain 39%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b03c08ab-30b9-463d-8be2-5cb118e05b74 Survey USA])
#Pennsylvania (Obama 45% - McCain 43%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/election_2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election2 Rasmussen])
#Nevada (McCain 46% - Obama 40%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Michigan (Obama 47% - McCain 39%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Minnesota (Obama 52% - McCain 34%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/minnesota/election_2008_minnesota_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Florida (McCain 45% - Obama 41%, [http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1180 Quinnipiac])
#Missouri (Obama 48% - McCain 43%, [http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/84EC6E3C5EAE4FF586257484000FDDED?OpenDocument Research 2000])
#Virginia (Obama 49% - McCain 42%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9901f8fc-034e-4a1d-ab36-f6e5c918614e Survey USA])
#Colorado (Obama 48% - McCain 42%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/colorado/election_2008_colorado_presidential_election Rasmussen])

In addition, there are four states leaning Democratic totaling 37 electoral votes, and eight states leaning Republican totaling 69 electoral votes. The addition of these states to the battleground puts 24 states and 260 electoral votes in play.

== Republican Strategy ==

The Republican Party nominee is Senator John McCain, who received a majority of the delegates on the March 4th primaries.

===Swing States (Great Lakes Region)===
Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008. This is confirmed by recent polling. However, due to the location of the Republican Convention in Minnesota, and if Governor Pawlenty is chosen as McCain's vice presidential pick, the state, with ten electoral votes, can come back into play. The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.{{fact}

===Other Important Swing States===
Moreover, it is very important for republicans to hold Ohio and Florida. Fortunately, both states have tended to lean republican in the last two presidential elections. Although Florida was disputed in election 2000, it went to Bush undeniably in 2004. Virginia will also be heavily contested this year.

===Declared Republican Party Candidates===
[[John H. Cox]]

UN Ambassador [[Alan Keyes]]

Senator [[John McCain]], [[Arizona]]

===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]].

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]] He withdrew after a defeat in [[Florida]], on which he had depended on heavily. He endorsed John McCain afterwards.

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]. He withdrew from the race once McCain recieved the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. He also promised to support McCain as the nominee, thus giving his endorsement to him.

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008 and endorsed Governor Mike Huckabee.

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th, withdrew June 12, 2008.

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]], suspended his campaign after poor showings on [[Super Tuesday]] and later endorsed John McCain.

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]].

Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]. He endorsed [[John McCain]] of Arizona.

Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].

===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.
*Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]] - endorsed John McCain.
*[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]
*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee
*Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]
*Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]
*Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]
*Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]
*Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]

===Potential Republican Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*[[Haley Barbour]] - Governor of [[Mississippi]]
*[[Matt Blunt]] - Governor of [[Missouri]]
*[[Sam Brownback]] - U.S. Senator from [[Kansas]]
*[[Jeb Bush]] - former Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Tom Coburn]] - U.S. Senator from [[Oklahoma]]
*[[Charlie Crist]] - Governor of [[Florida]]]
*[[Jim DeMint]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Bill Frist]] - former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader from [[Tennessee]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]] - former Mayor of [[New York City]]
*[[Lindsey Graham]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Mike Huckabee]] - former Governor of [[Arkansas]]
*[[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] - U.S. Senator from [[Texas]]
*[[Bobby Jindal]] - Governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Joe Lieberman]] - U.S. Senator from [[Connecticut]]
*[[Bill Owens]] - former Governor of [[Colorado]]
*[[Sarah Palin]] - Governor of [[Alaska]]
*[[Tim Pawlenty]] - Governor of [[Minnesota]]
*[[David Petraeus]] - Commanding General, Multinational Force [[Iraq]]
*[[Colin Powell]] - former United States [[Secretary of State]]
*[[Condoleezza Rice]] - United States Secretary of State
*[[Tom Ridge]] - former Homeland Security Secretary and Former Governor of [[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of [[Massachusetts]]
*[[Mark Sanford]] - Governor of South Carolina
*[[Michael Steele]] - former Lt. Governor of [[Maryland]]
*[[Fred Thompson]] - former U.S. Senator from Tennessee
*[[John Thune]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Dakota]]

== Democratic Strategy ==
As usual, the best strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the cratering popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.

However, evaluating the race in [[Electoral College]] terms forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.

Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections.

Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year was [[Bill Richardson]], who was cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it has been difficult for Democrats to carry the state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate.

The ''move on masses'' of the blogosphere require that any Democratic candidate frame the election as an attack on George Bush. Since they can't run against the President, the attack will be on ''Bush Politics'', chiefly the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts. That stance will be echoed repeatedly regardless of whatever real situation taking place in Iraq (where American forces turned over strategic control of the last province, Al Anbar) or in the economy (where the Dow hit record highs, before accounting for inflation, as recently as October 2007 and unemployment is near all time lows). The blogosphere led democrats to be overconfident in 2004, over estimating their voting support among young people who actually vote. However, with Democrats in control of both houses this election remains critical.

===Declared Democratic Party Candidates===

Senator [[Barack Obama]], [[Illinois]]

=== Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===

Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]].

Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]] Suspended her campaign after Obama reached the number of needed delegates. She endorsed him shortly afterwards.

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]] and later endorsed Senator [[Barack Obama]].

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]. He withdrew after losing in all of the early primary states. He later endorsed Senator Obama after Obama won the North Carolina primary.

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]. He withdrew to seek the Libertarian party nomination (which he lost to Bob Barr.) He also endorsed Green Party Candidate, Jesse Johnson. <ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/democratic-candidate-gravel-endorses-green-party-presidential-hopeful/ </ref>

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref> He withdrew to keep his seat in the House of Representatives.

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]]<ref>
[http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power. He later endorsed Senator Obama.

Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa. He endorsed [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]]

===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]
*Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]
*Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]
*Former Vice President [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]
*Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]
*Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]

===Potential Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
*Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
*General Wesley Clark (Ret.)
*Senator Hillary Clinton of New York
*Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota
*Former Senator and 2004 Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards of North Carolina
*Governor [[Ed Rendell]] of [[Pennsylvania]]
*Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico
*Governor [[Ted Strickland]] of [[Ohio]]
*Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa
*Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia
*Former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia
*Senator [[Jim Webb]] of Virginia

==Third parties and Independents==
===Libertarian party===
The [[Libertarian Party]] selected former Representative [[Bob Barr]] of [[Georgia]] as its 2008 presidential candidate on May 25, 2008.<ref>http://www.lpconvention.org/</ref> Former Democratic canididate [[Mike Gravel]] sought the Libertarian nomination but lost to Barr.<ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/25/libertarians-pick-barr-as-presidential-nominee/ </ref>

Barr has, on his campaign website, linked to a proposed Libertarian strategy laid out by a member of his campaign staff. Although Barr has not officially claimed this as his strategy, the link appears to be a tacit endorsement. The strategy is called the "gold states" strategy. Instead of waging a 50-state campaign with the aim of securing 270 electoral votes and an outright electoral college win, Barr would focus on about 18-20 states where neither Obama or McCain has strong support. Winning that number of states could net Barr from 180-200 electoral votes, and would exceed either Obama or McCain's number and prevent either of them from reaching 270. Under US Constitution Amendment 12, with no candidate having an electoral vote majority, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, which would have to choose the president from the top three electoral vote getters. At this stage, Barr could argue that as the top electoral vote recipient, he should become the President, and might draw support from conservative Democrats displeased with Obama's positions, and from Republicans who dislike McCain.

Although winning the largest number of electoral votes would assist Barr in making such an argument, it is not absolutely necessary. Given the close divide in the electoral vote in the 2000 and 2004 elections, Barr could throw the vote into the House by winning a handful of states to garner perhaps 15-20 electoral votes.

The House of Representatives currently has a Democratic majority, but it is important to note that under the US Constitution Amendment 12, the vote is not a straight vote of the members of the House. Instead, each ''State'' gets one single vote, and that vote is determined by the members from that State. Although many large states like California and New York have large Democratic majorities, these will be balanced by the many smaller Southern and Midwestern states with Republican majorities. A handful of states have an even number of House members, and are split down the middle for control.

===Constitution Party===
The [[Constitution Party]] held its convention in Kansas City, Kansas, on April 24 through April 27. The party nominated Pastor [[Chuck Baldwin]] over former U.N. Ambassador and Republican presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]].<ref> http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=751 </ref>

===Green Party===
[[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated in her bid for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives after voting against the [[Iraq War]] and being arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, won the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]]'s nomination for president at the party convention July 12, 2008. Running for Vice President on the Green ticket is "Hip-Hop activist and journalist" Rosa Clemente.<ref>http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=79</ref>

===Independents===
[[Ralph Nader]] announced his independent candidacy for president on February 24, 2008, to focus on "stem[ming] corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promot[ing] labor rights", issues he feels are ignored by the main parties.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb24/0,4670,APNader,00.html</ref> His [[running mate]] is former President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors [[Matt Gonzalez]].<ref>http://www.votenader.org/about/matt-gonzalez/</ref>

New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. However, he declared in a February 28, 2008, op-ed article in ''The New York Times'', "I am not—and will not be—a candidate for president," but added that "[i]f a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach—and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy—I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "I'm Not Running for President, but..."]</ref>

==Opinion polling==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Polling Outfit
! Date
! Sample*
! Obama (D)
! McCain (R)
|-
| [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll Rasmussen Tracking]
| 07/21 - 07/23
| 3000 LV
| 48
| 45
|-
| [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,390301,00.html Fox News Channel]
| 07/22 - 07/23
| 900 RV
| 41
| 40
|-
| [http://www.gallup.com/poll/109027/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Has-Modest-4Point-Lead.aspx Gallup Poll]
| 07/20 - 07/22
| 2640 RV
| 46
| 42
|-
| [http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/080723_Released.pdf NBC/WSJ]
| 07/18 - 07/21
| 1003 RV
| 47
| 41
|-
| [http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/JUL08a-Campaign08.pdf CBS News/NYT]
| 07/07 - 07/14
| 1462 RV
| 45
| 39
|-
| [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/abcpolls.pdf ABC News/Wash Post]
| 07/10 - 07/13
| LV
| 49
| 46
|-
| [http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1535315320080716 Reuters/Zogby]
| 07/09 - 07/13
| 1039 LV
| 47
| 40
|-
| [http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1192 Quinnipiac]
| 07/08 - 07/13
| 1725 LV
| 50
| 41
|-
| [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ibdtippjuly08.pdf IBD/TIPP]
| 07/07 - 07/11
| 854 RV
| 40
| 37
|}

*RV refers to registered voters, LV refers to likely voters.

Ramussen finds the favorable rating for each candidate at 55%.<ref>http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll</ref>

Most polling that has been done fails to include all the candidates who will actually be on the ballot in November. A Rasmussen poll on May 18, reported on a four-way race between Barack Obama, John McCain, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr. The poll, which was conducted before Barr became the Libertarian nominee and made a number of high-profile talk show appearances, found that Barr would finish in third place with 6% of the vote, and Nader with 4%.<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/will_third_party_candidates_tip_the_presidential_race</ref> Another poll conducted around that time showed Barr picking up 8% of the vote in [[Georgia]], seriously hurting McCain's chances of winning that state.<ref>http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_520_404.aspx</ref> It should be noted that in the actual elections, third party candidates such as Barr and Nader generally have much lower percentage of votes cast for them than they poll beforehand.

==Primaries and Caucuses==
===Iowa Caucus: January 3, 2008===
The first caucus in the 2008 presidential election cycle was the [[Iowa Caucus]]. The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus was [[Barack Obama]], who managed to beat national frontrunner [[Hillary Clinton]] and former [[North Carolina]] Senator, [[John Edwards]]. The official results were:
{| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Iowa caucus results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Barack Obama
| 38%
|-
| John Edwards
| 30%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 29%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 2%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 1%
|-
|}
Other candidates such as, [[Chris Dodd]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Mike Gravel]] did not gain a significant percentage. Because of the Iowa results, [[Barack Obama]] was expected now to beat [[Hillary Clinton]] in the upcoming [[New Hampshire]] primary. Also, [[Joe Biden]] and [[Chris Dodd]] both withdrew from the race because of their low showings in the Iowa caucus.

On the Republican side, [[Mike Huckabee]] defeated [[Mitt Romney]] by an even closer margin. The results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Iowa caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 34%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 25%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 13%
|-
| John McCain
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 10%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 3%
|}

Candidates such as [[Duncan Hunter]], [[Alan Keyes]] and [[John H. Cox]] didn't come out with a significant percentage. Romney's loss in [[Iowa]] set him back in the upcoming primary in [[New Hampshire]]. Huckabee's win however gave him surge in [[New Hampshire]] where he had before been very low in the polls. McCain's unexpected high showing in Iowa also gave him a little boost in New Hampshire.

===New Hampshire Primary: January 8, 2008===
The next milestone after the Iowa caucus was the New Hampshire primary. (Only the Republican Wyoming primary occurred on January 5, which was won by Romney.) On the Republican side, Mitt Romney's defeat in Iowa helped his most significant opponent, John McCain. Huckabee's victory in Iowa helped boost his campaign and gave him a higher showing than even he had expected. On the Democratic side, Obama's defeat of Clinton and Edwards led to the polls usually predicting a Obama victory in New Hampshire.
The winner for the Repbulicans was John McCain and for the Democrats Hillary Clinton. The Democratic results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36%
|-
| John Edwards
| 17%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 5%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}

Hillary Clinton's win was a setback for Obama and much-needed victory for Clinton. The polls reliability was most hurt with these results. (Mike Gravel didn't reach a significant percentage.)
The Republican results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 37%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 11%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 9%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 8%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|-
| Duncan Hunter
| 1%
|}

These results put the very survival of Mitt Romney on the line and intensified the upcoming Michigan primary. John McCain's victory helped boost his campaign and he predicted to go on to victory in Michigan and South Carolina. Huckabee also did well and placed an unusual third place.

===Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina===
Romney's second-place defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire, caused his campaign to focus all it's attention on the Michigan Primary on January 15th. He managed to defeat his rivals, John McCain and Mike Huckabee.
Since the Democrats had taken Michigan's delegates away, most of the candidates didn't even bother to get on the ballot. Clinton won easily, because she was one of the only major candidates to be even on the ballot.
Romney and the Democrats turned their attention to the Nevada caucus, while Republicans John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson looked to the South Carolina primary. (The Republicans had the South Carolina primary on the same day as the Nevada caucus, January 19th.)
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Nevada caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! Percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 51%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 45%
|-
| John Edwards
| 4%
|}

Hillary Clinton probably won because of her strong position on the Yucca Mountain issue, which was critical to Democratic caucus goers.
Romney easily won the Republican Nevada caucus, probably because it is close to Utah, a traditionally Mormon state. Duncan Hunter had been hoping for a strong finish in Nevada and decided to leave the race, because of his poor showings.

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP SC caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 33%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 30%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 16%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 15%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 4%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 2%
|}

McCain’s victory in South Carolina propelled him as the national front-runner. Mike Huckabee’s 2nd place defeat forced him to cut back in expenses due to lack of funds. Fred Thompson’s defeat was irreparable and he withdrew from the race shortly afterwards

The Democrats prepared for the primary in South Carolina on January 26th. Obama won the primary by a huge margin over Clinton and Edwards. This was a severe loss for Edwards since he had been born in South Carolina and was Senator for North Carolina. Obama probably won because of the state’s huge black population.

===Florida Primary: January 29, 2008===
Because Florida moved it's date to January 29th the Democratic party stripped Florida of it's delegates and the candidates agreed not to campaign there.
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 50%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 33%
|-
| John Edwards
| 14%
|-
| Joe Biden
| 1%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 1%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}
Florida was the last early primary state and after his loss, John Edwards suspended his campaign. (Although they had withdrawn, candidates Biden, Richardson and Kucinich still received votes. Mike Gravel didn't receive a percentage.)
The Republicans concentrated on Florida more than the Democrats, because the Republican party chose to remove only half of their delegates. Candidate [[Rudy Giuliani]] chose to ignore earlier primaries, hoping that a large win in Florida, with its strong transplanted New Yorkers contingent, would propel him to the nomination. Unfortunately, with earlier wins, John McCain and Mitt Romney both gained momentum and began to lead Giuliani in the polls.
The Republican results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 36%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 3%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|}

The results caused Giuliani to exit the race the next day and endorse the primary winner, John McCain. (Although Fred Thompson had withdrawn he got some support anyway.)

===Super Tuesday: February 5, 2008===
Super Tuesday held the largest number of presidential primary's and caucuses. Twenty-four states were held for one or both parties were held on this date.

*The Democratic results were:
*Candidates
*Hillary Clinton, 9 states won, ([[American Samoa]], [[Arizona]], [[Arkansas]], [[California]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]], [[New Mexico]], [[New York]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Tennessee]].) Number of delegates won, 826.
*Barack Obama, 13 states won, ([[Alabama]], [[Alaska]], [[Colorado]], [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Idaho]], [[Illinois]], [[Kansas]], [[Minnesota]], [[Missouri]], [[North Dakota]], [[Utah]].) Number of delegates won, 838.

*GOP Super Tuesday primary results
*John McCain, 9 states won, (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma). Number of delegates won: 602.
*Mitt Romney, 7 states won, (Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah). Number of delegates won: 201.
*Mike Huckabee, 5 states won, (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia). Number of delegates won: 152.
*Ron Paul, 0 states won. Number of delegates won: 10

===February 9th Primaries===
The next major primary after Super Tuesday was on February 9, 2008. The Democrats held contests in [[Louisiana]], [[Nebraska]] & [[Washington]]. The Republicans held three other contests in [[Kansas]], [[Louisiana]] & [[Washington]].
Governor Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, but lost to McCain in Washington by a close margin. Barrack Obama won all three Democratic contests, and also won the Maine caucus, the next day on February 10th.

===Potomac Primary: February 12, 2008===
The next primary-date was the Potomac primary on February 12. It is called that because the three states; [[District of Columbia]], [[Maryland]] and [[Virginia]], which all were near the Potomac River, had their primary date on the same date. John McCain won all three Republican contests, while Barrack Obama won all of the Democratic contests.

===Super Tuesday 2: March 4, 2008===
After Obama won his 11th consecutive victory on the February 19th primaries in [[Wisconsin]] and [[Hawaii]], Clinton was desperate to win the March 4th primaries in [[Ohio]], [[Texas]], [[Rhode Island]] & [[Vermont]]. Huckabee also needed more victories to prevent McCain from reaching the needed 1,191 delegates for the Republican nomination.

Clinton won all of the states except for Vermont, which Obama won. McCain won all of the primaries, causing Governor Huckabee to leave the race that evening.

===Pennsylvania Primary===
After Clinton's victories on Super Tuesday 2, both Democrats looked ahead to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. Obama lost some popularity after video clips were shown of his Pastor, Rev. [[Jeremiah Wright]], saying "God damn America!" during a sermon. Obama also commented about people bitterly clinging to guns and religion because they were upset with Washington policies. Clinton beat Obama by 9 percentage points, continuing the long drawn-out contest between the two. John McCain was able to easily win the primary as the Republican party's presumptive nominee.

===Guam Caucus===
On May 3rd, Guam held its Democratic caucuses. Out of more than 4,500 votes, Senator Obama won by 7 votes. The results gave Obama 2 pledged delegates and Senator Clinton 2 pledged delegates.

===Indiana and North Carolina Primary===
Both Indiana and North Carolina held their primaries on May 6th. Heading into the primary, registered African American voters reported receiving "robocalls" telling them they were not registered to vote. The calls were traced back to an organization called "Women's Voices Women Vote". The organization included members close to the Clintons. The calls ended with an order from the state Attorney General. Senator Obama proceeded to win the primary with 56.1%.

Leading into the Indiana primary, the polls were very close, with neither candidate leading by more than the polls' margin-of-error. Senator Clinton was looking for a large win to follow up on the Pennsylvania primary, with much the same demographic as PA and Ohio. Senator Obama, though, surprised many in the news media and the Clinton campaign by losing by only a small margin, 50.56% - 49.44%. With the near-split of the delegates in Indiana, combined with his win in North Carolina, the media began to declare Senator Obama as the nominee, although he had not yet reached the necessary delegate count.

===West Virginia Primary===
With a strong working-class demographic, Senator Clinton was expected to win the West Virginia primary on May 13th. Polls leading into the primary had her up 29 points on Senator Obama. The final vote tally exceeded the polls, with Senator Clinton winning 66.99% - 25.67%.

===Oregon and Kentucky Primaries===
The Oregon primary was a mail-only primary--the only such primary in the nation. Democratic voters received ballots in the mail between May 2nd and May 6th, and had to be received by county election officials by May 20th. Polling leading up to the primary showed Senator Obama with a 10-15% lead over Senator Clinton. Obama held a rally on May 18th at the Tom McCall Waterfront Park in Portland which drew an estimated 72,000 people. It was the largest rally Obama had held, more than doubling the 35,000 that came out to see him in Pennsylvania. By the end of the vote tally, Obama had won the state primary 58.5% - 40.5%.

The Kentucky primary, held the same day, was long believed a lock for Senator Clinton. The voter demographic mirrored the West Virginia primary, with a heavy working-class population. Senator Clinton easily won the primary, 65.5% - 29.9%. The large win, though, was drowned out in the media by Senator Obama's win in Oregon, and more importantly, by the endorsement of Senator Obama by former opponent and former vice presidential candidate, John Edwards.

===Puerto Rico Primary===
With Clinton behind in both pledged and superdelegates at this point in the race, every primary and delegate became even more important to forestall Obama reaching the necessary number of delegate to clinch the nomination. Clinton's strategy was to win out the primaries and work to convince superdelegates to support her nomination at the party convention as the best chance to beat McCain. Thus Puerto Rico, usually an afterthought in previous elections, rated visits by both candidates before the June 1st primary. Heading into the primary, Clinton led in two polls by 13% each time. The results beat poll expectations, with Clinton winning the primary 67.7% - 31.27%.

===Montana and South Dakota Democratic Primaries===
The last Democratic primaries were held on June 3rd. Senator Obama needed to win one of the primaries, and merely come close in the other to clinch the nomination. In Montana, Obama got the win he needed, defeating Senator Clinton 56.3%-41.25%. In South Dakota, Senator Clinton won, but with a close enough margin to give Obama the final delegates necessary. The result of the primary was 55.35% - 44.65%. Senator Obama was in Saint Paul, Minnesota, the site of the Republican Nominating Convention, to accept the party's unofficial nomination. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtL-1V3OZ0c Barack Obama Democatic Nomination Victory Speech]</ref>

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: United States]]

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-07-25T14:32:35Z

RoyS: /* Republican Strategy */

[[Image:Presidential election map.gif|right|thumb|350px|Battleground states]] The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and ended on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref> Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]] is expected to win the Republican nomination, while [[Barack Obama|Senator Barack Obama]] is the presumptive nominee for the [[Democratic Party]].

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
If eligible to do so, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 may mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election. In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''Fox News Sunday''.

==Differences between 2008 and other elections==
In 2008, [[CNN]]-[[YouTube]] held the first debate in which the questions asked of the nominees in each party came primarily from YouTube viewer submitted videos. The debates received high ratings, however, CNN was criticized for not picking questions that were 'tough' or pertinent enough. One such example was during the Democratic Debate, when CNN chose to ask a question from a snow man, talking about [[global warming]]. During the Republican debate, some claimed that many of the questions were from Democratic supporters just meant to embarrass the Republican candidates. For example, a question over whether or not homosexuals should serve in the U.S. military was asked by retired general and gay activist Keith Kerr, an adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The internet has also played a major role in the election, with then-Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and Democratic candidate Barack Obama being very active on the internet.

== Battleground States ==
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

[[CNN]] declares that the outcome in [[McCain]] v. [[Obama]] is a toss-up in only 12 states, totaling only 154 electors:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html</ref> (Most recent poll numbers, and polling outfit)

#Wisconsin (Obama 50% - McCain 37%, [http://www.news.wisc.edu/15313 University of Wisconsin])
#Iowa (Obama 48% - McCain 38%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#New Hampshire (Obama 48% - McCain 43%, [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_mccain_vs_obama-195.html#polls Rasmussen])
#Ohio (Obama 48% - McCain 39%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b03c08ab-30b9-463d-8be2-5cb118e05b74 Survey USA])
#Pennsylvania (Obama 45% - McCain 43%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/election_2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election2 Rasmussen])
#Nevada (McCain 46% - Obama 40%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Michigan (Obama 47% - McCain 39%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Minnesota (Obama 52% - McCain 34%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/minnesota/election_2008_minnesota_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Florida (McCain 45% - Obama 41%, [http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1180 Quinnipiac])
#Missouri (Obama 48% - McCain 43%, [http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/84EC6E3C5EAE4FF586257484000FDDED?OpenDocument Research 2000])
#Virginia (Obama 49% - McCain 42%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9901f8fc-034e-4a1d-ab36-f6e5c918614e Survey USA])
#Colorado (Obama 48% - McCain 42%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/colorado/election_2008_colorado_presidential_election Rasmussen])

In addition, there are four states leaning Democratic totaling 37 electoral votes, and eight states leaning Republican totaling 69 electoral votes. The addition of these states to the battleground puts 24 states and 260 electoral votes in play.

== Republican Strategy ==

The Republican Party nominee is Senator John McCain, who received a majority of the delegates on the March 4th primaries.

===Swing States (Great Lakes Region)===
Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008. This is confirmed by recent polling. However, due to the location of the Republican Convention in Minnesota, and if Governor Pawlenty is chosen as McCain's vice presidential pick, the state, with ten electoral votes, can come back into play. The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.{{fact}

===Other Important Swing States===
Moreover, it is very important for republicans to hold Ohio and Florida. Fortunately, both states have tended to lean republican in the last two presidential elections. Although Florida was disputed in election 2000, it went to Bush undeniably in 2004. Virginia will also be heavily contested this year.

===Declared Republican Party Candidates===
[[John H. Cox]]

UN Ambassador [[Alan Keyes]]

Senator [[John McCain]], [[Arizona]]

===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]].

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]] He withdrew after a defeat in [[Florida]], on which he had depended on heavily. He endorsed John McCain afterwards.

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]. He withdrew from the race once McCain recieved the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. He also promised to support McCain as the nominee, thus giving his endorsement to him.

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008 and endorsed Governor Mike Huckabee.

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th, withdrew June 12, 2008.

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]], suspended his campaign after poor showings on [[Super Tuesday]] and later endorsed John McCain.

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]].

Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]. He endorsed [[John McCain]] of Arizona.

Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].

===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.
*Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]] - endorsed John McCain.
*[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]
*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee
*Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]
*Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]
*Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]
*Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]
*Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]

===Potential Republican Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*[[Haley Barbour]] - Governor of [[Mississippi]]
*[[Matt Blunt]] - Governor of [[Missouri]]
*[[Sam Brownback]] - U.S. Senator from [[Kansas]]
*[[Jeb Bush]] - former Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Tom Coburn]] - U.S. Senator from [[Oklahoma]]
*[[Charlie Crist]] - Governor of [[Florida]]]
*[[Jim DeMint]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Bill Frist]] - former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader from [[Tennessee]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]] - former Mayor of [[New York City]]
*[[Lindsey Graham]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Mike Huckabee]] - former Governor of [[Arkansas]]
*[[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] - U.S. Senator from [[Texas]]
*[[Bobby Jindal]] - Governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Joe Lieberman]] - U.S. Senator from [[Connecticut]]
*[[Bill Owens]] - former Governor of [[Colorado]]
*[[Sarah Palin]] - Governor of [[Alaska]]
*[[Tim Pawlenty]] - Governor of [[Minnesota]]
*[[David Petraeus]] - Commanding General, Multinational Force [[Iraq]]
*[[Colin Powell]] - former United States [[Secretary of State]]
*[[Condoleezza Rice]] - United States Secretary of State
*[[Tom Ridge]] - former Homeland Security Secretary and Former Governor of [[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of [[Massachusetts]]
*[[Mark Sanford]] - Governor of South Carolina
*[[Michael Steele]] - former Lt. Governor of [[Maryland]]
*[[Fred Thompson]] - former U.S. Senator from Tennessee
*[[John Thune]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Dakota]]

== Democratic Strategy ==
As usual, the best strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the cratering popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.

However, evaluating the race in [[Electoral College]] terms forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.

Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections.

Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year was [[Bill Richardson]], who was cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it has been difficult for Democrats to carry the state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate.

The ''move on masses'' of the blogosphere require that any Democratic candidate frame the election as an attack on George Bush. Since they can't run against the President, the attack will be on ''Bush Politics'', chiefly the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts. That stance will be echoed repeatedly regardless of whatever real situation taking place in Iraq (where American forces turned over strategic control of the last province, Al Anbar) or in the economy (where the Dow hit record highs, before accounting for inflation, as recently as October 2007 and unemployment is near all time lows). The blogosphere led democrats to be overconfident in 2004, over estimating their voting support among young people who actually vote. However, with Democrats in control of both houses this election remains critical.

===Declared Democratic Party Candidates===

Senator [[Barack Obama]], [[Illinois]]

=== Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===

Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]].

Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]] Suspended her campaign after Obama reached the number of needed delegates. She endorsed him shortly afterwards.

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]] and later endorsed Senator [[Barack Obama]].

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]. He withdrew after losing in all of the early primary states. He later endorsed Senator Obama after Obama won the North Carolina primary.

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]. He withdrew to seek the Libertarian party nomination (which he lost to Bob Barr.) He also endorsed Green Party Candidate, Jesse Johnson. <ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/democratic-candidate-gravel-endorses-green-party-presidential-hopeful/ </ref>

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref> He withdrew to keep his seat in the House of Representatives.

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]]<ref>
[http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power. He later endorsed Senator Obama.

Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa. He endorsed [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]]

===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]
*Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]
*Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]
*Former Vice President [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]
*Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]
*Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]

===Potential Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
*Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
*General Wesley Clark (Ret.)
*Senator Hillary Clinton of New York
*Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota
*Former Senator and 2004 Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards of North Carolina
*Governor [[Ed Rendell]] of [[Pennsylvania]]
*Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico
*Governor [[Ted Strickland]] of [[Ohio]]
*Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa
*Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia
*Former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia
*Senator [[Jim Webb]] of Virginia

==Third parties and Independents==
===Libertarian party===
The [[Libertarian Party]] selected former Representative [[Bob Barr]] of [[Georgia]] as its 2008 presidential candidate on May 25, 2008.<ref>http://www.lpconvention.org/</ref> Former Democratic canididate [[Mike Gravel]] sought the Libertarian nomination but lost to Barr.<ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/25/libertarians-pick-barr-as-presidential-nominee/ </ref>

Barr has, on his campaign website, linked to a proposed Libertarian strategy laid out by a member of his campaign staff. Although Barr has not officially claimed this as his strategy, the link appears to be a tacit endorsement. The strategy is called the "gold states" strategy. Instead of waging a 50-state campaign with the aim of securing 270 electoral votes and an outright electoral college win, Barr would focus on about 18-20 states where neither Obama or McCain has strong support. Winning that number of states could net Barr from 180-200 electoral votes, and would exceed either Obama or McCain's number and prevent either of them from reaching 270. Under US Constitution Amendment 12, with no candidate having an electoral vote majority, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, which would have to choose the president from the top three electoral vote getters. At this stage, Barr could argue that as the top electoral vote recipient, he should become the President, and might draw support from conservative Democrats displeased with Obama's positions, and from Republicans who dislike McCain.

Although winning the largest number of electoral votes would assist Barr in making such an argument, it is not absolutely necessary. Given the close divide in the electoral vote in the 2000 and 2004 elections, Barr could throw the vote into the House by winning a handful of states to garner perhaps 15-20 electoral votes.

The House of Representatives currently has a Democratic majority, but it is important to note that under the US Constitution Amendment 12, the vote is not a straight vote of the members of the House. Instead, each ''State'' gets one single vote, and that vote is determined by the members from that State. Although many large states like California and New York have large Democratic majorities, these will be balanced by the many smaller Southern and Midwestern states with Republican majorities. A handful of states have an even number of House members, and are split down the middle for control.

===Constitution Party===
The [[Constitution Party]] held its convention in Kansas City, Kansas, on April 24 through April 27. The party nominated Pastor [[Chuck Baldwin]] over former U.N. Ambassador and Republican presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]].<ref> http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=751 </ref>

===Green Party===
[[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated in her bid for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives after voting against the [[Iraq War]] and being arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, won the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]]'s nomination for president at the party convention July 12, 2008. Running for Vice President on the Green ticket is "Hip-Hop activist and journalist" Rosa Clemente.<ref>http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=79</ref>

===Independents===
[[Ralph Nader]] announced his independent candidacy for president on February 24, 2008, to focus on "stem[ming] corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promot[ing] labor rights", issues he feels are ignored by the main parties.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb24/0,4670,APNader,00.html</ref> His [[running mate]] is former President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors [[Matt Gonzalez]].<ref>http://www.votenader.org/about/matt-gonzalez/</ref>

New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. However, he declared in a February 28, 2008, op-ed article in ''The New York Times'', "I am not—and will not be—a candidate for president," but added that "[i]f a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach—and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy—I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "I'm Not Running for President, but..."]</ref>

==Opinion polling==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Polling Outfit
! Date
! Sample*
! Obama (D)
! McCain (R)
|-
| [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll Rasmussen Tracking]
| 07/21 - 07/23
| 3000 LV
| 48
| 45
|-
| [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,390301,00.html Fox News Channel]
| 07/22 - 07/23
| 900 RV
| 41
| 40
|-
| [http://www.gallup.com/poll/109027/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Has-Modest-4Point-Lead.aspx Gallup Poll]
| 07/20 - 07/22
| 2640 RV
| 46
| 42
|-
| [http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/080723_Released.pdf NBC/WSJ]
| 07/18 - 07/21
| 1003 RV
| 47
| 41
|-
| [http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/JUL08a-Campaign08.pdf CBS News/NYT]
| 07/07 - 07/14
| 1462 RV
| 45
| 39
|-
| [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/abcpolls.pdf ABC News/Wash Post]
| 07/10 - 07/13
| LV
| 49
| 46
|-
| [http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1535315320080716 Reuters/Zogby]
| 07/09 - 07/13
| 1039 LV
| 47
| 40
|-
| [http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1192 Quinnipiac]
| 07/08 - 07/13
| 1725 LV
| 50
| 41
|-
| [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ibdtippjuly08.pdf IBD/TIPP]
| 07/07 - 07/11
| 854 RV
| 40
| 37
|}

*RV refers to registered voters, LV refers to likely voters.

Ramussen finds the favorable rating for each candidate at 55%.<ref>http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll</ref>

Most polling that has been done fails to include all the candidates who will actually be on the ballot in November. A Rasmussen poll on May 18, reported on a four-way race between Barack Obama, John McCain, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr. The poll, which was conducted before Barr became the Libertarian nominee and made a number of high-profile talk show appearances, found that Barr would finish in third place with 6% of the vote, and Nader with 4%.<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/will_third_party_candidates_tip_the_presidential_race</ref> Another poll conducted around that time showed Barr picking up 8% of the vote in [[Georgia]], seriously hurting McCain's chances of winning that state.<ref>http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_520_404.aspx</ref> It should be noted that in the actual elections, third party candidates such as Barr and Nader generally have much lower percentage of votes cast for them than they poll beforehand.

==Primaries and Caucuses==
===Iowa Caucus: January 3, 2008===
The first caucus in the 2008 presidential election cycle was the [[Iowa Caucus]]. The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus was [[Barack Obama]], who managed to beat national frontrunner [[Hillary Clinton]] and former [[North Carolina]] Senator, [[John Edwards]]. The official results were:
{| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Iowa caucus results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Barack Obama
| 38%
|-
| John Edwards
| 30%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 29%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 2%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 1%
|-
|}
Other candidates such as, [[Chris Dodd]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Mike Gravel]] did not gain a significant percentage. Because of the Iowa results, [[Barack Obama]] was expected now to beat [[Hillary Clinton]] in the upcoming [[New Hampshire]] primary. Also, [[Joe Biden]] and [[Chris Dodd]] both withdrew from the race because of their low showings in the Iowa caucus.

On the Republican side, [[Mike Huckabee]] defeated [[Mitt Romney]] by an even closer margin. The results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Iowa caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 34%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 25%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 13%
|-
| John McCain
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 10%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 3%
|}

Candidates such as [[Duncan Hunter]], [[Alan Keyes]] and [[John H. Cox]] didn't come out with a significant percentage. Romney's loss in [[Iowa]] set him back in the upcoming primary in [[New Hampshire]]. Huckabee's win however gave him surge in [[New Hampshire]] where he had before been very low in the polls. McCain's unexpected high showing in Iowa also gave him a little boost in New Hampshire.

===New Hampshire Primary: January 8, 2008===
The next milestone after the Iowa caucus was the New Hampshire primary. (Only the Republican Wyoming primary occurred on January 5, which was won by Romney.) On the Republican side, Mitt Romney's defeat in Iowa helped his most significant opponent, John McCain. Huckabee's victory in Iowa helped boost his campaign and gave him a higher showing than even he had expected. On the Democratic side, Obama's defeat of Clinton and Edwards led to the polls usually predicting a Obama victory in New Hampshire.
The winner for the Repbulicans was John McCain and for the Democrats Hillary Clinton. The Democratic results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36%
|-
| John Edwards
| 17%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 5%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}

Hillary Clinton's win was a setback for Obama and much-needed victory for Clinton. The polls reliability was most hurt with these results. (Mike Gravel didn't reach a significant percentage.)
The Republican results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 37%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 11%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 9%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 8%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|-
| Duncan Hunter
| 1%
|}

These results put the very survival of Mitt Romney on the line and intensified the upcoming Michigan primary. John McCain's victory helped boost his campaign and he predicted to go on to victory in Michigan and South Carolina. Huckabee also did well and placed an unusual third place.

===Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina===
Romney's second-place defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire, caused his campaign to focus all it's attention on the Michigan Primary on January 15th. He managed to defeat his rivals, John McCain and Mike Huckabee.
Since the Democrats had taken Michigan's delegates away, most of the candidates didn't even bother to get on the ballot. Clinton won easily, because she was one of the only major candidates to be even on the ballot.
Romney and the Democrats turned their attention to the Nevada caucus, while Republicans John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson looked to the South Carolina primary. (The Republicans had the South Carolina primary on the same day as the Nevada caucus, January 19th.)
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Nevada caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! Percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 51%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 45%
|-
| John Edwards
| 4%
|}

Hillary Clinton probably won because of her strong position on the Yucca Mountain issue, which was critical to Democratic caucus goers.
Romney easily won the Republican Nevada caucus, probably because it is close to Utah, a traditionally Mormon state. Duncan Hunter had been hoping for a strong finish in Nevada and decided to leave the race, because of his poor showings.

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP SC caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 33%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 30%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 16%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 15%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 4%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 2%
|}

McCain’s victory in South Carolina propelled him as the national front-runner. Mike Huckabee’s 2nd place defeat forced him to cut back in expenses due to lack of funds. Fred Thompson’s defeat was irreparable and he withdrew from the race shortly afterwards

The Democrats prepared for the primary in South Carolina on January 26th. Obama won the primary by a huge margin over Clinton and Edwards. This was a severe loss for Edwards since he had been born in South Carolina and was Senator for North Carolina. Obama probably won because of the state’s huge black population.

===Florida Primary: January 29, 2008===
Because Florida moved it's date to January 29th the Democratic party stripped Florida of it's delegates and the candidates agreed not to campaign there.
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 50%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 33%
|-
| John Edwards
| 14%
|-
| Joe Biden
| 1%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 1%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}
Florida was the last early primary state and after his loss, John Edwards suspended his campaign. (Although they had withdrawn, candidates Biden, Richardson and Kucinich still received votes. Mike Gravel didn't receive a percentage.)
The Republicans concentrated on Florida more than the Democrats, because the Republican party chose to remove only half of their delegates. Candidate [[Rudy Giuliani]] chose to ignore earlier primaries, hoping that a large win in Florida, with its strong transplanted New Yorkers contingent, would propel him to the nomination. Unfortunately, with earlier wins, John McCain and Mitt Romney both gained momentum and began to lead Giuliani in the polls.
The Republican results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 36%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 3%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|}

The results caused Giuliani to exit the race the next day and endorse the primary winner, John McCain. (Although Fred Thompson had withdrawn he got some support anyway.)

===Super Tuesday: February 5, 2008===
Super Tuesday held the largest number of presidential primary's and caucuses. Twenty-four states were held for one or both parties were held on this date.

*The Democratic results were:
*Candidates
*Hillary Clinton, 9 states won, ([[American Samoa]], [[Arizona]], [[Arkansas]], [[California]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]], [[New Mexico]], [[New York]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Tennessee]].) Number of delegates won, 826.
*Barack Obama, 13 states won, ([[Alabama]], [[Alaska]], [[Colorado]], [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Idaho]], [[Illinois]], [[Kansas]], [[Minnesota]], [[Missouri]], [[North Dakota]], [[Utah]].) Number of delegates won, 838.

*GOP Super Tuesday primary results
*John McCain, 9 states won, (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma). Number of delegates won: 602.
*Mitt Romney, 7 states won, (Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah). Number of delegates won: 201.
*Mike Huckabee, 5 states won, (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia). Number of delegates won: 152.
*Ron Paul, 0 states won. Number of delegates won: 10

===February 9th Primaries===
The next major primary after Super Tuesday was on February 9, 2008. The Democrats held contests in [[Louisiana]], [[Nebraska]] & [[Washington]]. The Republicans held three other contests in [[Kansas]], [[Louisiana]] & [[Washington]].
Governor Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, but lost to McCain in Washington by a close margin. Barrack Obama won all three Democratic contests, and also won the Maine caucus, the next day on February 10th.

===Potomac Primary: February 12, 2008===
The next primary-date was the Potomac primary on February 12. It is called that because the three states; [[District of Columbia]], [[Maryland]] and [[Virginia]], which all were near the Potomac River, had their primary date on the same date. John McCain won all three Republican contests, while Barrack Obama won all of the Democratic contests.

===Super Tuesday 2: March 4, 2008===
After Obama won his 11th consecutive victory on the February 19th primaries in [[Wisconsin]] and [[Hawaii]], Clinton was desperate to win the March 4th primaries in [[Ohio]], [[Texas]], [[Rhode Island]] & [[Vermont]]. Huckabee also needed more victories to prevent McCain from reaching the needed 1,191 delegates for the Republican nomination.

Clinton won all of the states except for Vermont, which Obama won. McCain won all of the primaries, causing Governor Huckabee to leave the race that evening.

===Pennsylvania Primary===
After Clinton's victories on Super Tuesday 2, both Democrats looked ahead to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. Obama lost some popularity after video clips were shown of his Pastor, Rev. [[Jeremiah Wright]], saying "God damn America!" during a sermon. Obama also commented about people bitterly clinging to guns and religion because they were upset with Washington policies. Clinton beat Obama by 9 percentage points, continuing the long drawn-out contest between the two. John McCain was able to easily win the primary as the Republican party's presumptive nominee.

===Guam Caucus===
On May 3rd, Guam held its Democratic caucuses. Out of more than 4,500 votes, Senator Obama won by 7 votes. The results gave Obama 2 pledged delegates and Senator Clinton 2 pledged delegates.

===Indiana and North Carolina Primary===
Both Indiana and North Carolina held their primaries on May 6th. Heading into the primary, registered African American voters reported receiving "robocalls" telling them they were not registered to vote. The calls were traced back to an organization called "Women's Voices Women Vote". The organization included members close to the Clintons. The calls ended with an order from the state Attorney General. Senator Obama proceeded to win the primary with 56.1%.

Leading into the Indiana primary, the polls were very close, with neither candidate leading by more than the polls' margin-of-error. Senator Clinton was looking for a large win to follow up on the Pennsylvania primary, with much the same demographic as PA and Ohio. Senator Obama, though, surprised many in the news media and the Clinton campaign by losing by only a small margin, 50.56% - 49.44%. With the near-split of the delegates in Indiana, combined with his win in North Carolina, the media began to declare Senator Obama as the nominee, although he had not yet reached the necessary delegate count.

===West Virginia Primary===
With a strong working-class demographic, Senator Clinton was expected to win the West Virginia primary on May 13th. Polls leading into the primary had her up 29 points on Senator Obama. The final vote tally exceeded the polls, with Senator Clinton winning 66.99% - 25.67%.

===Oregon and Kentucky Primaries===
The Oregon primary was a mail-only primary--the only such primary in the nation. Democratic voters received ballots in the mail between May 2nd and May 6th, and had to be received by county election officials by May 20th. Polling leading up to the primary showed Senator Obama with a 10-15% lead over Senator Clinton. Obama held a rally on May 18th at the Tom McCall Waterfront Park in Portland which drew an estimated 72,000 people. It was the largest rally Obama had held, more than doubling the 35,000 that came out to see him in Pennsylvania. By the end of the vote tally, Obama had won the state primary 58.5% - 40.5%.

The Kentucky primary, held the same day, was long believed a lock for Senator Clinton. The voter demographic mirrored the West Virginia primary, with a heavy working-class population. Senator Clinton easily won the primary, 65.5% - 29.9%. The large win, though, was drowned out in the media by Senator Obama's win in Oregon, and more importantly, by the endorsement of Senator Obama by former opponent and former vice presidential candidate, John Edwards.

===Puerto Rico Primary===
With Clinton behind in both pledged and superdelegates at this point in the race, every primary and delegate became even more important to forestall Obama reaching the necessary number of delegate to clinch the nomination. Clinton's strategy was to win out the primaries and work to convince superdelegates to support her nomination at the party convention as the best chance to beat McCain. Thus Puerto Rico, usually an afterthought in previous elections, rated visits by both candidates before the June 1st primary. Heading into the primary, Clinton led in two polls by 13% each time. The results beat poll expectations, with Clinton winning the primary 67.7% - 31.27%.

===Montana and South Dakota Democratic Primaries===
The last Democratic primaries were held on June 3rd. Senator Obama needed to win one of the primaries, and merely come close in the other to clinch the nomination. In Montana, Obama got the win he needed, defeating Senator Clinton 56.3%-41.25%. In South Dakota, Senator Clinton won, but with a close enough margin to give Obama the final delegates necessary. The result of the primary was 55.35% - 44.65%. Senator Obama was in Saint Paul, Minnesota, the site of the Republican Nominating Convention, to accept the party's unofficial nomination. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtL-1V3OZ0c Barack Obama Democatic Nomination Victory Speech]</ref>

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: United States]]

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2008-07-25T14:17:10Z

RoyS: /* Republican Strategy */

[[Image:Presidential election map.gif|right|thumb|350px|Battleground states]] The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and ended on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref> Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]] is expected to win the Republican nomination, while [[Barack Obama|Senator Barack Obama]] is the presumptive nominee for the [[Democratic Party]].

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
If eligible to do so, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 may mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election. In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''Fox News Sunday''.

==Differences between 2008 and other elections==
In 2008, [[CNN]]-[[YouTube]] held the first debate in which the questions asked of the nominees in each party came primarily from YouTube viewer submitted videos. The debates received high ratings, however, CNN was criticized for not picking questions that were 'tough' or pertinent enough. One such example was during the Democratic Debate, when CNN chose to ask a question from a snow man, talking about [[global warming]]. During the Republican debate, some claimed that many of the questions were from Democratic supporters just meant to embarrass the Republican candidates. For example, a question over whether or not homosexuals should serve in the U.S. military was asked by retired general and gay activist Keith Kerr, an adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The internet has also played a major role in the election, with then-Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and Democratic candidate Barack Obama being very active on the internet.

== Battleground States ==
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

[[CNN]] declares that the outcome in [[McCain]] v. [[Obama]] is a toss-up in only 12 states, totaling only 154 electors:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html</ref> (Most recent poll numbers, and polling outfit)

#Wisconsin (Obama 50% - McCain 37%, [http://www.news.wisc.edu/15313 University of Wisconsin])
#Iowa (Obama 48% - McCain 38%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#New Hampshire (Obama 48% - McCain 43%, [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_mccain_vs_obama-195.html#polls Rasmussen])
#Ohio (Obama 48% - McCain 39%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b03c08ab-30b9-463d-8be2-5cb118e05b74 Survey USA])
#Pennsylvania (Obama 45% - McCain 43%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/election_2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election2 Rasmussen])
#Nevada (McCain 46% - Obama 40%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Michigan (Obama 47% - McCain 39%, [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Minnesota (Obama 52% - McCain 34%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/minnesota/election_2008_minnesota_presidential_election Rasmussen])
#Florida (McCain 45% - Obama 41%, [http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1180 Quinnipiac])
#Missouri (Obama 48% - McCain 43%, [http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/84EC6E3C5EAE4FF586257484000FDDED?OpenDocument Research 2000])
#Virginia (Obama 49% - McCain 42%, [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9901f8fc-034e-4a1d-ab36-f6e5c918614e Survey USA])
#Colorado (Obama 48% - McCain 42%, [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/colorado/election_2008_colorado_presidential_election Rasmussen])

In addition, there are four states leaning Democratic totaling 37 electoral votes, and eight states leaning Republican totaling 69 electoral votes. The addition of these states to the battleground puts 24 states and 260 electoral votes in play.

== Republican Strategy ==

The Republican Party nominee is Senator John McCain, who received a majority of the delegates on the March 4th primaries.

===Swing States (Great Lakes Region)===
Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008. This is confirmed by recent polling. However, due to the location of the Republican Convention in Minnesota, and if Governor Pawlenty is chosen as McCain's vice presidential pick, the state, with ten electoral votes, can come back into play. The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.{{fact}

===Other Important Swing States===
Moreover, it is very important for republicans to hold Ohio and Florida. Fortunately, both states have tended to lean republican in the last two presidential elections. Although Florida was disputed in election 2000, it went to Bush undeniably in 2004. Virginia will also be heavily contested this year.

===Declared Republican Party Candidates===
[[John H. Cox]]

UN Ambassador [[Alan Keyes]]

Senator [[John McCain]], [[Arizona]]

===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]].

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]] He withdrew after a defeat in [[Florida]], on which he had depended on heavily. He endorsed John McCain afterwards.

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]. He withdrew from the race once McCain recieved the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. He also promised to support McCain as the nominee, thus giving his endorsement to him.

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008 and endorsed Governor Mike Huckabee.

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th, withdrew June 12, 2008.

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]], suspended his campaign after poor showings on [[Super Tuesday]] and later endorsed John McCain.

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]].

Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]. He endorsed [[John McCain]] of Arizona.

Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].

===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.
*Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]] - endorsed John McCain.
*[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]
*Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee
*Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]
*Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]
*Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]
*Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]
*Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]

===Potential Republican Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*[[Haley Barbour]] - Governor of [[Mississippi]]
*[[Matt Blunt]] - Governor of [[Missouri]]
*[[Sam Brownback]] - U.S. Senator from [[Kansas]]
*[[Jeb Bush]] - former Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Tom Coburn]] - U.S. Senator from [[Oklahoma]]
*[[Charlie Crist]] - Governor of [[Florida]]]
*[[Jim DeMint]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Bill Frist]] - former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader from [[Tennessee]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]] - former Mayor of [[New York City]]
*[[Lindsey Graham]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Carolina]]
*[[Mike Huckabee]] - former Governor of [[Arkansas]]
*[[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] - U.S. Senator from [[Texas]]
*[[Bobby Jindal]] - Governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Joe Lieberman]] - U.S. Senator from [[Connecticut]]
*[[Bill Owens]] - former Governor of [[Colorado]]
*[[Sarah Palin]] - Governor of [[Alaska]]
*[[Tim Pawlenty]] - Governor of [[Minnesota]]
*[[David Petraeus]] - Commanding General, Multinational Force [[Iraq]]
*[[Colin Powell]] - former United States [[Secretary of State]]
*[[Condoleezza Rice]] - United States Secretary of State
*[[Tom Ridge]] - former Homeland Security Secretary and Former Governor of [[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of [[Massachusetts]]
*[[Mark Sanford]] - Governor of South Carolina
*[[Michael Steele]] - former Lt. Governor of [[Maryland]]
*[[Fred Thompson]] - former U.S. Senator from Tennessee
*[[John Thune]] - U.S. Senator from [[South Dakota]]

== Democratic Strategy ==
As usual, the best strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the cratering popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.

However, evaluating the race in [[Electoral College]] terms forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.

Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections.

Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year was [[Bill Richardson]], who was cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it has been difficult for Democrats to carry the state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate.

The ''move on masses'' of the blogosphere require that any Democratic candidate frame the election as an attack on George Bush. Since they can't run against the President, the attack will be on ''Bush Politics'', chiefly the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts. That stance will be echoed repeatedly regardless of whatever real situation taking place in Iraq (where American forces turned over strategic control of the last province, Al Anbar) or in the economy (where the Dow hit record highs, before accounting for inflation, as recently as October 2007 and unemployment is near all time lows). The blogosphere led democrats to be overconfident in 2004, over estimating their voting support among young people who actually vote. However, with Democrats in control of both houses this election remains critical.

===Declared Democratic Party Candidates===

Senator [[Barack Obama]], [[Illinois]]

=== Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===

Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]].

Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]] Suspended her campaign after Obama reached the number of needed delegates. She endorsed him shortly afterwards.

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]] and later endorsed Senator [[Barack Obama]].

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]. He withdrew after losing in all of the early primary states. He later endorsed Senator Obama after Obama won the North Carolina primary.

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]. He withdrew to seek the Libertarian party nomination (which he lost to Bob Barr.) He also endorsed Green Party Candidate, Jesse Johnson. <ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/democratic-candidate-gravel-endorses-green-party-presidential-hopeful/ </ref>

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref> He withdrew to keep his seat in the House of Representatives.

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]]<ref>
[http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power. He later endorsed Senator Obama.

Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa. He endorsed [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]]

===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton
*Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]
*Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]
*Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]
*Former Vice President [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]
*Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]
*Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]

===Potential Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidates===
*Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
*Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
*General Wesley Clark (Ret.)
*Senator Hillary Clinton of New York
*Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota
*Former Senator and 2004 Vice-Presidential nominee John Edwards of North Carolina
*Governor [[Ed Rendell]] of [[Pennsylvania]]
*Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico
*Governor [[Ted Strickland]] of [[Ohio]]
*Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa
*Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia
*Former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia
*Senator [[Jim Webb]] of Virginia

==Third parties and Independents==
===Libertarian party===
The [[Libertarian Party]] selected former Representative [[Bob Barr]] of [[Georgia]] as its 2008 presidential candidate on May 25, 2008.<ref>http://www.lpconvention.org/</ref> Former Democratic canididate [[Mike Gravel]] sought the Libertarian nomination but lost to Barr.<ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/25/libertarians-pick-barr-as-presidential-nominee/ </ref>

Barr has, on his campaign website, linked to a proposed Libertarian strategy laid out by a member of his campaign staff. Although Barr has not officially claimed this as his strategy, the link appears to be a tacit endorsement. The strategy is called the "gold states" strategy. Instead of waging a 50-state campaign with the aim of securing 270 electoral votes and an outright electoral college win, Barr would focus on about 18-20 states where neither Obama or McCain has strong support. Winning that number of states could net Barr from 180-200 electoral votes, and would exceed either Obama or McCain's number and prevent either of them from reaching 270. Under US Constitution Amendment 12, with no candidate having an electoral vote majority, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, which would have to choose the president from the top three electoral vote getters. At this stage, Barr could argue that as the top electoral vote recipient, he should become the President, and might draw support from conservative Democrats displeased with Obama's positions, and from Republicans who dislike McCain.

Although winning the largest number of electoral votes would assist Barr in making such an argument, it is not absolutely necessary. Given the close divide in the electoral vote in the 2000 and 2004 elections, Barr could throw the vote into the House by winning a handful of states to garner perhaps 15-20 electoral votes.

The House of Representatives currently has a Democratic majority, but it is important to note that under the US Constitution Amendment 12, the vote is not a straight vote of the members of the House. Instead, each ''State'' gets one single vote, and that vote is determined by the members from that State. Although many large states like California and New York have large Democratic majorities, these will be balanced by the many smaller Southern and Midwestern states with Republican majorities. A handful of states have an even number of House members, and are split down the middle for control.

===Constitution Party===
The [[Constitution Party]] held its convention in Kansas City, Kansas, on April 24 through April 27. The party nominated Pastor [[Chuck Baldwin]] over former U.N. Ambassador and Republican presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]].<ref> http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=751 </ref>

===Green Party===
[[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated in her bid for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives after voting against the [[Iraq War]] and being arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, won the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]]'s nomination for president at the party convention July 12, 2008. Running for Vice President on the Green ticket is "Hip-Hop activist and journalist" Rosa Clemente.<ref>http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=79</ref>

===Independents===
[[Ralph Nader]] announced his independent candidacy for president on February 24, 2008, to focus on "stem[ming] corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promot[ing] labor rights", issues he feels are ignored by the main parties.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb24/0,4670,APNader,00.html</ref> His [[running mate]] is former President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors [[Matt Gonzalez]].<ref>http://www.votenader.org/about/matt-gonzalez/</ref>

New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. However, he declared in a February 28, 2008, op-ed article in ''The New York Times'', "I am not—and will not be—a candidate for president," but added that "[i]f a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach—and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy—I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "I'm Not Running for President, but..."]</ref>

==Opinion polling==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Polling Outfit
! Date
! Sample*
! Obama (D)
! McCain (R)
|-
| [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll Rasmussen Tracking]
| 07/21 - 07/23
| 3000 LV
| 48
| 45
|-
| [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,390301,00.html Fox News Channel]
| 07/22 - 07/23
| 900 RV
| 41
| 40
|-
| [http://www.gallup.com/poll/109027/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Has-Modest-4Point-Lead.aspx Gallup Poll]
| 07/20 - 07/22
| 2640 RV
| 46
| 42
|-
| [http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/080723_Released.pdf NBC/WSJ]
| 07/18 - 07/21
| 1003 RV
| 47
| 41
|-
| [http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/JUL08a-Campaign08.pdf CBS News/NYT]
| 07/07 - 07/14
| 1462 RV
| 45
| 39
|-
| [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/abcpolls.pdf ABC News/Wash Post]
| 07/10 - 07/13
| LV
| 49
| 46
|-
| [http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1535315320080716 Reuters/Zogby]
| 07/09 - 07/13
| 1039 LV
| 47
| 40
|-
| [http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1192 Quinnipiac]
| 07/08 - 07/13
| 1725 LV
| 50
| 41
|-
| [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ibdtippjuly08.pdf IBD/TIPP]
| 07/07 - 07/11
| 854 RV
| 40
| 37
|}

*RV refers to registered voters, LV refers to likely voters.

Ramussen finds the favorable rating for each candidate at 55%.<ref>http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll</ref>

Most polling that has been done fails to include all the candidates who will actually be on the ballot in November. A Rasmussen poll on May 18, reported on a four-way race between Barack Obama, John McCain, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr. The poll, which was conducted before Barr became the Libertarian nominee and made a number of high-profile talk show appearances, found that Barr would finish in third place with 6% of the vote, and Nader with 4%.<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/will_third_party_candidates_tip_the_presidential_race</ref> Another poll conducted around that time showed Barr picking up 8% of the vote in [[Georgia]], seriously hurting McCain's chances of winning that state.<ref>http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_520_404.aspx</ref> It should be noted that in the actual elections, third party candidates such as Barr and Nader generally have much lower percentage of votes cast for them than they poll beforehand.

==Primaries and Caucuses==
===Iowa Caucus: January 3, 2008===
The first caucus in the 2008 presidential election cycle was the [[Iowa Caucus]]. The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus was [[Barack Obama]], who managed to beat national frontrunner [[Hillary Clinton]] and former [[North Carolina]] Senator, [[John Edwards]]. The official results were:
{| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Iowa caucus results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Barack Obama
| 38%
|-
| John Edwards
| 30%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 29%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 2%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 1%
|-
|}
Other candidates such as, [[Chris Dodd]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] and [[Mike Gravel]] did not gain a significant percentage. Because of the Iowa results, [[Barack Obama]] was expected now to beat [[Hillary Clinton]] in the upcoming [[New Hampshire]] primary. Also, [[Joe Biden]] and [[Chris Dodd]] both withdrew from the race because of their low showings in the Iowa caucus.

On the Republican side, [[Mike Huckabee]] defeated [[Mitt Romney]] by an even closer margin. The results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Iowa caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 34%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 25%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 13%
|-
| John McCain
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 10%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 3%
|}

Candidates such as [[Duncan Hunter]], [[Alan Keyes]] and [[John H. Cox]] didn't come out with a significant percentage. Romney's loss in [[Iowa]] set him back in the upcoming primary in [[New Hampshire]]. Huckabee's win however gave him surge in [[New Hampshire]] where he had before been very low in the polls. McCain's unexpected high showing in Iowa also gave him a little boost in New Hampshire.

===New Hampshire Primary: January 8, 2008===
The next milestone after the Iowa caucus was the New Hampshire primary. (Only the Republican Wyoming primary occurred on January 5, which was won by Romney.) On the Republican side, Mitt Romney's defeat in Iowa helped his most significant opponent, John McCain. Huckabee's victory in Iowa helped boost his campaign and gave him a higher showing than even he had expected. On the Democratic side, Obama's defeat of Clinton and Edwards led to the polls usually predicting a Obama victory in New Hampshire.
The winner for the Repbulicans was John McCain and for the Democrats Hillary Clinton. The Democratic results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 36%
|-
| John Edwards
| 17%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 5%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}

Hillary Clinton's win was a setback for Obama and much-needed victory for Clinton. The polls reliability was most hurt with these results. (Mike Gravel didn't reach a significant percentage.)
The Republican results were:

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP NH primary results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 37%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 11%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 9%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 8%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|-
| Duncan Hunter
| 1%
|}

These results put the very survival of Mitt Romney on the line and intensified the upcoming Michigan primary. John McCain's victory helped boost his campaign and he predicted to go on to victory in Michigan and South Carolina. Huckabee also did well and placed an unusual third place.

===Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina===
Romney's second-place defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire, caused his campaign to focus all it's attention on the Michigan Primary on January 15th. He managed to defeat his rivals, John McCain and Mike Huckabee.
Since the Democrats had taken Michigan's delegates away, most of the candidates didn't even bother to get on the ballot. Clinton won easily, because she was one of the only major candidates to be even on the ballot.
Romney and the Democrats turned their attention to the Nevada caucus, while Republicans John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson looked to the South Carolina primary. (The Republicans had the South Carolina primary on the same day as the Nevada caucus, January 19th.)
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Nevada caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! Percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 51%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 45%
|-
| John Edwards
| 4%
|}

Hillary Clinton probably won because of her strong position on the Yucca Mountain issue, which was critical to Democratic caucus goers.
Romney easily won the Republican Nevada caucus, probably because it is close to Utah, a traditionally Mormon state. Duncan Hunter had been hoping for a strong finish in Nevada and decided to leave the race, because of his poor showings.

{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP SC caucus results
|-
! Candidate
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 33%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 30%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 16%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 15%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 4%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 2%
|}

McCain’s victory in South Carolina propelled him as the national front-runner. Mike Huckabee’s 2nd place defeat forced him to cut back in expenses due to lack of funds. Fred Thompson’s defeat was irreparable and he withdrew from the race shortly afterwards

The Democrats prepared for the primary in South Carolina on January 26th. Obama won the primary by a huge margin over Clinton and Edwards. This was a severe loss for Edwards since he had been born in South Carolina and was Senator for North Carolina. Obama probably won because of the state’s huge black population.

===Florida Primary: January 29, 2008===
Because Florida moved it's date to January 29th the Democratic party stripped Florida of it's delegates and the candidates agreed not to campaign there.
The Democratic results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Dem. Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 50%
|-
| Barack Obama
| 33%
|-
| John Edwards
| 14%
|-
| Joe Biden
| 1%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 1%
|-
| Dennis Kucinich
| 1%
|}
Florida was the last early primary state and after his loss, John Edwards suspended his campaign. (Although they had withdrawn, candidates Biden, Richardson and Kucinich still received votes. Mike Gravel didn't receive a percentage.)
The Republicans concentrated on Florida more than the Democrats, because the Republican party chose to remove only half of their delegates. Candidate [[Rudy Giuliani]] chose to ignore earlier primaries, hoping that a large win in Florida, with its strong transplanted New Yorkers contingent, would propel him to the nomination. Unfortunately, with earlier wins, John McCain and Mitt Romney both gained momentum and began to lead Giuliani in the polls.
The Republican results were:
{| {| style="backround:white; color:red" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ GOP Florida primary results
|-
! candidates
! percentage
|-
| John McCain
| 36%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 31%
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 13%
|-
| Ron Paul
| 3%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 1%
|}

The results caused Giuliani to exit the race the next day and endorse the primary winner, John McCain. (Although Fred Thompson had withdrawn he got some support anyway.)

===Super Tuesday: February 5, 2008===
Super Tuesday held the largest number of presidential primary's and caucuses. Twenty-four states were held for one or both parties were held on this date.

*The Democratic results were:
*Candidates
*Hillary Clinton, 9 states won, ([[American Samoa]], [[Arizona]], [[Arkansas]], [[California]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]], [[New Mexico]], [[New York]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Tennessee]].) Number of delegates won, 826.
*Barack Obama, 13 states won, ([[Alabama]], [[Alaska]], [[Colorado]], [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Idaho]], [[Illinois]], [[Kansas]], [[Minnesota]], [[Missouri]], [[North Dakota]], [[Utah]].) Number of delegates won, 838.

*GOP Super Tuesday primary results
*John McCain, 9 states won, (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma). Number of delegates won: 602.
*Mitt Romney, 7 states won, (Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah). Number of delegates won: 201.
*Mike Huckabee, 5 states won, (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia). Number of delegates won: 152.
*Ron Paul, 0 states won. Number of delegates won: 10

===February 9th Primaries===
The next major primary after Super Tuesday was on February 9, 2008. The Democrats held contests in [[Louisiana]], [[Nebraska]] & [[Washington]]. The Republicans held three other contests in [[Kansas]], [[Louisiana]] & [[Washington]].
Governor Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, but lost to McCain in Washington by a close margin. Barrack Obama won all three Democratic contests, and also won the Maine caucus, the next day on February 10th.

===Potomac Primary: February 12, 2008===
The next primary-date was the Potomac primary on February 12. It is called that because the three states; [[District of Columbia]], [[Maryland]] and [[Virginia]], which all were near the Potomac River, had their primary date on the same date. John McCain won all three Republican contests, while Barrack Obama won all of the Democratic contests.

===Super Tuesday 2: March 4, 2008===
After Obama won his 11th consecutive victory on the February 19th primaries in [[Wisconsin]] and [[Hawaii]], Clinton was desperate to win the March 4th primaries in [[Ohio]], [[Texas]], [[Rhode Island]] & [[Vermont]]. Huckabee also needed more victories to prevent McCain from reaching the needed 1,191 delegates for the Republican nomination.

Clinton won all of the states except for Vermont, which Obama won. McCain won all of the primaries, causing Governor Huckabee to leave the race that evening.

===Pennsylvania Primary===
After Clinton's victories on Super Tuesday 2, both Democrats looked ahead to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. Obama lost some popularity after video clips were shown of his Pastor, Rev. [[Jeremiah Wright]], saying "God damn America!" during a sermon. Obama also commented about people bitterly clinging to guns and religion because they were upset with Washington policies. Clinton beat Obama by 9 percentage points, continuing the long drawn-out contest between the two. John McCain was able to easily win the primary as the Republican party's presumptive nominee.

===Guam Caucus===
On May 3rd, Guam held its Democratic caucuses. Out of more than 4,500 votes, Senator Obama won by 7 votes. The results gave Obama 2 pledged delegates and Senator Clinton 2 pledged delegates.

===Indiana and North Carolina Primary===
Both Indiana and North Carolina held their primaries on May 6th. Heading into the primary, registered African American voters reported receiving "robocalls" telling them they were not registered to vote. The calls were traced back to an organization called "Women's Voices Women Vote". The organization included members close to the Clintons. The calls ended with an order from the state Attorney General. Senator Obama proceeded to win the primary with 56.1%.

Leading into the Indiana primary, the polls were very close, with neither candidate leading by more than the polls' margin-of-error. Senator Clinton was looking for a large win to follow up on the Pennsylvania primary, with much the same demographic as PA and Ohio. Senator Obama, though, surprised many in the news media and the Clinton campaign by losing by only a small margin, 50.56% - 49.44%. With the near-split of the delegates in Indiana, combined with his win in North Carolina, the media began to declare Senator Obama as the nominee, although he had not yet reached the necessary delegate count.

===West Virginia Primary===
With a strong working-class demographic, Senator Clinton was expected to win the West Virginia primary on May 13th. Polls leading into the primary had her up 29 points on Senator Obama. The final vote tally exceeded the polls, with Senator Clinton winning 66.99% - 25.67%.

===Oregon and Kentucky Primaries===
The Oregon primary was a mail-only primary--the only such primary in the nation. Democratic voters received ballots in the mail between May 2nd and May 6th, and had to be received by county election officials by May 20th. Polling leading up to the primary showed Senator Obama with a 10-15% lead over Senator Clinton. Obama held a rally on May 18th at the Tom McCall Waterfront Park in Portland which drew an estimated 72,000 people. It was the largest rally Obama had held, more than doubling the 35,000 that came out to see him in Pennsylvania. By the end of the vote tally, Obama had won the state primary 58.5% - 40.5%.

The Kentucky primary, held the same day, was long believed a lock for Senator Clinton. The voter demographic mirrored the West Virginia primary, with a heavy working-class population. Senator Clinton easily won the primary, 65.5% - 29.9%. The large win, though, was drowned out in the media by Senator Obama's win in Oregon, and more importantly, by the endorsement of Senator Obama by former opponent and former vice presidential candidate, John Edwards.

===Puerto Rico Primary===
With Clinton behind in both pledged and superdelegates at this point in the race, every primary and delegate became even more important to forestall Obama reaching the necessary number of delegate to clinch the nomination. Clinton's strategy was to win out the primaries and work to convince superdelegates to support her nomination at the party convention as the best chance to beat McCain. Thus Puerto Rico, usually an afterthought in previous elections, rated visits by both candidates before the June 1st primary. Heading into the primary, Clinton led in two polls by 13% each time. The results beat poll expectations, with Clinton winning the primary 67.7% - 31.27%.

===Montana and South Dakota Democratic Primaries===
The last Democratic primaries were held on June 3rd. Senator Obama needed to win one of the primaries, and merely come close in the other to clinch the nomination. In Montana, Obama got the win he needed, defeating Senator Clinton 56.3%-41.25%. In South Dakota, Senator Clinton won, but with a close enough margin to give Obama the final delegates necessary. The result of the primary was 55.35% - 44.65%. Senator Obama was in Saint Paul, Minnesota, the site of the Republican Nominating Convention, to accept the party's unofficial nomination. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtL-1V3OZ0c Barack Obama Democatic Nomination Victory Speech]</ref>

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: United States]]

Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study

2008-07-24T19:26:23Z

RoyS: /* Draft of PNAS Letters Response from Conservapedia */

Now, is this page a report over other people thinking Lenski's paper is flawed or is this Aschafly reporting about himself and putting it in the headline of the Front Page? And please specify by references which "two other" experiments are referenced, and explaing how you can see that the "historical contingency" is not true. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:22, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
And if you think you argue that well, why dont you submit it as a comment òn the paper to PNAS. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:24, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

:This article is seriously partisan. I see no outside or third party analysis of the paper in the references, just a bunch of cites to the article or conservapedia itself. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:34, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Folks, you're in the wrong place if you're more interested in who says what rather than determining the truth itself. A true wiki gets at the substantive truth rather than trying to rely on biased gatekeepers and filters of the truth.

The flaws in the statistical analysis in Lenski's paper are clearly set forth and well-referenced. If you're interested in the truth, then look at the paper and see the flaws yourself. If you're not interested in the truth and think you can distract people's attention from it by using other tactics, then you're wasting your time here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Aschlafly on this, there needs to be some kind of admission or response from Lenski but little has been forthcoming and conservapedia itself has taken it on. Notice how no-one, aside from conservapedia (and I think Creationwiki?) has asked such questions of Lenski? All the magazines etc have taken his study at face value without actually taking the time to critique his claims. Aside from the "peer reviewers" of course.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 00:47, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: The "peer reviewers" who spent somewhere between 0 and only 14 days looking at the paper, and missed an obvious contradiction between Figure 3 (specifying the "Historical contingency" hypothesis) and Table 1, Third Experiment. The statistical analysis in the paper appears so shoddy to me that I doubt anyone with real statistical knowledge or expertise even reviewed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:59, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::I have expertise in research and statistics and I'm just not seeing this shoddiness that you make reference to. You are allowed to have your doubts, but we should get a bunch of people familiar with such fields to examine the paper's statistical analysis. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 01:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::I have the same problem. i hold a Dr.Rer.Nat title and did some statistics (although i am no expert on it) and fail to see the "shoddiness" please help my underdeveloped mind, Mr. Schafly and enlighten me. I it is so obvious it should be a one-liner to formulate it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Please try harder then. I've expanded the explanations a bit also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: At least now i can recongnize your statements more or less clearly. Yet i think (cite from the paper) ''We also used the Z-transformation method (49) to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and the result is extremely significant (P < 0.0001) whether or not the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one.'' has to be addressed more specifically than you do in order to discredit the statistics used --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 11:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::Just for comparative purposes and a frame of reference, a P value that is less than the significance level of 0.05 is considered significant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 13:10, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I wonder, do the PNAS allow questions to raised and asked of the "peer reviewers" themselves? Are we able to find out who/what experience they themselves have? Perhaps that is an avenue that we could look at? I apologise in advance if this has already been asked or answered.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 01:07, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:Definitly not. Peer reviewers are anonymous and only known to the editor, for good reason. Having peer reviewers non-anonymous would cause reviewers to be very careful to step on nobodys foot to evade revenge. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, PNAS probably won't disclose who supposedly did the 14-days-or-less peer review on the [[Lenski]] paper. You're right that such disclosure could shed some light on the final product.

: "Wisdom89", your claim that you "have expertise" and don't see the flaws only makes me conclude that you don't really have the expertise that you claim. Judging by your silly user name, perhaps you've tried that approach before. We're not fooled by it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

(removed silly comment by person who has since been blocked for [[90/10 talk]] violation)

==Marginally significant==
In #1, that's not inconsistent. The figure makes it clear that, according to the hypothesis, the mutations should also occur earlier than 31,000, but should become more common at that point. 12/17 mutants occurred after 31,000. The point in #3 is not clear. What do you mean by ''weighting''? In #5, ''Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment...his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance.'' Actually, '''marginally significant''' is clear. It means that the p-value is between .05 and .10 (in this case it's .08, table 2). It's a pretty standard phrase to describe an effect that falls into that range. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Your defense of Lenski per point #1 is contradicted by the paper's own abstract, and by the comments by the other Lenski defender below. In point #3, proper weighting is needed to combine multiple studies. In point #5, you don't cite any authority for the unscientific claim of being "marginally significant."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
: Your defense of Lenski per point #1 is contradicted by the paper's own abstract, and by the comments by the other Lenski defender below. In point #3, proper weighting is needed to combine multiple studies. In point #5, you don't cite any authority for the unscientific claim of being "marginally significant."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::Define "proper weighting". Are you referring to how they interpreted the sum of the work or to a specific analysis? You're right, I didn't cite any scientific authority. Here's one: Motulsky, H. (1995). ''Intuitive Biostatistics'', Oxford Univ. Press. Chapter 12. Also, try searching for the phrase in Google Scholar or PubMed, you'll find plenty of uses of it. It's a shorthand way of describing an effect that came close to the arbitrary threshold for statistical significance but did not reach it. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:55, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::: You seem unwilling to accept that Point #1 identifies a clear mistake between the figure and the abstract in the paper, which requires correction by Lenski or PNAS. Given that unwillingness, I doubt it will productive discussing the other mistakes further with you. You're right that other usage of the dubious concept of "marginally significant" can be found on the internet, but the first link to such usage on my internet search for it returned the non-rigorous "Intuitive Biostatistics" and the second link returned a criticism of the concept similar to the criticism express here. [http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/49/1/93-a.pdf] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not a clear mistake in my mind. There does seem to be some confusion or contradiction in terms of the number of generations, but I haven't seen a clear explanation of why this is or is not a mistake. What seems like a contradiction is the abstract statement that no mutations occurred before 31,500, but it's not clear to me whether I'm misunderstanding that. ''I doubt it will productive discussing the other mistakes further with you. '' Of course you doubt it, because you are unlikely to be willing to concede anything no matter what anyone says. Why do you call the concept dubious? The procedure of determining whether an effect is significant requires the setting of an arbitrary threshold, which is usually .05. That means, in analyses of the sort in the Blount et al. paper, that there's less than a 5% chance that the findings are due to sampling error. When an effect comes close to the threshold it is worth noting, because of the problems inherent in significance testing, which itself is widely criticized in the statistical literature. I am not clear what you mean by weighting, as I mentioned before - in the interpretation or statistically? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:30, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations of the E. coli already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments.[3] Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Len ==

The author of the above statement must not have read the paper or the supplement carefully. Lenski took clones from those cultures that '''weren't Cit+'''. Careful reading of the paper or the supplement reveals that Cit+ mutants appeared at 750 generations or later into the replay experiment. The authors write: "New Cit+ variants emerged between 750 and 3,700 generations..."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:03, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Your explanation is not convincing. Show us how Lenski proved that the samples did not have '''any''' Cit+ variants, if you really think he's claiming that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::I count at least four distinct diagnostic methods used in the paper for distinguishing whether clones are Cit+. One in particular they describe as being very sensitive to weakly citrate-using cells. It's not that I 'think' Blount et al. claim they started with Cit- cells. They say that in the 'Supporting information' document.

::Andy, for tonight, I'll leave it as an exercise for you to answer your own question of how one might test a clone to be sure that is was Cit-. Use the paper if you'd like or present another means. Tomorrow evening I'll cite the methods Blount used in the paper.

::Meanwhile, here's another question to ponder: If the colonies used to start the 'replay' cultures were Cit+ at the start, why is it that no Cit+ cells were found in such cultures before 750 generations? These cultures were all started from single clones which must have either had the Cit+ phenotype or not.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:38, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

-
How did Lenski obtain Cit- clones from later populations after Cit+ had become the dominant phenotype? It's pretty standard procedure. First, keep in mind that these populations contained a minority of Cit- cells. Now, a small liquid growth is made from the frozen glycerol stock of cells from a given generation, say 32,000. This is grown to an appropriate OD and then plated on a standard rich media agar plate. Provided that the plated sample isn't too dense, this plating will deposit somewhere between 15-100 individual cells on the agar, with plenty of spacing between them. The plate is then incubated at 37 C for a given time, during which the individual cells replicate to form small, visible colonies. These colonies will consist solely of cells that are genetically identical to the original cell deposited on the agar. This is all well and good, but how do you find which of the colonies are Cit-? Here you use a technique called replica plating. The agar plate is gently inverted onto a sterile swatch of velvet so that some of the cells from each colony are deposited onto the fabric. Next, a citrate-only agar plate is pressed against the velvet, transferring cells from the fabric to the new plate in exactly the same spacial orientation as the first plate. The cells are then allowed to grow on the citrate-only plate. When we then compare the two plates, we look for colonies on the rich plate that did not grown on the citrate-only plate. These colonies will be Cit-, and can be used for the replay experiments. [[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 13:45, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:Just a correction: The Cit+ cells didn't dominate the cultures at generations 32,000 & 32,500. Cit+ mutants represented 12% and 19% of the population at these times points, respectively. Replica plating is definitely one means of identifying Cit- and Cit+ clones but because the Cit+ cells represented a fraction of the total, it is simple enough to streak the samples to individual colonies (founded by single cells) and test each colony individually. Otherwise, a nice description of replica plating (a technique developed by Joshua Lederberg that allowed him do the research for which he was awarded one of the 1958 Nobel Prizes in Medicine)--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:38, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Oops, you're right, Argon. Cit+ wasn't dominant at generation 32,000, so replica plating might not be the best option. Still, in the case of almost 20% Cit+, I think replica plating might be labor reducing. I'm a biochemist by training, not a microbiologist, but I'm sure there are other methods that could be used. For example, Christensen's agar appears to provide a sensitive, colorimetric method of identifying even weakly citrate-utilizing colonies, so one might be able to plate cells on a Christensen's agar plate and pick uncolored colonies. Again though, I'm no microbiologist so I don't know the best method. However, there are ways to easily pick Cit- clones from later generations in this case. That said, I think that this specific "flaw" cited in Lenski's paper should be removed from the main article. Clearly, Cit+ were not used in the replays from later generations, so Conservapedia's objection is totally baseless.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 19:19, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:::All appropriate descriptions. For generating estimates of the population distribution (Cit-/Cit+) in a culture, replica plating would certainly be applicable. The main point is that identifying and isolating Cit- clones from the generations used in the experiment is straightforward. I agree that it would be a mistake to keep that objection in the article (actually that thread runs across several points in the article).--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:12, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: Nothing in the paper rules out contamination of those samples by Cit+ variants, and you quote nothing in the paper to rule it out. There was no reason to use and rely on these samples that already have Cit+ variants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::The whole point of the discussion above was to illustrate that there are methods to isolate cells with a particular genotype from a mixed population. Suppose we used the replica plating method (maybe not the best choice, but it's standard procedure). Care to explain where the Cit+ contaminants could possibly come from? And the naivete inherent in objecting that "nothing in the paper" rules it out is simply astounding. Standard laboratory procedures, like isolating specific clones, typically don't show up in papers. For example, if I to write a paper on my research, it would not include a detailed discussion of the construction of my expression plasmid. I might mention that I cloned my gene into a particular vector, but there wouldn't a discussion of how I did my PCR, restriction digests, or transformations. Things like that are simply extraneous details that are taken for granted by experienced researchers. There is simply no reason for Lenski et al. to include a discussion of their method for isolating specific clones. This is why this whole exercise of Conservapedia criticizing Lenski's paper is folly, because most Conservapedia users simply don't know standard laboratory techniques. It's kind of important to know what scientists today are able to do on a routine basis before wading in to claim that they couldn't have done what they claim.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 09:05, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::***** *****
:::::Actually the methods cited in the paper would separate the Cit+ lines from the Cit-. They took single colonies (founded by single cells), and tested them on selective agar (minimal citrate media - MC agar) and an indicator medium, Christensen's citrate agar (Product information from Sigma here: http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/sigma/datasheet/c7595dat.pdf). As Gerlach notes from the Blount paper, Christensen's citrate agar is very sensitive to citrate utilization. Typical ''E. coli'' strains do not produce a color change but other citrate-using enterics like ''S. typhimurium'' and Cit+ ''E. coli'' mutants appear pink/red on the plates.

:::::This conclusion is further validated (as I mention above), by the fact that Cit+ mutants did not appear immediately in the replay experiments (Others have also noted this). For example, in replay set-1, it took 750 generations before the first Cit+ mutants were isolated. Many didn't produce Cit+ cells after 3700 generations. If the starting line was Cit+, *all* the cells in the culture would have show up as Cit+ in the first pass.

:::::Overall, it is abundantly clear that the cell lines used in the replay experiments were not Cit+ at the beginning.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:44, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

== 1. Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented... ==

Again, more issues with comprehension: The authors did not know when the potentiating mutation first arose but they knew it was before generation 31,500. Figure 2 is merely figurative, being an illustration, and not quantitative. Their analyses suggested that the potentiating mutation did arise at about the 20,000 generation point or later. Their conclusion is that Cit+ mutation rate is low even in a potentiated background but apparently distinguishable from a low-incidence single, unpotentiated event.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:04, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

== Statistics101 package: ==

What does the author imply by writing: "...Lenski himself does not have any obvious expertise in statistics. In fact, Richard Lenski admits in his paper that he based his statistical conclusions on use of a website called "statistics101"?

From the web site:
''Professionals: Although it was originally developed to aid students, the Statistics101 program is suitable for all levels of statistical sophistication. It is especially useful for Monte Carlo, resampling, and bootstrap applications. It has been used by professionals in many fields. These include anthropology, biology, ecology, evolutionary biology, epidemiology, marine biology, psychology, toxicology, veterinary pathology.''
It would appear that the package from the web site (not the web site itself) was used to perform the Monte Carlo resampling tests. Is there any evidence that the package produces incorrect results?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

==Formal Response to PNAS==

''I've moved this thread from the open section above since this page is being categorized.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I think this article presents very sound arguments. Conservapedia should now take action, offering to publish a rebuttal of Lenski in the PNAS journal.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 11:31, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with JBoley in that if Conservapedia wants to present a formal, professional response to Professor Lenski's paper that questions specifics within his paper, then it should happen. That is the proper execution of the scientific method, and I'm certain that a professional response to PNAS would yield better results than vague "give us all the data " demands. Is a formal response to PNAS from Conservapedia in the works, or is this article the only place these questions/objections were intended to be raised? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: I don't know if PNAS would embarrass itself by printing a rebuttal, or whether it has the integrity to retract Lenski's paper. Conservapedia's audience is probably bigger than PNAS's, and we're certainly not going to suspend our exposure of the truth here in order to await correction by PNAS.

: PNAS publishes, quite easy to find Rules for "Rebuttals" (they call it "Letter"). It is specifically what you want. [http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml PNAS:Information for Authors] . I cite: ''Letters are brief online-only comments that contribute to the discussion of a PNAS research article published within the last 3 months. Letters may not include requests to cite the letter writer's work, accusations of misconduct, or personal comments to an author. Letters are limited to 250 words and no more than five references.'' --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:25, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

: In addition, Lenski has already demonstrated how he reads this site and he can certainly correct his own paper, and he should do so. Indeed, professionalism might support giving Lenski the time to correct it himself first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::I understand what you're saying, but there's nothing improper or unprofessional in submitting a formal request to PNAS to have the points in this article addressed by Professor Lenski and his team. To be frank, you've been adamant in your insistence that PNAS has been less than rigorous in the review of Lenski's paper, so if one of your intentions is to demonstrate this then having PNAS respond to a formally submitted response to the paper in public would serve that purpose. This can be done in addition to publishing these objections on Conservapedia--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:21, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::If not PNAS, then perhaps some other public forum? I know Andy Schlafly has appeared on television, effectively arguing against gardisal and other dangerous vaccines. Perhaps if a TV program were interested you could argue against Lenski? You could be the spokesperson against these false claims of evolution.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 12:24, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm not opposed to the above suggestions, but the future is here, folks. Lenski, PNAS editors and television producers have free will to reject or ignore the truth, and I'm more interested in getting the truth out here than trying to persuade someone in dying media like print or television. Lenski and his defenders can see the truth here, and they can decide for themselves whether to reject or admit it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::I agree with you about the dying nature of print (I don't think television is dying, merely changing). The problem is that information about the flaws in Lenski's study are not registering outside of sites like Conservapedia. In effect, Conservapedia is an echo chamber. People that come to this site already agree with its point of view. I encourage you to attempt to attract the attention of other forms of media, or Lenski's false claims will simply be accepted as fact by the public and even worse, by educators.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 12:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::While there's nothing wrong with taking one's message to various forums or outlets, I believe there's a specific value in submitting these objections as a formal response to PNAS. Conservapedia was established as a trustworthy resource for students, and in my mind all of it's actions should be done with the goal of informing and educating. The Lenski debate is over the findings published in a scientific journal after undergoing a peer-review process. The objections to this paper by the CP leadership are not just about its content, but to the process by which it was reviewed and published in the timeframe it was. Talking about these objections is fine, but it's more instructional to the students using Conservapedia, and a better example of the scientific method in action, to respond to a scientific paper published in a journal through the formal process by which such papers are either defended or corrected. In the end, Lenksi's work will either stand up as good science, or any errors will be addressed and the paper's conclusions modified accordingly, which is also good science. Seeing this process in action regarding a such a significant paper is a great learning opportunity, and the Conservapedia leadership would be remiss in not standing by their conviction in these objections and submitting them formally to PNAS. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

PNAS has a letters section available with the online edition. Many journals have a letters section for rebuttals or clarification. Legitimate corrections are welcome. Andy, have you run your list of 'flaws' past any biologists?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Funny, Argon, how you don't apply your demand of expertise to Lenski himself. What are Lenski's credentials with respect to statistical analysis? Has he even taken and passed an upper-class statistics course of any substance?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:45, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::I don't follow. Are you suggesting that Lenski doesn't understand the proper application of the statistical methods used in his paper? If so, I haven't seen a description of which alternate methods you'd employ, let alone any output from such an analysis. Here's a thought: Why don't you substantiate your claims by writing up the work and submitting it as a correction letter to PNAS?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:46, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Argon, if you really "don't follow," then try harder. You insist on credentials by others who criticize Lenski, and yet you do not insist on expertise by Lenski in statistics with respect to his "analysis". Perhaps Lenski should first take and try to pass "Statistics 101" before trying to use a website by its name to draw flawed conclusions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Do you really think that Lenski went to statistics101.net to learn about statistics and how to apply them? That simply is not the case. The Lenski group knew that they needed to do a Monte Carlo resampling analysis on the results of their replay experiments. In this situation, they are faced with two choices: either code an appropriate program themselves, or utilize one that has already been developed and is readily available to researchers. Since statistics101 had such a program available, they chose the latter option. Statistics101.net was simply the source of the program that the Lenski group used to perform the statistical analysis. If you want to argue against that choice, then you need to examine the source code for the statistics101 package and enumerate why it should not have been used.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 11:40, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::***** *****
::::I don't insist on credentials per se. I *recommend* developing a working understanding of the experiments or a willingness to do the necessary background research to get the details straight before heading off on possibly the wrong direction. It saves a lot of thrashing about. It's perfectly OK to raise questions but before leveling accusations it might be nice to do that privately and discuss that with others who can provide useful feedback. Just my 2 cents.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:48, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Schlafly, does your response above, "I'm more interested in getting the truth out here than trying to persuade someone in dying media like print or television", mean that you will not be submitting a response with these identified flaws directly to PNAS? As I mentioned above, it takes nothing away from the value of posting these statements here on CP to also submit them to PNAS, but the proper way to prompt a journal to review and correct an article is through a direct response, not publication on an unrelated website like CP. It's not proper for anyone but the author(s) of the objections in this article to make that submission, so I'm hoping they step up with the conviction of their beliefs and respond to PNAS directly. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:32, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::: By now Lenski has probably seen the flaws identified on the content page here. What's "proper" is for him to correct his own paper in PNAS. The criticism will likely continue as long as he declines to do so. If anyone here would like to educate the PNAS editors about the flaws, then please feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll be glad to submit these items to PNAS on behalf of Conservapedia using the "Letters" forum described by Stitch75 above. Should I cite you the author of this analysis, and is there an email you'd prefer me to include instead of my personal one for any PNAS response? I'll put up a draft of the Letters submission here for your approval before sending anything out. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:39, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::It would have a very strange scientific taste should somebody else that Mr. Schlafly be the first author of the letter (however, if you insist on that, i suggest "personal communications" as the right kind of citing the work here.). It is his turn to stand up to his claims in this way (by publishing it into a Forum which he is not the owner of). I personally share the doubts of many here about his argumentation (and his understanding os the experiments), but i am sure only more of his dismissive comments will follow. However i see that he comes up with a clear alternate Hypothesis (contamination), so he is free to show that this is more likely (calculations please) and peform Monte-Carlo simulations on it (for a person complaining that statistics101 is to simple that should be no difficult task). As far as i understood and see the data Lenski and coworkers did the best to exclude this Hypothesis, however i did not run own simulations (And I won't do it, because i think nothing will come out - furthermore Mr. Schlaflys personal style in the communication "you have to try harder" is not the style i am used to be adressed by people whose qualification in a subject is appearlingly nor more than mine). So running the simulation, evaluating his own hypothesis using a valid statistical method is now Mr. Schlaflys job - if he come up with a decent calculation showing this Hypothesis is more likely, the letter would for sure be accepted and Lenksi would have to react. If Mr. Schlafly is not the first author of the letter he could evade the critics after that by saying that he was misunderstood, which means somebody else take the risk of submitting the letter, but in case of success Mr. Schlafly would take the glory. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:10, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::I would prefer that Mr. Schlafly submit his objections to PNAS directly as well, but since he has declined to do so the next best response is to submit it "on behalf of Conservapedia", which he has authorized above. I'll post the draft letter tomorrow, and it will credit him as the author unless I'm asked to include other individuals who contributed to the analysis. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:05, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I hope ASchlafly does offer a rebuttal of Lenski's flawed "study." However, if he does not, I am all for DinsdaleP's suggestion. I look forward to reading your draft. If you take all the objections that Conservapedians have raised to Lenski's paper, I do not see how PNAS can possibly object.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 11:28, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::They could object because Conservapedia's criticisms are obviously false. If this page hasn't made that clear, I don't know what could.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 13:44, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::They would have to prove that Conservapedia's criticisms are false, and they cannot do that. You sound like a Lenski supporter. You need to open your mind to the truth.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 13:59, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::Gerlach, the most obvious lesson from this page is how a few, yourself included, seem determined to defend a flawed paper no matter what the truth brings. You have free will to reject whatever you want, but you're only hurting yourself by that approach. People who do open their minds are amazed by the insights and happiness it brings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::This is such a strange response, Andy. The attitude that you and several of your defenders seem to have is that the criticisms you have made of Lenski's paper cannot be rebutted. However, the fact that you ''can'' level criticism at something doesn't make that criticism true. That is, you may be wrong. And that is the case here. Myself and others have pointed out that your alleged flaws in Lenski's paper are incorrect, and based on misunderstanding it, or, even worse, simply not reading it carefully. There has been little to no substantive response to our detailed rebuttals. Replies from you or other defenders of the Conservapedia article amount to little more than brazen declarations that we are wrong or "nonresponsive", and that criticisms in the original article remain unscathed. But for people who claim to have "the truth" on their side, this is simply baffling. If the veracity of your claims against Lenski's paper is so obvious, then it should be an easy task to provide in depth responses to the points that we have been raising against your article. I'm not above criticizing scientific papers. Bad papers get published frequently, after all. However, Lenski's paper does not appear to be one of those. Notice, though, that I am not claiming it to be perfect, no paper is. That said, whatever flaws the paper may have, those presented in the Conservapedia article are not among them. [[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 11:43, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Gerlach, now you seem to admit that the Lenski paper may be flawed, but that Conservapedia has not identified any of those flaws! With all due respect, you seem to have taken closemindedness to new heights.

:::::::::: Lenski claims there is a mutation rate, yet his presented data show that the number of mutations do not scale with sample size. His presented data disprove both of his hypotheses.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: First, we need to clarify what we mean by "flaw". Are we talking about serious methodological flaws or errors in interpretation that fatally undermine the paper's conclusion? If so, I fail to see any such flaws. Of course, any honest scientist recognizes that any work at the frontier of science has the potential to be wrong. It ''may'' be that future work shows Lenski to be wrong. But let's not confuse this possibility with actuality: saying that something might be wrong is not the same as saying that it is. On the other hand, by "flaw" we may mean minor experimental details that could have been better. In this case, the paper is flawed, and Lenski himself admits this in the supporting information. But ''every'' paper is flawed in this manner, and I doubt you'll find any investigator who wouldn't say that they wish they had done some things differently during the course of their research. As an example of what I'm talking about, the Lenski group's statistical analysis would have been improved if they could have accounted for the evolution of increased cell size (and, therefore, decreased cell density) in later generations. As it stands, their analysis ''underestimates'' the potentiation effect in these generations because replays of later generations involved fewer cells. But this flaw, and other flaws of this type, do not undermine the conclusion of the paper.

:::::::::: Regarding the mutation rate argument, see the earlier discussion on this page. The third experiment was significantly different than the first two. The experimental scheme was different, it was performed at at different time and with different conditions, and utilized, for the most part, different clones than the first two. And Lenski doesn't just claim there is a mutation rate in potentiated cells, he ''actually measures it''. But frankly, I don't understand your argumentation here. It seems that you are trying to suggest that all the Cit+ mutants isolated were the result of contamination. This clearly isn't the case, for several reasons. However, this isn't the place for this particular discussion, as there is already such a discussion elsewhere on this page. I still haven't seen any adequate response to our points against the Conservapedia article, and I don't think I am closed-minded for expecting such a response. As I said, I'm open to the possibility that the Lenski paper is flawed, but I expect cogent argumentation to support any such flaws. I haven't seen that here.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 15:09, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Gerlach, look at how many words you used to sidestep my simple explanation of a flaw in Lenski's work: "Lenski claims there is a mutation rate, yet his presented data show that the number of mutations do not scale with sample size. His presented data disprove both of his hypotheses." If the third experiment of Lenski's was independently flawed as implied by your response, then that does not help your defense. Note that in Lenski's second experiment the mutations also failed to scale with sample size.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::I think there is a misunderstanding. Blount et al. did not say that the absolute mutation rate was constant for the generation of Cit+. After all, they found that variations in culture conditions had some effect. The replay experiment was performed to determine if clones from later cultures were more or less likely to give rise to Cit+ cells than clones from earlier generations. The authors' hypothesis was that a potentiating mutation was required before the Cit+ mutations could arise. If that was the case then clones from later generations would be more likely to produce Cit+ cells. If the Cit+ capability was the result of an extremely rare, single mutation, then any generation of clones would be equally likely to produce Cit+ cell. The hypothesis is that in a particular experiment, the '''relative probability''' of generating a Cit+ mutant would be greater with clones from later generations. '''Absolute mutation rates''' (which appear to be Andy's concern) may be contingent on the growth conditions, which differed between the three replay experiments but '''''within any particular set of conditions''''', one might expect the relationships between Cit+ recovery and the generations from which the starting clones were derived would still hold.

::::::::::::pg 7902 of the paper in the journal:
::::::::::::"According to the rare-mutation hypothesis, Cit+ variants should evolve at the same low rate regardless of the generation of origin of the clone with which a replay started. By contrast, the historical-contingency hypothesis predicts that the mutation rate to Cit+ should increase after some potentiating genetic background has evolved. Thus, Cit+ variants should re-evolve more often in the replays using clones sampled from later generations of the Ara-3 population."

::::::::::::From the abstract:
::::::::::::"The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that ‘‘replayed’’ evolution from different points in that population’s history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 x 10^12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 x 10^12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability."

::::::::::::What the authors found was that the later generations really did produce more Cit+ mutants than you'd expect if the Cit+ mutation was instead randomly distributed (or, as Andy has claimed and not yet retracted, contaminated by Cit+ cells). Yes, the absolute rates didn't scale across the three different conditions but within each experiment it is clear that the Cit+ mutants arose from cells taken at later generations. Yes, there were differences in the absolute rates under different conditions but that doesn't mean the results and conclusions about potentiated clones are wrong.

::::::::::::As for calculations of mutation rates: Blount et al. performed additional fluctuation experiments (journal pg. 7903) in an attempt to estimate the relative effect of the potentiating mutation and to calculate a rough estimate of the mutation rates. Keep in mind, those rates '''''are referenced to growth under the specific conditions used in that particular experiment''''' and were used to provide ballpark estimates for comparison to other classes of known mutations. As for the second experiment not 'scaling' (with the first?), I wouldn't expect that. The first involved clones grown in continuous liquid subcultures and both the total number of generations, cells/generation and growth conditions (e.g. liquid with nutrient replenishment vs. solid agar) are very different.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:20, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: I have not "sidestepped" your point, Andy. Your claim is that the number of Cit+ mutants obtained did not scale with sample size in the third experiment. In response, I reiterated what Argon and I have said previously, specifically that there are differences between the third and second experiments that make a straight comparison between the two inappropriate. That said, if anyone is sidestepping the issue, it is you. Argon and I have addressed your objection previously, but your only response has been to stubbornly restate the original claim. If you don't agree with our statements, then you must explicate why. Additionally, I did not say or imply in any way that the third experiment was flawed. I said that it was significantly different from the second, but this is not the same as saying it was flawed. Argon has provided a response to the scaling of the second experiment to the first.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 20:21, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: In response to earlier postings about drafting and submitting a letter to PNAS, I'm for it and would be happy to contribute. In response to a comment above, I don't want any "glory" and learned a long time ago that nobody gets credit or money for telling the truth. More often those who speak the truth are reviled and insulted, but mockery doesn't bother the truth as much as it bothers falsehoods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: (removed false and baseless claim by Argon about sponsorship of this site)

==Draft of PNAS Letters Response from Conservapedia==

''Apologies for the delay in following up on this - I've spent the past few days attending to family priorities, and this is my first CP-related priority now that I have time at my PC again.''

''Since the guidelines for submitting PNAS Letters restricts the submissions to 250 words, the following is the draft submission I'd like to send pending Andy Schlafly's approval:''

:: ''Title:''

::: Identification of procedural and statistical flaws in the paper "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli".

:: ''Author:''

::: Andrew Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.

:: ''Author Affiliations:''

::: www.conservapedia.com

:: ''Text:''

::: An analysis of the paper and the supporting information on Professor Lenski's website has led to the identification of significant flaws which, if not refuted, negate the claim that E. Coli bacteria underwent an evolutionary beneficial mutation in the experiment.

::: The full description of these flaws exceeds the submission length allowed for PNAS Letters, but can be found at http://www.conservapedia.com/Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study. In summary, the flaws are:

:::: - The "historical contingency" hypothesis depicted in Figure 3 is contradicted by the abstract and by the data presented in the Third Experiment in Table 1 of his paper. Specifically, Figure 3 states the hypothesis as consisting of an historical contingency at about the 31,000th generation, while the abstract states that "some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations." Alternatively, if Figure 3 is not changed, then the paper should clearly state that the "historical contingency" hypothesis as depicted was disproved by the Third Experiment.
:::: - Lenski's two alternative hypotheses suggest a fixed mutation rate, but the failure of the mutations in his experiments to increase based on scale tends to disprove both hypotheses. It has been suggested that the second and third replay experiments were so dissimilar to the first replay experiment that they cannot be compared for scale, but if that were true then it was an error to treat all three experiments as similar for the statistical analysis.
:::: - Lenski incorrectly included generations of the E. coli already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments, and he had no means to exclude their presence in the samples. The same reason that the paper admits an inability to "exclude an earlier origin" (p. 7901) for the Cit+ variants also results in an inability to exclude Cit+ variants from the samples taken after generation 31,000. There is no scientific basis for including these Cit+ populations in this study, and it only serves to distort the results.
:::: - Lenski's Third Experiment failed to support his hypothesis with statistical significance, even with the incorrect inclusion of the Cit+ variant generations. The paper incorrectly combined the Third Experiment with the other two based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.
:::: - The lag time between the potentiating mutation in the largest experiment disproves Lenski's implicit assumption that it likely occurred in proximity with the occurrence of the Cit+ variant.
:::: - Lenski has not disclosed key portions of his data, such as how thoroughly the samples were screened for pre-existing Cit+ variants at what specific generations these variants were actually observed in the replay experiments. In fact, while the paper states the generation periods for the First (replay) Experiment, it does not disclose the generation periods for the Second and Third Experiments.

::: I am requesting that the authors of the paper respond to each of the flaws in this forum and explain the withholding of the data, and submit a revision or retraction of their paper if any are held valid. This public letter concerns taxpayer-funded research and your response, or lack thereof, will be made public.

cc: Editor-in-Chief, PNAS
 New Scientist
 Selected Congressmen having oversight for research budgets
 Selected watchdog groups

''Mr. Schlafly, please let me know if this is acceptable, and apply any revisions as you see fit, thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:38, 21 July 2008 (EDT)''

: It's an excellent draft, DinsdaleP. I made a few minor revisions above. After others improve this, then I'll plan on sending it to PNAS later this week. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}
::I like it. I'll sign my name to it when the time comes.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:35, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

Thanks for the feedback - When applying changes, please keep in mind that the "Text" section in the final version needs to be 250 words or less. If there are important points to add that would exceed this limit, they could be added to the main [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study]] article instead since PNAS is being asked to respond to the full list there, and not just the summary. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:47, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

: I think if i would have presented some draft of that quality to my supervisor i think i would not have reached the door of his office alive and in one piece. It starts with the fact that the correct citation of the article is missing. Please use the appropriate form, inclucing journal number and page. Please have a look at other PNAS Letters. Restate the central issue you criticise in the first sentence, then explicitely describe what your claim about the same issue is and state using what method you come to your conclusion. Keep a neutral tone. Don't make requests. It is obvious that the original author should respond (please look at PNAS for examples of responses, which are published at the same location). Plese fill in your numbers and precise arguments at the points where i left the dots in the following suggestion ('''Please note that nothing of this is my opinion, i just tried to rephrase your opinions in a way that they have the chance to be exposed to a broader view - i skipped tyhe details, because i will not rephrase your arguments, just the structure'''):
: Recently ...... inferred from their experiments (1) that ...... . We analyzed the statistical analysis in terms of ..... and conclude that several variables do not scale as .... . Using hypothesis tests under such circumstances is, in our opinion, ...... , and we do not understand how the authors of the original publication ..... their results.
: The replay experiments yield an ..... scaling with .... . We do not find a consistent value of ..... between the experiments. Furthermore the statistical deviation due to ...... in each sample set does not allow to infer ..... with a sufficient precision. This lack of scaling makes, in our opionion a constant or random source of contamination a likely explanation for a random observation of the ...... dependence of the mutation rate claimed in the paper. The following calculation supports this hypothesis: ....... .
: Furthermore we point out that Fig. ... contains a serious disagreement with .....: while the data would suggest ..... from gen. ..... the figure suggests .....
: We find the material cited in the original article (2)...(n) about the same long-time experiment not to describe the following procedures and experimental constants in a way accessible to us: Handling of ..., contamination rates of ...., and ..... We would kindly ask the authors to clarify these issues. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:48, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::No offense taken. I have no experience in these types of submissions, and would appreciate it if you could restructure the submission improve the quality while adhering to the 250-word limit. As I suggested above, it makes the most sense to incorporate these revisions into the main page for this article, where length is not an issue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:52, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::: I realized that you have obviously not much experience in it; getting the right tone for a scientific publication is hard and i had to try it quite some times on conferences and i still dont get it right sometimes - and from what you said seem to be a student. Sadly, it is against my conviction to rephrase the original arguments in the right way because it would make me an co-author of argumentations i strongly object. In case you did not realize it, helping here to get the structure right doesn't mean i agree - actually the two reasons i would like to see it published is because then the (wrong) idea that scientific journals are not accepting criticism could be obviously be put aside and because i would like to see the needed scientific rigorousity applied to the arguments presented here, because this would put this discussion onto a scientific basis. Quite frankly - i am a liberal by the standards of this site. But i believe the discussion must be carried out with all respect to define the borders of science. The more effective the discussion is carried out, the better the outcome will be. I am willing to listen, as i have proven here, even when beeing treated by people like Mr. Schlafly as if I would be one of his students, while evaluating his qualification in natural sciences quickly shows that i more likely could supervise him in the issues he discusses here (which is something he has proven all along). Regarding that, i am close to giving up, but nevertheless i have seen that a lot of conservatives actually are willing to lead this discussion in a scientific way, which is something, which fulfills me with hope. I recommend you not to fight a fight in where you don't understand the arguments. Don't pick up arguments from others. If you can not fill in the missing words, numbers and arguments in my text, i cant help you. I see what Mr. Schlafly believes, however i do not know how to get the calculation right to support his hypothesis (random or contant mutation rate) - and, this is most likely not because of a lack of statistical knowledge. The only way i would see is to use the rudest form of descriptive statistics and agreggate the data in a very specific way, while ignoring the structure of the experiment - and ignoring the fact that the authors pointed out the problem they see and adressed them. So i can only give oy a few hints (maybe i can form a short contibution to conservapedia; i am just thinking about the title):

:::: If you claim something is wrong, put your opposing claim in a positive formulation, with a supporting calculation, in contrast . Even if the calculation is simple, this is very important to provide it. E.g. we estimate a rate of x+-y per z for dataset N, in which we aggregated generations a,b,c,d, etc .... In the end, you should either prove a mathematical mistake (which was not done) or shoe you hypothesis is more likely.

:::: Don't be rude. You are not the referee and you are not member of a commitee to examine scientific misbehaviour. Dont act like one (and even referees have a friendlier tone usually). Dont act like an personal enemy either. Don't ask for retraction of the article. It is up to the author to make the conclusion respond or retract. This happens more often than you may think as a response to an critisism (actually it's fun to read the "reply section" of scientific journals - sometimes you find things like: "yes, the commenter was right we copied the paper and retract it"). And you are never requesting, but you are kindly asking. Everybody understands that "kindly asking" does not mean "kindly asking" in this context.

:::: Always give full and specific citations which back your claims. Give it in the form required by the specific journal. General citations like "materials on his website" will make your text bein trown out in the editorial screening (because you can not expect that somebody read trough all information to find something backing you claim - this is your job). See for specific styles [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style]]. Ypu may even reference a page/paragraph/eq/figure number to point the reader to what you mean (for papers longer than 4 pages i usually do that).

:::: Run a style checker over your text to eliminate common style mishaps.

:::: '''Most important''': go to your university library. Take the time to just read a few PNAS Letters and replys, and the original articles (Try to finde some with an easy understandable subject). Understanding how these are written and how authors usually reply will help you to get your one right. You are writing against somebody who has twenty years of experience in a field of publishing in natural sciences. You seem to have little experience and Andrew Schlafly, honestly, neither. This game is an uphill battle and unfair game anyway. Make sure you maximize your chances by understanding the rules of the game.

:::: Focus on a single you are sure about. It is better to present one claim well that two claims badly.

:::: Good luck. You will need it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 14:22, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Stitch75", you seem to think that the truth depends on whether PNAS accepts it. It doesn't. Lenski's paper is badly flawed regardless of whether he admits it, PNAS admits it, or you admit it. That's the beauty of the truth: it doesn't require admission by anyone. I'm fine with Lenski and PNAS refusing to admit the flaws in their paper. After all, if they really cared about quality then I doubt they would have published their flawed paper after merely 14 days or less of peer review.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:38, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Maybe its because English is not my native language. Somehow you seem not to understand what i am saying. I try to rephrase it so that there is no room for misunderstanding: I never can talk about truth, which is a religious thing. I talk about science and observable reality. Primarily i can tell you only what it takes that your thoughts are at least looked at. If rejection happens du to formal reasons (like using unsuitable Formulations, etc) it's not good to draw conclusions on the content or the scientific community. The strong formalism is to save time. And in turn the taxpayers money. I am screening the title of approx. 70 articles per day (10 Minutes), namely everything which come in on the preprint servers on my subject. From approx 70 titles, 10 are interesting enough to read the abstract (6 Minutes), and 2 are interesting enough to look at the summary (4 Minutes) and one in two days in interesting enough to read Section 2 (10 Minues), skipping the introduction, one in a week in interesting enough to print it out and read it (2-4 Hours). Something which does not follow the form end up with beeing thrown out of my rss feed quite quickly. The editors of the journals know that and in a refereed journal such thigs may even be trown out by the editor (and not the referee). Claiming from not getting a response published that "the article is still wrong, no matter what others say, and i am rights anyway" doesnt sound very scientific to me. From everything you have said here, you are unwilling to learn, and you don't expect a response. If you formulate your comment in that way, then skip it. Publishing a letter should stimulate a discussion, if it's not meant to, seen from the style, it will not be accepted. Moreover, according to everything i have seen here, Mr. Schlafly, you seem to have no clue what you are talking about. Please at least consider one time that you could be wrong and try to follow the statistical arguments in the paper - and build up own one on a real calculation (and show the numbers you get). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:55, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Stitch75 - you are too far inside the belly of the beast to understand what ASchalfly is talking about. You have probably spent your (young, naive?) life as a scientist, or inside the sciences, and as such you are blinded and cannot think with real, free logic. If you look at ASchlafly's arguments with an open mind, and not the blinkered mentality you seem to want to perpetrate, you'll see he's got many excellent points, and I'm convinced that the PNAS will ask Lenski to retract major conclusions of his obviously flawed study once ASchalfly submits this letter. Try to open your mind more to other ways of thinking and you'll see the truth for what it is. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 21:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::Stitch75 just went far out of his way to be helpful and yet you still continue to respond with hostility and a self-righteous attitude. You explicitly stated that now matter what response you get, you won't accept the conclusions of the paper. That is your prerogative, but you are directly stating that their replies, other than a retraction, will be irrelevant and/or wrong, despite the '''many decades''' of combined practical experience of the authors compared with your complete lack of such. So why is it again that you're even bothering? Several contributors to this forum and others related to it on this website have addressed your questions in great detail- repeatedly- and you continue make vague, unspecific accusations. As Stitch75 discussed, something like "table X is wrong because of figure Y" is nonproductive. Furthermore, if you want to have PNAS readers listen to you- your flaws should be real. For instance, even now your fifth "flaw" is that the statistical results of the third experiment are "obscured" and "not defin[ed]... in the traditional way". Well, the p-value for the third experiment is 0.0823. It took me literally four seconds of flipping through the PDF to find it. It's even in a nice table to make it easy to find. How is that obscure? (I might add that considering P<0.05 significant and P=0.0823 not statistically significant is '''completely arbitrary'''. If the observed pattern wasn't at all what was expected, the P value would be roughly around 0.8-1.0 or so. So 0.0823 ''does'' suggest that the underlying idea is correct in '''exactly''' the same way that P=0.05 would. That is a fundamental concept in basic statistics.) The final problem is that your arguments have drifted from your original concern- whether or not a new trait evolved- since only one of your listed "flaws" actually addresses this issue. The others are tangential and relate to interpretation and mechanisms. Even ''if'' 6 of your 7 flaws were so, the core finding of the paper- around which all else is based- would still hold: in earlier generations, there weren't Cit+ E. coli, in later generations, there were. The mathematical analyses and timeline of occurrence don't change this qualitative, directly observable fact.

::::::I do encourage you to refine the letter and submit it to PNAS- I really do- but Stitch75 is very correct in saying that if you submit it in its current shoddy form it will be laughed at and promptly ignored. You would do well to take the advice of people who actually work in the field when it comes to considering how something will be received. Also, your comment about peer review above indicates that your still have not learned anything at all about how it actually works despite the long discussions previously.

::::::As you said, the truth doesn't require admission. But it does require empirical support, which Lenski provided in ample quantities- but you still have yet to provide anything even beginning to resemble scientific rigor. That is why Stitch75 wrote that response- to ''help you'' improve your letter from that condition.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 21:36, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: You have it backwards, "Kallium". Lenski has the burden of providing "scientific rigor," and his paper falls short. In fact, the data presented in the paper tend to ''disprove'' his hypothesis about a mutation rate, as the mutations identified in his paper do not scale in a meaningful way with sample size.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I honestly don't know how to make this any more clear. Yes, Lenski does have the burden of providing scientific rigor, as any scientist does. I never said otherwise. However, to claim flaws in any study requires that they be presented with equal rigor. This is just rewording the last statement of my previous post. Simply making vague, unspecified and unsubstantiated hand-waving claims won't get you anywhere. Consider an analogous situation in an appeals court: someone doesn't like the decision of a lower court, so they go to a higher level to present their objections. Now, to do this requires legal rigor to the same degree with which the decision was originally made. The defendant would need to address specifics in the decision and explain exactly why they were incorrectly interpreted. If, however, that defendant were to waltz into the higher court and simply read quotes from the decision and say "that's illogical" or "those statements are self-contradictory" or "that's unfair", without going into detail to explain their reasoning and without addressing the previous cases cited in the decision or providing any further legal precedents, they would utterly fail to make their case and likely be chastised by the judge for wasting the court's time. Now replace the court references with their respective scientific analogs and you have exactly what is going on here. That is why both Stitch75 and I have been giving you this advice- to ''help you present your case''. Lastly, you haven't developed your arguments since you first posted them but keep relisting them. You have yet to show in detail how the data disprove the hypothesis (which you also vaguely define), and as others have explained repeatedly, mutation rates are only expected to scale with sample size under identical conditions, which were not used. That's why your letter needs improvement- it simply won't be taken seriously if it shows a flawed understanding of basic experimental biology. You can't pass rigor completely off of your shoulders; you have to make your case or it will get thrown out of court.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 12:12, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::You are correct that the truth does not require acceptance. Kallium is not quite correct in in saying that it requires empirical support. It does not, the truth is the truth is the truth and that’s an end to it. The ''search'' for truth, however, requires certain actions and, in this case, Stitch75’s advice should be welcome. Following Stitch75’s advice will not alter the truth one little bit, but will aid the search for it. According to you the truth is that this was a flawed paper that was published, demonstrating flaws in the peer review process. It gets science nowhere, the public scrutiny of science nowhere and the use of public money nowhere for this simply to ''be'' the truth. The scientific community would need to see your objections in the "correct" format before it would do anything about it.

:::::::::You may say that the scientific community should be doing this already. (We might also question whether the format stipulated by the scientific community really is "correct"). Whether they should or should not is moot: the simple fact is that they aren’t and are unlikely to start anytime soon without a “correctly” prepared objection. Stitch75’s advice is designed to help you prepare the objection “correctly” and, in doing so, aid the search for truth.--[[User:YoungA|YoungA]] 09:26, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I tend to agree with you Andy. I say we get this thing sent to PNAS and see what happens. If they refuse to answer it then we know what that means, and if they thumb their noses at you that's fine too. However I have a little more faith than you in the system and I hold out hope that they'll respond to our queries. Anyway lets get this thing sent. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:50, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

I'd like to thank Stitch75, because he took the time to explain his points constructively, and I learned something from them. (I'm actually an IT Specialist in my 40's, not a full-time student, but learning is a never-ending process and I appreciated the lesson). I consider myself bound by the same ethical constraints on editing that he mentioned, because these objections to Lenski's work are Mr. Schlafly's, not my own. I tend to believe that the Lenski experiment was properly executed, but I'm a strong believer in the scientific process, and Mr. Schlafly's objections deserve a fair hearing whether one believes in them or not. My contribution is to help in the process of getting these objections to the proper forum, namely PNAS, and leaving the response up to them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:20, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

While some here are willing to discuss, obviously Mr. Schlafly seems to be not. This will be the last thing i say before i see a calculation by Mr. Schlafly and everything else has been said already. I point out that submitting an Letter to any journal will involve the "editor in chief" exactly if the internal handling process of the journal involves this. So it is arrogant to prescribe the journal who should read the submission. Furthermore i think, that if you send this with a cc to "watchdog" groups, you should read the publication guidelines of PNAS. it might be that it collides with the publication guidelines to publish the contribution somewhere else at the same time. This most likely holds for articles, and maybe for comments/letters as well. To put congressmen on the cc is, in my opinion a waste of taxpayers money. it would be much better to wait until you have something in your hands. Right now you havent. The only rational reason for congressmen in the cc is to hope for an intimidating effect on somebody. Be assured, if you are long enough in science you are not scared easily. If this would be meant to intimidate the editors of PNAS, be assured that- if they have mood- will pin your Letter to their door to have something to laugh. And for new scientist, i can assure you, nothing will happen before the Reaction of PNAS. based on that you can write one more comment on the "New Scientist" article. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:15, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:Listen Stitch75- Right now, there are some pretty serious flaws in the Lenski study. Conservapedia has identified enough of them to put the entire conclusion in doubt, and even if one of our arguments turns out to be not valid, I am sure that because we raised so many valid points at least part of the paper will need to be reconsidered. You claim to have so much respect for the scientific process and scientific work, but you contradict this because you yourself refuse to allow a piece of scientific work to be legitimately challenged. If you truly believed that the work was infallible, you wouldn't mind us scrutinizing it. Please stop telling us about how to follow a good scientific method, when as you know the most important part is checking your work. We are contributing to the scientific community by revising a conclusion that is fatally flawed. Try to open your mind a bit more.--[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 15:26, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Expertise in Statistics ==
I don’t mind admitting that I have none! The article states that Lenski combined the three trials incorrectly and that he doesn’t make the insignificance of the third clear. Now it may well be very clear to others but, unfortunately, the article doesn’t make clear to people like me what was wrong. Can someone expand on this point? Is anyone able to explain to a layman what Lenski should have done and the conclusions he should have reached? It's all getting a little technical for me. --[[User:Billd|Bill Dean]] 12:10, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

: OK, here's point 4 in layman's terms: Lenski's hypotheses of a mutation rate imply that a ten-fold increase in sample size should result in a ten-fold increase in mutations. But it doesn't. In fact, a nearly ten-fold increase in sample size results in only a slight increase in mutations in Lenski's data. These data, as presented by Lenski in his paper, suggest (if properly interpreted) that there is no mutation rate at all. Rather, these data are more consistent with occasional contamination, broadly defined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Except that the growth pattern of the Cit+ cells in the third replay experiment demonstrated that there were no Cit+ cells in the cultures at the time of plating. Control plates with a mix of Cit- and Cit+ cells were done which showed rapid development of Cit+ colonies, whereas the experimental plates did not show any Cit+ colonies for at least 8 days and up to 28 days. If you believe that the plates became randomly contaminated during the course of the incubation, rather than at the initial plating, the post-plating contamination should have affected all generations equally, but it did not--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:46, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::Blount et al. discussed the unexpectedly low Cit+ conversion rate for the third replay set in the supplementary document. They have some speculations but don't know why it occurred. They are dealing with low probability events. I don't agree that the 'proper' interpretation is contamination. First, they isolated and tested each Cit+ isolate for the markers and sequences we've discussed on earlier Conservapedia pages. Second, the distribution of Cit+ isolates does not appear to be random: They correlate strongly with the later generations. If undetected contamination was random, it's unlikely the Monte Carlo resampling tests would reject the null hypothesis of the 'rare-mutation' hypothesis over the 'potentiated' hypothesis. As Brossa correctly notes, contamination would have affected all generations. Blount et al. write in the paper's supplement: "To facilitate handling and minimize possible confounding variables, we divided this third experiment into 20 blocks of 14 clones each. All of the clones within a block came from different generations, and the single ancestral clone was included in all 20 blocks."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:01, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Good and detailed analyis and conclusion, Argon. I had no time to read everything in that detail, but i think you present exactly the arguments (contant background would favour rare mutation hypothesis) would be exactly the one i had in mind, so let's see how Mr. Schlafly will bend his own Monte-Carlo simulations to showing several 1000 times no mutation into accordance with any reasonable background explaining a significant number of counts in *some* samples --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:20, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: The above comments are non-responsive. The essence of ''both'' of Lenski's hypotheses is that there is a fixed, or stepped, mutation rate. But any such rate would be roughly proportional with sample size. Yet his three experiments prove otherwise, which Lenski fails to address in a satisfactory manner. Indeed, Lenski's presentation of his data disproves the very thing he claims to have shown.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: Mr. Schlafly, please answer: Which the of the two hypotheses is, according to your calculations the most likely? --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:47, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::The first replay experiment was run under different conditions - roughly 3700 generations in continuous subcultures. One can't compare population sizes or rates between the first and last two replay experiments. As I noted, Blount et al. acknowledged the possible anomaly of lower than expected mutants in the third run. Still, the second and third experiments were run under different conditions. The plates in the second replay experiment were seeded with fewer cells per plate than in the third experiment. That change can affect the survival rates of cells on plates over time (e.g. different rates of nutrient exhaustion). Given the extremely low mutation rates involved, there is no simple means of normalizing the numbers of mutants recovered for the second and third experiments. One might expect 'roughly' 10x more mutants in the third experiment but that's truly a 'rough' estimate that would be affected by conditions under which cells are exposed. It's certainly a question that remains and they may be able to clear up with future research. In any case, the pattern of data does not support Andy's claims of contamination or that the hypotheses of the paper is in error.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:27, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Argon, you have free will and it's clear to me that you are going to exercise it to the point of embracing absurdities. This time you claim that "extremely low mutation rates" would not result in mutations that scale with sample size (of course they would), and that density completely alters mutation rate (if that silly claim were true, then Lenski's experiment was flawed from the get-go). Your belief system is remarkable, but it's not logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Fair enough, but let's be clear: That's my take on the paper and that of most of the scientists who reviewed the paper, read the paper and commented upon the paper so far. For that matter, Michael Behe didn't call the data flawed, nor did those commentators at Dembski's Uncommon Dissent blog, nor did Dr. Georgia Purdom at Answers in Genesis. In contast, those who think the work is flawed appears to be limited mostly to you, Andy. It is true that 'scaling' was not seen in this case but as we've seen, the conditions were not quite the same and it is known that this can have an impact.

::::::::However, the fact that the conditions were not identical doesn't detract from the fact that the emergence of Cit+ clones *still* correlated with the sampling of the later generations. What this means is that with three separate experiments and under three sets of conditions, the constant-rate-mutation hypothesis doesn't hold. What the differences between the second and third replay experiments demonstrates is that they were run under different conditions that affected the overall rate of conversion, not that the 'potentiated mutation' hypothesis is wrong. Those are actually distinct questions. Andy, the data simply does not support your claims that the cultures were contaminated (we'd expect random distribution), or that the 'scaling' variations ruined the experiment. In my opinion, you seem focused on red herrings to the exclusion of evaluating the data in the overall context of the experiment which demonstrates a correlation of Cit+ clones emerging from samples taken at later generations. Would you care to address that pattern and discuss why your 'contamination hypothesis' doesn't appear to hold up?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 09:29, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::There is nothing absurd in what Argon said. As he mentioned, the third experiment was performed under different conditions and at a different time than the first or second experiments. The key here is that there are plenty of variables, some unknown, that simply aren't controlled for between the experiments. For example, take the fact that it was performed at a different point in time than the first two. The third experiment, then, is almost certainly being performed with different batches of growth media, liquid and solid. Anyone who has spent any significant time growing cells knows that media can vary significantly in growth characteristics between batches, despite the same recipe being used. The reasons for this can be many. Perhaps the balance or pH meter was off calibration one day, or a different bottle of reagent was used. Take an analytical chemistry course, you'll spend plenty of time talking about this. It is true that, for the most part, this sort of variability has minimal impact. But when you're examining something like an extremely rare mutation, or you're trying to make an extremely accurate measurement, intra-lab variability like this can be significant. For an extremely rare mutation like Cit+, which involved at least two additional mutations in potentiated cells, any change in mutation rate can have a significant effect on your ability to obtain mutants. Mutation rate is sensitive to growth conditions, so cells grown in different conditions are likely to experience a different rate of Cit+ mutation.

:::::::Regardless of the reason for the lower-than-expected number of Cit+ mutants in the third experiment, however, the Cit+ mutants isolated absolutely did not arise from contamination. This is clear if you read the paper. You're still left, then, with the two hypotheses presented, and the results support historical contingency.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 09:45, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Is there anyone here with expertise in statistics who could give an analysis? [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 16:15, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:Hello Fyezall. I rearranged the position of your question to hopefully keep the conversations clearer. It boils down to this: The researchers found that mutant Cit+ strains arose over the course of time in their long term growth experiment. They wanted to learn something about how that strain acquired this ability. They wondered, 'Was this the result of a single, very low frequency mutation or did some other mutation have to precede it in earlier generations, followed by the final mutation(s) that allowed the cells to grow on citrate?'

:If the Cit+ change required a single mutation with a low but constant probability over time one would expect Cit+ mutations to be distributed across cells taken from any generation of the experiment. On the other hand, if a 'potentiating' mutation had to arise at some point in the cultures before the final Cit+ mutation could function, then one would expect the probability for Cit- cells to mutate to Cit+ cells would increase with samples of cells taken from later cultures.

:Blount ran the experiment and found that Cit+ mutants arose more frequently in cells taken from later generations in the culture. The Monte Carlo resampling tests were used to assess how likely the pattern of results would fit the models. The statistical significance (smaller P-values mean greater significance), was calculated for each experiment and the combination of experiments. The numbers suggest the distribution of mutants was not randomly distributed across the experimental generations, they tended to appear in cells taken from the later generations. This would argue against the single-mutation, constant, low-probability hypothesis. It appears that a pre-adaptive mutation had to have arisen first, followed by the mutation that finally allowed the cells to utilized citrate. Future work in Lenski's lab will focus on trying to identify the various mutations involved. I hope this brief explanation helps.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:25, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

==What I have noticed==
I tell you what strikes me the most about this discussion - Its watching evolutionists do whatever they can to keep their precious beliefs above question or scrutiny. Its as if they know that it will come toppling down so they must resort to side-lining the hard questions.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 21:43, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
==[[Social Text]]==
This well known hoax ''does'' support Aschlalfy's position that the paper was reviewed by PNAC ''rather quickly'', since (apparently) the paper supported the editors/reviewers point of view. Perhaps this would have beeen better placed on the [[Richard Lenski]] page rather than here since this deals only with the 6/10/08 PNAS paper ''per se'' and not the review process. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:45, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:I fail to see the relevance of the Sokal Hoax here. You should also know that Social Text was not a peer-reviewed journal when Sokal submitted his paper. That doesn't excuse the credulity of its editors, but Sokal's paper was not sent out for review. Not to say that it would have mattered, postmodernism is just meaningless word salad.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 13:39, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-07-24T19:09:06Z

RoyS:

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]

==Most Liberal?==

What about Bernie Sanders?

==False Citation==

In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer." when according to the source cited: "http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html" it says he is. When I edited it to say the truth according to the website, it was reverted. Why?

I have edited it again. I understand that this website is supposed to have a conservative twist, but unless conservatism is about spreading lies, then it shouldn't do so.

==Religious Views==
Is "reared a Baptist" accurate? Was he born and raised Baptist? Did he attend Christian church while going to Indonesian public schools? He talks of no religion and of finding religion in his book, I think (didn't read). reared?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:If you read the article correctly, you would know that Obama is a secret Muslim--[[User:Ivysaur|Ivysaur]] 17:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::Franklin Graham (son of Billy) tried to find out is Obama was a Christian. It looks like the answer is no![http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68581]--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 16:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Actually, the quote from that article is that Obama said, 'Jesus is the only way for me. I'm not in a position to judge other people.' when asked if he believed that Jesus was the only way to salvation. All of the accusations in that article indicating that he is a Muslim have already been cited (from the original sources, not an article which cites them in turn) on this or the main page. [[User:Ithig|Ithig]] 17:25, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== No citation ==

"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"

Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.

: No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting [[Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?

== Why lead with the criticisms? ==

This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Sad. No responses at all. The people conservapedia likes will get decent articles, those that it dislikes will lead with critcism. Hm, sounds like bias to me. Oh well. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 10:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: The response is obvious: good entries lead with the most informative material, just as newspaper articles and good encyclopedias do. We don't fall for the Wikipedia trick of [[placement bias]], where it leads with [[liberal fluff]] and buries or omits informative truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: LOL! [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 07:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::Yesaliberal indeed. Where reason fails, resort to infantile mockery. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Point taken. As I said, the criticisms and his misrepresentations should be included by all means. I'm a firm believer in the "warts and all principle." It's the differences between the layouts of the articles of say Obama and G.W. Bush which introduce the bias that you accuse Wikipedia of. Wouldn't it be unbiased to include criticisms of Bush at the same relative position as Obama, such as the WMDs issue in Iraq? Surely war criticism must rank at least as highly as the "57" issue mentioned in Obama's article, particularly since this is perhaps a case of mis-speaking on Obama's part. Bush is almost legendary for his oratory stumbling. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, if you want to get to "informative truth," why isn't the top of John McCain's page about how he sold other POWs out, didn't pay his taxes, and left his crippled wife in the 70's for a beer fortuness that was worth 100 mil and was 18 years younger than him? That would seem biased and mean toward McCain, wouldn't it? Yeah, it would, and it's no different here. We need to have respect for Republicans and Democrats alike, especially the two men who one of them is going to be the President by next January. [[User:Impm|Impm]]

== Nomination timing ==

Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the [http://www.democrats.org DNC's website] has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

: That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.

: The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Jareddr, [[conservatives]] don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Association with Black supremacists ==

I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.

He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

:I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switching the two pictures' placement ==

Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute [[photo bias]] according to previous attempts. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action ==

I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--[[User:Carterlansford|Carterlansford]] 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I thought he actually had won his seat in the Senate because more people voted for him. I had no idea that the other person had actually gotten more votes in the election, but because of Affirmative Action, they gave it to Obama anyway. Makes me wonder why they even had an election to begin with. [Dingus]

Well, look. Any black person who competes with any white person for anything in America has the benefit of white guilt and preferential treatment. That's because the liberals run everything. This in turn means that any time you see a black person in a good job you can say, "That just proves black people are inferior, because he wouldn't be there without affirmative action." This seems to be the subtext here, anyway. And not to put too fine a point on it, it's as racist as a burning cross.

ASchlafly: Is it inconvenient to be so transparent? Do people, like, see you digesting your breakfast and stuff? [[User:Archer070]]

==huh?==
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:: [[Liberals]] do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:

{{cquote|So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.}}

Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Complaint ==

''"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"''

This is clearly a heavily biased statement. After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes. This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased. Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.

Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"

''Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)''

This is simply amazing.

: Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources. Obama catered to that support in key ways.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Then why not call it "anti-war"? It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldier. In fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier. The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.

: It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many [[leftists]] hate soldiers. They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I know many leftists, and none of them seem to hate soldiers. One of my good friends is extremely left-wing (has gay parents), and is ''in'' the military. I'm not sure the "General Betrayus" comment was necessarily anti-military, it seemed more anti-a-specific-person. And what about all of the pro-veteran bills being introduced by Democrats? I think it's ''without a doubt'' that many leftists are anti-war, but I think it's a stretch to say they're anti-soldier.--[[User:Cockamamie|Cockamamie]] 12:32, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Don't you have to actually show that *Obama himself* hates soldiers and/or is anti-military before putting that in his entry? Are there no standards whatsoever here except not being liberal? [Dingus]

I don't appreciate you changing the title of my question to "liberal complaint". I am a conservative. The problem here is that you have such a great opportunity to present conservative and liberal viewpoints free of the bias normally associated with them. I believe that true conservative ideals do not need to be slanted or have their opposition omitted to be attractive. You are in fact using standard liberal practices of accepting only "convenient" facts and purposefully omitting opposing viewpoints. These practices, which are unfortunately present in abundance, are serving only to perpetuate a negative stereotype of conservatism. What you're doing is hurting our ideals when you have a tremendous opportunity to be helpful.

::: Obama raised money, big money, from anti-military supporters. Moveon.org actually endorsed Obama and raised a ton of money for him, and Moveon.org took out an ad in the NY Times mocking our top general. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: So when racists endorse McCain, you'll edit McCain's entry to indicate that he's running a racist campaign?[Dingus]

::::: You speak in non sequiturs. McCain does not welcome any racist donations. Obama welcomed tens of millions of dollars in largely anti-military donations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, but McCain accepted 300k from a man who likened rape to bad weather, saying that "as long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it." He also told a female competitor for Governor of Texas, the office he was running for, that he would "hog her and tie her and drag her through the dirt." McCain accepted 300,000 dollars for his campaign that this man raised. So I suppose McCain is a raging sexist, too?

:: If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:

:: ''* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

:: ''* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 17:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a '''citation needed'''{{fact}} to some [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=469755&oldid=469754 unreferenced opinions]], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why, yes. Yes they do.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 15:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Michelle Obama ==

To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: [http://obamaquotes.com/Squidoo-Xmas-Card-Portrait.jpg Obama Family Christmas Card]?

:: Might not be good enough for this page; they don't seem enough like angry black militants.

== Curious about removal of "liberal bias" ==

Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal ''bias'', not one that censors facts that happen to be ''inconvenient'' to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aehlinger|here]. If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.

::::: AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresome. Let's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as [[liberals]] are fond of saying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

::::::: Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say [[Obama]] that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obvious. Do you believe the press secretary for [[George W. Bush]] with such fervor also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:The press release reads, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama '''served as a professor''' in the Law School." Obama said, "I was a constitutional law professor," not "I held the title of professor." Your position is untenable, Mr. Schlafly; you might want to admit that you were wrong, and move on. Besides, the public relations arm of the University of Chicago—the world's leading school of conservative economics, I might add—is not a professional advocate for the Barack Obama campaign the way Dana Perino is a professional advocate for the President. [[User:Hindublog|Hindublog]] 17:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

If I could propose another track, the whole discussion about Obama's "professorship" is based on everyone's different idea of what a professor is. Some say a professor has to be the research/paper-publishing/tenured kind while others say it's up to the employer. How about actually using Conservapedia's definition of [[professor]] to decide whether or not he is one? Given this is an encyclopedia after all, I would think that's the most logical (conservatively or liberally) definition to use.

The current definition stands as ''"based on peer review of the scholar's work, and a process of election by his peers as specified by the rules of each college or university"''. I suggest everyone base their arguments on this definition, or alternatively work to improve the rather skimpy Professor article instead of waging an edit war here.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 22:19, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Punishment image ==
'''Note to editors''' 
If you remove the '''Image:Punishment.jpg''' from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the '''blocks for removing the image''' will be '''increased to 3 days'''. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 21:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp

:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Editors" not "Editor's" [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.[[User:Godlover|Godlover]] 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:That certainly does look like blocking for ideology. Besides, [[:Image:Punishment.jpg]] is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image. If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused as to how the image is relevant at all. It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information. The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter. And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only is the image accurate and acceptable, the fact that liberals are obsessed with removing it shows it makes a difference. Somebody removed it again. make sure you keep it up until the end of the year at the least.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The image is unrelated. The quote is very applicable, but should be used separately from the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:Since it is such a contentious issue the image should stay and the question should be referred to Andy or senior sysops for decision. It is not for anyone to remove. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::something being contentious is not reason enough for it to be in the article. In order for an image to be part of an article it has to have some connection to the article itself. The image in question, (a baby held in hands) has no connection to Barack Obama, and therefore deserves no place in the article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It is contentious between sysops and therefore hasty action ought not to be taken. You can read what Dean has said at the head of this section. Why should sysop CPAdmin1 have more or less authority than sysop DeanS? Where there is such a clash, the answer is not to have an edit war, but to refer the matter upstairs. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: If the image is unrelated, than consider taking down Obamas no hand over the heart during the national anthem. Obama says he is partiotic just not in a normal way. The guy has a 100% record on death to children in the womb. Abortion is a big issue and Obamas view of a mistake is a baby. He should be called out in any image. Is a baby a mistake? You decide if Obama is right by looking at the picture. The connection is clear. If not allowed to stand, then a picture of mutilated aborted child should take its place.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::The quote can stand without the image. People don't need a picture to know what a baby is. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

: Where is DeanS? There is a picture of a child in womb on John McCains page. What is the difference between images? Remove Obama's quote and keep the Picture with the headline Punishment.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::I also removed the picture from the McCain article.
I have protected this article because of disruptive edit-warring. Wil the involved parties please seek consensus on this talk page instead of reverting? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:57, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:A great idea - perhaps someone should convene the Student Panel and get them to rule on this.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::Why don't you do it? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I assume that is something a sysop/site administrator would do.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope. You can do it if you want. But why not have the involved editors (or even the entire conservapedia community) come to consensus on this talk page? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Are you talking about a true consensus - one editor one vote? or one sysop one vote? Or one senior admin one vote? Well, for my two cents' worth - the picture is silly, adds nothing to the article and makes Conservapedia look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It does the whole project a disservice and robs the implied editorial position (a position which I disagree with but respect), that B.O. is an inferior candidate to J.M. of a lot (as in almost all) credibility. Oh, yeah - the U of C CLEARLY stated that B.O. held a title "equivalent to professor." Why is that such a problem? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Thank you for your opinion. Now we are going to wait to see what other editors say. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I would make the image smaller, and with a more detailed caption as to what it is, where it came from, and the source of the Obama quote within. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: There's no reason to have the image at all, as it has nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry on Obama. Alice is correct in saying that it makes CP look like a conservative blog. Like I said previously, I could go through and do the same thing to other pages, slapping on "witty" macros, but that wouldn't contribute anything to the encyclopedic goals of CP. The image should stay removed. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::::::Do you think this image would be better in an article about the campaign between Obama and McCain, as in a something about means and methods used to get a point across? It may have an actual quote from Obama, but it's still a campaign poster. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Is that an article yet? It is fairly early. Does it still need to be written? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou - only if the poster came from somewhere with some sort of notability - the RNC, the McCain campaign, a large, nationwide right-to-life group, something of that nature. As far as I understand, this thing was put together on an open access website and published on Some Guy's Blog. I could run off a dozen similar things in an hour and put them on a blog somewhere - that hardly warrants their inclusion in an encyclopedia article.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::True, but it doesn't automatically exclude it either. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::As a campaign image, it could go in an article about the current campaign, but I agree with Alice in that the image appears to have been created by a single individual not connected to anything beyond a personal blog. If the image was created by a McCain staffer, than it could be included.
::::::::::The article should be titled "2008 Presidential Campaign", and have subtopics on all the participants and their outcomes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Page does exist: [http://www.conservapedia.com/2008_Presidential_Campaign]. Maybe make a subtopic on methods used by all sides to put their point across. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:38, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::Or we could not put any propaganda up on the encyclopedia at all until the issue is over with or unless it is highly influential (a la that ad with the atomic bomb and the young girl), as would seem more appropriate for a reference site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 23:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::The image has no place in an encyclopedia article. It does not relate to Obama or to the quote. I think it should be deleted. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Your removal of the image defeats the purpose of my locking the page in an dispute resolution attempt. I am now entirely confused as to how to solve this, now the other users will cry foul and I will be forced to unlock commencing the revert war. I personally thought that we were on our way to reaching consensus. *sigh* [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::I think that a consensus can be reached just as easily without the image in the article in the meantime. I think that while debating and coming to a consensus it makes more sense to have the questionable image out of the article. It is certainly not hurting the article, or the credibility of this site while it is not in the article. The debate is over whether it does that while in the article. Therefore, it makes more sense to keep it out of the article, and not in a position to be a problem. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
If it is deleted from the article how can people reach an informed decision on whether it should be in the article or not? It appears to me that you are asserting ownership of this piece, and that is neither justified nor justifiable. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I oppose the picture, it offers no value. The quote might but the picture does not
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I support the picture, it offers enormous value. The left wins when it is removed. The left that supports abortion and the candidate who condones abortion wins. Silence opposition to abortion, go ahead, smart move that you will answer for one day.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I oppose the picture's inclusion. The quote is already in the article; the picture is unnecessary and does not belong in an encyclopædia. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:Don't get me wrong. I hate abortion as much as anyone here. That photo just is not related to Obama. If you want to put the photo in the abortion article, go ahead. as for making an informed decision, I'll put the photo here where people can look at it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
[[Image:Punishment.jpg|325px|thumb|right|]]

== "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." ==

Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins. Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, now Obama supporters are going to imply that a criticism about his lack of lapel pin has something to do with his ethnicity?! Obama supporters are hilarious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::Guess who does wear a flag pin.....[http://tingilinde.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/29/craigmugshot.jpg Mr. Bathroom Knocker] himself. Lets automatically vote him for president, as he completes the only requirement to be a president, wearing the sacred flag pin. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:Right wingers are terrifying. You may think I'm hilarious, but the vast majority of African Americans think the flag pin controversy is simply a front by the right (As well as the constant use of his middle name, Hussein) to make the case that Obama is somehow 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic'. Well, the American people are really sick of it this time Mr. Schlafly. We're not going to stand for this dinosour 'got ya' politics anymore. Come November, the American people will have spoken and your brand of smear, insult and pettiness will become nothing more than an internet phenonomon, where only the most disjointed will indulge in the politics of character destruction. I hope you enjoyed your twenty years under the sun, but finally, America is going to enter the 21st century. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 09:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

The sentence which indicates that Obama wearing a flag pin "might be political pandering" has no reference and no basis in verifiable fact. This comment should be removed. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 11:50, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Introduction==

The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone have any interest in discussing how to actually improve this article, or are we happy to allow the outline of an article be overwhelmingly critical? If you are serious about making an encyclopedia, then please, consider professional measures even about people you dislike. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 10:02, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:TB - The site's administration has made it clear that the tone of this article is not up for negotiation: From the professor-not-a-professor question and the choice to ignore what the U of C has to say on the matter, to the baby image to the fact that while the McCain article excuses his voting absences due to the fact that JM is running for President while the Obama article makes no such excuse.... So while some editors may, as you put it, "have [an] interest in discussing how to actually improve this article," Conservapedia, as an institution, would prefer to "allow the outline of [the] article be overwhelmingly critical." You don't like it? Go edit at Wikipedia, or do as Aschafly did, and start your own wiki project.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Why the concern, though? I too was annoyed at the coverage, and then came to a realization last night. Who is CP's audience? Homeschoolers? Assuming this is their only political reference point---they're too young to vote anyway. And any adult who uses CP as a primary source of information isn't likely to vote for Barack Obama regardless of whether CP acknowledges he served as a professor or not. Anyone who sees this site and buys the information presented was never, and will never be, a Barack Obama voter. So why waste the energy trying to correct the misinformation on the site for viewers that won't use it anyway? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Structure==

I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would like to see a standardized structure for articles on politicians. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] is what you are looking for. It seems to me that the first step in complying with this template would be to move most of the intro into the relevant sections in the article. The intro should only include "'''Subject's Name''' (in bold) followed by a brief synopsis of notable positions held or sought." ~ [[User:Ithig|Ithig]] 11:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== The Senior Lecturer Reference ==

The reference that CPadmin1 used says that Obama "served as a professor in the law school." Since that information, quoted verbatim, was removed earlier, perhaps another reference should be used, lest that information leak out? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The references being used for this section are incorrect. If you follow the link on the pages you eventually get to this page: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html. There it states: Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The statement being made is blatantly false and has been addressed by the university of Chicago.--[[User:Redragon104|Redragon104]] 14:09, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam." ==

"Presidential scrutiny" is vague - did the President scrutinize the school? I think "media scrutiny" is what you mean.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Great point. Please change accordingly. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
: It's wrong to say he went to an Islamic school. He did not, and there is no evidence that there is. Conservatism is about a set of ideals, not fudging the truth. {{unsigned|Impm}}

== 57 Islamic states... ==

1. "It has been observed" is passive voice and weak. 2. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, but I don't think all of these are "Islamic states" in the way that say, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:In addition, make note of the mistake, by all means. But that is the most far-fetched explanation for the number. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, so he must have been thinking that instead? Come on, let's at least TRY to be realistic, if not encyclopedic. This has gone past the line of conservative into fringe thinking. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

No one has come up with any other explanation. Also, by the way, when there is a Muslim majority, it is common to consider it to be an Islamic state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:The other explanation is that it was a slip of the tongue. Not every slip is Freudian and indicates he's actually a Muslim. That's a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, here's the explanation, clear and simple. If you listen to the entire remark, he states that he has one more to go, and Alaska and Hawaii as well. Taking three states from the 50 total, gives you 47 states that he visited. A slip between saying forty-(seven) and fifty-(seven) is more likely especially if he was going to say something about visiting all 50 states (putting fifty in his head). It's more likely he slipped between the forty part and said fifty, as opposed to some outlandish theory of how many Islamic states there are. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::here is the full quote.
::''"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."''
::It is obvious where the number 57 comes from. He accidentally added 10. He excluded Alaska and Hawaii, because his staff "would not justify it" and he had been to all the other states except 1. That leaves 47. I simple mistake, "slip of the tounge" as Jareddr said is the only plausible explanation. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's another explanation - "57 states" is a figure of speech meaning "a whole lot of states". Why 57? Because of the well-known Heinz slogan "57 varieties". A far more likely explanation than some far-fetched attempt to link it to Islam, at least! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Oh right. And Obama learned about Heinz 57 in ... his Islamic grade school!

: Face it, guys. Americans learned that we have 50 states in grade school and no one educated here would ever make a mistake about the number. Obama was educated in an Islamic grade school, which is a very different experience. Perhaps that's not a big deal, but let's be truthful and honest about it rather than pretending he's something he's not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::It was a slip of the tongue, not an actual mistake in knowledge. No one who has lived in the united states any length of time, and served as a US senator would make a mistake about that. If you read the entire quote which I posted above, he clearly goes through the math starting from 50 (all the states) subtracting Alaska and Hawaii, and one other state that he doesn't name. This brings him to 47. He accidentally said 57 (possibly because the number 50 was in his head because that is the number of states) instead of 47. There is no reason for the number of islamic states to have anything to do with it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Tim, that makes a lot of sense. I was puzzled when reviewing the YouTube speech, because he said "fifty ... seven" (where the ellipse indicates a kind of dragging out or pause, where he have begun to be aware of his verbal slip. It makes sense if he meant to say forty-seven because
:::#He went on to say that he was not going to visit Alaska or Hawaii (50 - 2 - 48)
:::#He said he had one state to go (48 - 1 - 47)

:::It might be good for us to contact his campaign HQ and ask for a clarification. Does he stand by fifty-seven, or did he mean forty-seven? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:56, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

According to this site http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp the senator poked fun at himself for saying 57 when he meant 47. It seems like just a verbal slip up to me. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 10:29, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==Drug use==
Why is my statment about drug use being removed? It's an important thing. We all know drugs are dangerous and immoral. People need to be warned that a man who wants to be president used to be a drug addict. What sort of role model would he be? What does this say about his morals? What if he has a relapse while in office? Maybe the drugs have effected his brain. Do we want a president whos brain might be damaged from drug use? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:Please provide a cite. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::He talks about it in his book. Even Wikipedia mentions it. Here is a cite they use [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/21/obama_gets_blunt_with_nh_students/]. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 15:55, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, you can out it in, just put it somewhere further down the page because it is from a long time ago, and has little importance at this point. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do you have any proof he was an addict? Additionally, you put "has allegedly stopped doing them" - why? He is the source for both statements (taking drugs, stopped taking them). [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not that difficult, Wandering. A harmful self-revelation ("I'm a drug user") is likely to be true. In the nature of things, a beneficial self-revelation ("I'm nice and clean now") is less likely to be true. It comes from an understanding of human nature, something in which Liberals are curiously deficient. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, if nothing else, I have to applaud your consistency and the efficiency of your early methods. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:I can't quite see how you're planning to use this against him. After all, the current president was also a cokehead and a pothead-- Oh. Nevermind, I see. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::Are you trying to say drugs aren't addictive? Or it's OK if he didn't do them every day? As for George W. Bush do you have any proof to back up your slanderous attacks, or are you just going to smear him like all liberals do? Barack Hussein Obama admits he did illegal hard drugs. He has no reason to lie about that. He would have a reason to lie if he were still doing them. I don't know if he still does or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. Drug habits are very hard to break. Has he released the results of a drug test to the public? I don't think so. Do you wonder why he hasn't? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Marijuana is not physically addictive, my parodist friend. I'm also not saying it's OK-- Please stop putting words in my mouth. Yes, yes I do: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/ Bush makes sure you know he didn't deny it.] Furthermore, you called marijuana a hard drug, which is incorrect. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::"Marijuana is not physically addictive". Liberals love to pretend their favorite drugs aren't harmful. And did you not see that he did cocaine as well, or are you going to pretend that's not addictive either? He may say he only did it on occasion, but when it comes to drug use you have to take what a person admits they did and multiply it by 10, at least, if you want the truth. And Bush did not say what he did in his youth, so to say he did cocaine is speculation, and just making things up. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good sir, do you have a source to prove that Marijuana is physically addictive? Furthermore, yes, I saw that he did cocaine-- And to say that someone did cocaine ten times doesn't make sense. At that point they'd be addicted. Your logic is flawed terribly. Furthermore, he made a specific effort to not deny he did cocaine. Your remarks that Obama might be doing cocaine in office are, however, pure speculation. Good day. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Whether or not it is "physically addictive" is not important. It is illegal, immoral, and dangerous. It is also a gateway drug to the hard drugs that are even more dangerous. In Obama's case it led to cocaine. You say someone is addicted to cocaine after doing it 10 times. I don't doubt it. How many times has Obama done it? Did he get addicted? I don't know, and I didn't put that in the article. But it is something everyone should be concerned about. We don't say that he is secret a Muslim even though he might be because we can't prove it, but we do rightly mention that he went to an Islamic school, and the 57 Islamic states statement so people can decide for themselves. We should also prominently mention his drug use, so people know that he used to do drugs regularly, and they can decide for themselves if they think it did him any long term harm or if they think he still does and will continue to do so. It's a risk people need to know. It's much more important than his lies about his uncle. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:00, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Tim, I agree with putting it further down the page. Right now the lead looks bad with all these criticisms. I agree that it belongs in the article but I think we should make a seperate section for all of this or include it in the relevant sections already there. We had the same thing on the McCain page. A lead section full of little criticisms of mistakes in speeches until I removed it. What do you think? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::I agree. I think the lead should only include major biographical information. Everything else belongs further down. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:16, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If CP is going to be credible, then George W. Bush's admitted alcoholism needs to be added to that article, or the drug comments removed from this one. Trustworthy means being consistent and fair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:21, 13 June 2
::::No one ever went to prison for being an alcoholic (a word that people use to describe conservatives who drink but rarely liberals). Obama's looking to get into the white house when he should be in the big house. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Be careful what you say. several of your comments have been thinly veiled claims that Obama is a drug addict. You are very close to being blocked. As for Bush, feel free to put anything in that you can find a reference for. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Since you've decided... ==

Since the powers that be have decided to include every single verbal folly (that means word mess-up for all you fancy non-elitist spawns of NON-doctor crazy women who like rape) that Mr. Obama has made, I suggest we include in the page for George W. Bush, that he falsely claimed that OBGYN's all sleep with their patients, childrens are learning, that IRAQ was a good idea, that people in a hundred thousand years will look back and say "Gee, bombing the crap out of a country for no specific reason then sending thousands of troops to die because he liked war was the best idea ever. Lets give him a medal, and every other mess-up that Bush, Sir Quail Hunter, Dan Quayle, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and every other human being who has ever, ever in their life, made a mess mistake is speaking, then connect it to conspiracy theories. Like, for instance when Bush said "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"....HE’S A CANNIBAL!!!!!. And, when the over lord of all of Conservapedia once said "See if you can learn out to spell "superior"....He is a Satanist because the Satanists have a code word which replaces how with out in a condescending tone of voice which means "I hate Jesus". I tried to be a good boy. I tried to do something interesting, then I realized, you can't. Not here. Because the evil commie overlords will always keep you in the dark, tell you to shut up, and hypocrite their way to the top. Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Bush II did it.....and Andy did it. It is amazing that we don't go on merit in this world. We go on who gets up one morning and says, you know what....I don't like them. Sure they are peaceful and aren't bothering me, but they don't quite believe what I believe. I like Jesus, they like Mohammed Ali or some other boxer, so I'm gonna blow their heads up. And tell the people its for their own good, that those evil non Jesus fanatics hate us. Well guess what. Everybody hates americans, for good reason. We are a 231 year old country that thinks we own everything, know better than everybody and have the right to blow you up, all in the name of Jesus, Cash, and the third god, National Frickin Pride. Ban me, and remove the vile stench of idiocy and intolerance from me.

The (hopefully) Gone,

JMarks.

bravo

==Political Views==

My quote below keeps getting (citation needed) put after it. I am glad to site this except I think yellow belly liberals are messing with me. Since when do we need to citations for 'often refers' or 'frequently refuses'? Common, every week occurances don't need citations.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:53, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

quote
Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him just 'George Bush'.

There needs to be a citation, because you can't just say that he does something without proof. Also, when the article says he has 'no executive experience', what does that refer to? Executive as in 'Presidential'? [[WillD]]

OK. I'll make the necessary citations--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Christians==

Any reason why he doesn't belong in this category? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Obama has left his church, and there is substantial skepticism about what he really believes as opposed to merely posturing for political gain. Most Christians do not take the political positions that Obama has taken, such as his support for [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Not being affiliated with a Church does not mean a person is not a Christian, a majority of Christians (at least here in Australia) do not attend Church regularly and have no membership with a religious organisation. Same with the second point, just because Christians disagree with someone it does not remove their faith. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: As often occurs here, detractors like yourself insist on the possibility of an exception rather than accepting a general rule. Obama doesn't simply disagree with "someone", he disagrees with the vast majority of Christians about [[abortion]]. Also, he never changed his Muslim name, while most Christians would upon any real conversion, just as Christians change to Muslim names when the conversion is in the opposite direction (e.g., Cassius Clay -> Muhammad Ali). So numerous indications weight against insisting that Obama must be a Christian. Conservapedia is not fooled by political expedience that can distort the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I would have no problem with Obama being excluded from this category if there were consistency in how it is used, but it seems there isn't. I believe we've never had a non-Christian president, yet several are not in that category (apparently more Democrats than Republicans, which isn't surprising, but excluding George W Bush and Reagan, which is). There are many liberal Christians, so I don't see political position being the deciding factor. As for his name, well, how many people change their name upon conversion to Christianity? (You mention Saul, but are there examples from the past 1900 years to back up your case?) In fact, changing one's name seems to be a Muslim trait (Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Yusef Islam aka Cat Stevens). And is his name a Muslim name, or just a foreign one? Is Fugimori a "Shinto Name"? What is the criteria for being Christian enough to be in the category? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 22:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Christians and Abortion===
[http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Here are some poll results about Americans and abortion]. [http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19771020&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8 Here are some poll results specific to Americans who self-identify as Christians]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 17:59, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Why Wouldn't he Change his Name?===
If he were trying to fake his Christianity, he would certainly change his name '''unless the name "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." had some meaning greater that his political ambition.''' How could we not conclude that the name is a reminder to him of his true loyalties? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why would he change his name? Hussein is not by any means a Muslim name, but rather than Arabic name. You're confusing race with religion here... [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 20:29, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Why WOULD he change his name?===
The entire portion of the article that discusses this is ridiculous. Why should a person change their name at all? It's similar to saying that a person named Weinstein should change their name if they were a Christian, because "Weinstein" is a Jewish name. This portion of the article has no purpose and should be removed. If you want to show why Obama is a poor choice for president, do so. But juvenile attacks like this just make the people doing it look silly. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 11:56, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==57 states, again==

Sorry to say, but that line just seems ignorant. At the time Obama left grade school in 1971, the OIC had 30 members. One of its members, Albania, was officially atheist, while Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Mozambique and Suriname ''did not even exist'' as independent countries. (Bangladesh became independent in 1971, the year he left Indonesia, but in any case didn't join the OIC until 1974.) So the notion that he "learned in grade school" about "57 Islamic states" is absurd on its face. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 12:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: The article doesn't claim Obama learned about "57 Islamic states" in grade school. It does make clear why Obama did not learn about "50 states" in grade school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::1. He had from, say, 1965 to 1967, from 1971 to 2008, and for that matter from 1967 to 1971 to learn that the US has 50 states. In all likelihood we're talking about a slip of the tongue from someone who's made other gaffes (not unsurprising in a grueling primary fight with a loaded schedule and reporters recording his every word). Moreover, if you take the 50 states and add DC, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and Democrats Abroad - all of which had nominating contests - you get to 56.
::2. Even if his remark has some significance (which it doesn't), a serious biography doesn't mention, in its lead section, a remark barely noticed by anyone. You talk about his background, his education, his accomplishments (such as they are), the campaign - but don't veer into speculation on the basis of what is most likely a verbal slip. I don't like the man myself, but some pretense of objectivity should be kept when discussing him. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 14:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It may be a slip of a tongue, just as a racist or other offensive remark can be. But slips of the tongue can cry out for explanation, as this "57 states" slip does. You can bet if any Republican candidate had a "slip of the tongue" that was racial in nature, then liberals would run him out of the contest.

::: I've never heard any American say, as a slip of the tongue, that there are more than 50 states. So Obama's remarks are significant and do cry out for explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Is it appropriate to list all the gaffes of George W. Bush or John McCain as well? He could've read the number fifty seven in something he read before the speech and just slipped up. Surely you've misspoke before? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your explanation is implausible. Yes, of course, we all make mistakes. Dan Quayle made one once, and [[liberals]] hounded him out of politics for it. The point is not that Obama made a mistake, but why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::"He read a piece of information" is a more implausible explanation for misspeaking than "He's a Muslim manchurian candidate who compromised his mission to take over the US and give it to the Muslims"? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats true but G.W.Bush once said he never stopped thinking of ways to harm his country. We dont wonder why he slipped there.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Karl Rove has advised conservatives not to imply that Obama is connected to Islam because it might do more damage to McCain than Obama. I wonder if he might have a point. Christians, after all, did not demand that David Livingstone change his name when he went on a mission trip to Africa. A name is something personal and I would not change my name if I went abroad. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Does Conservapedia avoid telling the truth because it is politically incorrect? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

this conversation is pointless, the idea of whether or not Obama is Islamic has been debated and settled by the media, the conservatives, everyone, sometime ago. Lets do some work not debating about a moot point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp Snopes takes apologist stance on Obama's ignorance of number of US states] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Spot on-- This dirty Muslim clearly mixed up the number of states in the glorious USA with the number of non-observer states in an obscure organization! There is no WAY he could've misspoken, saying fifty-seven instead of fourty seven! [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 18:51, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== More on changing his name ==

I'm starting a new section because it's hard to know where to put this, given that this matter has been touched on a few places above.

AdenJ earned a month-long block for removing the part of the following text that I've italicised:
{{QuoteBox|Obama has declared himself to be a [[Christian]]'', yet never replaced his Muslim name with a Christian one as many do.<nowiki><ref></nowiki>For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]].<nowiki></ref></nowiki>''}}
I don't consider the lack of a name change to be of much significance, and the supporting reason in the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags don't hold up or support the point.
* The evidence seems to be that Saul ''didn't'' change his name to Paul when he became a Christian.[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XOH_jfr5jSYC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=how+saul+became+paul&source=web&ots=Sf3Ox9lJfT&sig=u4VhlygigMQPFiMnzPkuk5hd_mw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA2,M1][http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99746.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/iiim][http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/p/paul.html].
** Rather, he already had both Jewish (Saul) and Roman (Paul) names
** Although it seems that he changed to favouring the Roman one, this was not done at conversion
** There's apparently no good evidence that it was because of his conversion.
** "Paul" being a ''Roman'' name, you can't argue that he changed his name to a ''Christian'' name anyway.
* The text says "as many do", which is an implicit admission that not all do, so an individual not doing so means little.
* Evidence of a "Christian" changing his name upon conversion to Islam is ''not'' evidence that people with Muslim names normally change their name to a Christian one.
So the supporting evidence doesn't support the claim, the claim is questionable, it's removal was justifiable, and AdenJ's block, to the extent that it was due to this edit, was not warranted. And as for it being his ninth block, at least some of the earlier eight do not appear to have been warranted.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:37, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: There were additional reasons for AdenJ's block, including numerous prior blocks by many other Sysops, [[last wordism]] on my talk page after being warned, and what I considered to be deception in his claims about partnerships/marriage in New Zealand ([[Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative]]).

: AdenJ's outright deletion of the name issue without improving it was simply censorship. Philip, you've identified some room for improvement in the entry and those are always welcome. Censorship is not. If someone keeps a Muslim name and, with obviously [[political benefits]], claims to be a Christian, or vice-versa, the name is plainly reason to be skeptical about the self-serving political claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I've already answered the point about his other blocks, which were by ''three'' other sysops, hardly "''many'' other Sysops". I see no sign of ''deception'' on that talk page. The only fault I can see is in implying a generalisation based on anecdotal evidence. As for his "last wordism", he had made a total of ''one'' prior post in that conversation, and his final post was merely trying to explain himself, not continue that particular discussion. It's hardly a good case of "last wordism". Sometimes outright deletion ''is'' improvement, and hardly constitutes censorship unless, perhaps, the deletion is enforced, which he was and is unable to do. As for it being "plainly a reason", I've already provided reasons why, at the very least, it is not ''plain'', and likely not even a reason. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::A small point here, as it's been brought up many times. Muhammed Ali did ''not'' change his name because of his conversion to Islam. He changed his name because Cassius Clay was a "slave name." In other words, his name was a continuation of a name given to an ancestor when his family was enslaved. His name changing was simply part of a larger trend going on in that time period. I won't disagree that what he changed to wasn't religiously motivated, but the change itself was to free himself of what he considered to be a denigrating name, not because of his religious conversion. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 15:28, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: You'll have to explain thousands, or millions, of similar name changes if you are unwilling to acknowledge that a fundamental change in belief does cause most to change their name away from what they reject. To take another high-profile example, Robert Earl Moore changed his name to Ahmad Rashād.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Thousands or millions? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:10, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it is common when people convert ''to'' Islam (it might be a specific tenet of Islam), but is it to religions other than Islam, or is it just a requirement for Muslims? Does anybody with more knowledge of Islam know? It doesn't seem to be common when people convert to Christianity, so that might explain it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::It is a requirement for Muslims. Christianity has no similar requirement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:36, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Some Christian churches do require it. In fact, I think the largest does. Moreover, nearly all evangelical Christians would be uncomfortable keeping a Muslim name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: What church are you referring to? And is it a formal requirement, or just a convention? If the former, can you point me to the requirement? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I think most, perhaps all, churches that authorize [[baptism]] require a Christian name for it. For example, I think the Catholic Church requires a Christian name for baptism. I would expect the Anglican Church to require likewise, and expect that virtually all evangelicals reject continued use of a Muslim name at baptism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::An interesting point. However, that brings up some questions. Is this true of Obama's church? And what exactly is meant by a "Christian name"? In some usage it is a synonym for a first name, which he obviously has. "Barack" is a derivative of "Baruch" an apocryphal Biblical name preceding the foundation of Islam by over a thousand years. I admit I don't know much out baptismal names, but do they have to be "Christian" in the sense that they appear in the New Testament? When someone baptizes their child with one of those trendy new names like "Dakota" or "MacKenzie" do they have separate baptismal names, and if so, do they ever actually use them? If "Bruce" converts in his adulthood and is baptized, does he take a new more distictly Christian name that he then uses regularly? There has been a bit of a backlash recently against changing names, as a response to having "American" names forced upon immigrants at Ellis Island in years past. And I'm still not sure his name is "Islamic" so much as foreign. It's not as if his name is "Barack Muhammad Allah Akbar Hijra Abu Bakr" or anything. [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 11:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama is not an evangelical, however, nor is he answerable to evangelical conventions. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your comment begs the question of what Obama really believes. There's precious little objective evidence that he's a Christian, and much to suggest otherwise. His politically self-serving claim that his Muslim father was a "confirmed atheist" has less than a 1% chance of being true, and that implausibility casts doubt over Obama's other religious claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:53, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

If you have trouble believing that he is actually a Christian, then why would you have trouble believing that he is not an evangelical? Also, what evidence are you referring to that he is not really a Christian? Does this have something to do with the "Freudian slip" that no "real" American could possibly have ever made regarding the number of states in the Union?

As for the prevalence of atheism in Kenya, is it not possible that many people deny being atheists because of anxieties regarding cultural perceptions of atheism? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it really surprising anyone that CP has hopped on the right-wing "Obama is a secret Muslim" bandwagon? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:59, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::Well, I'm not so sure that it's a secret. The evidence may not be perfect, but it is evidence nonetheless. I think he protests too much. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 17:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Is it really surprising that liberals believe Obama's implausible myth that he is a committed Christian? His own brother says he was a Muslim, and there is precious little evidence he ever gave it up. He's been caught in a blatant lie about his past beliefs, there's less than a 1% chance he's telling the truth about his father's beliefs, and less than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity, so there's a less than .01% chance he's been telling the truth about him and his father. But, of course, for people who believe we evolved from monkeys when even if it were possible would be a trillions to one chance, .01% seems probable. People should go to Wikipedia if they want a glowing article on Obama that he could have written himself. We're interested in the ''truth'' here. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::Response to an earlier post:Mr. Schlafly, My comment had nothing to do with debating whether or not all muslims change their names. I was simply stating that Ali's change was not for religious reasons, it was for slavery/cultural reasons '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 19:11, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Ya know what? Now that I think of it, why should it matter what religion he follows? Do people think that there is something inherently wrong with Muslims that makes them unfit for public office? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 19:40, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, there is a problem with the religion he follows. Christians don't kill people, but Muslims kill lots of people all the time. THAT is why it is important.--[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 19:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Actually, it goes like this: ''Moderate'' Christians and Muslims don't kill people. ''Radical'' Christians and Muslims do kill people. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 21:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: If that's true, then there must be relatively few radical Christians, and relatively many radical Muslims, as the latter do a lot more killing than the former. But disagreeing with AdmiralNelson's specific reason, because it doesn't follow that a particular individual is going to be killing just because he's a Muslim, the reason that the religion of a president is important is because a worldview/religion is what shapes one's values and standards, and these ''will'' affect decisions that he will make. So the religion of a president is a very relevant matter to voters. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
::::"Christians don't kill people"? Last I checked, the military was full of Christians, often evangelical. Killing people is a big part of what they do, is it not? Sure you don't want to modify that statement? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 08:12, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: The discussion was clearly about people doing it ''because they were Christian'' or Muslim, so we weren't talking about self-defence, wars, or legal executions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:51, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: If you're implying that radical Muslims kill more often than radical Christians, you're suffering from media/selection bias. Groups like the Army of God and the KKK pridefully kill in the name of Christianity.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:00, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, I'm suffering from truth bias. The KKK is hardly Christian, and the Army of God is an exception to the rule. Besides, how many have those groups killed compared to Muslim killings? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: According to the [http://www.kukluxklan.bz/faq.html KKK FAQ] (on requirements to join):
:::::::#You must be be a free white male or female of European descent, at least 18 years of age.
:::::::#You must be able to profess faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior.
:::::::It's unfortunate, but yes, they are Christian extremists.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:44, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) For me, part of what I look into is what do the texts of the religion say, in this case the Bible and the Koran, with the Koran also having follow up material compiled in the same time period that is revered by Islam as well. I've found it's not a coincidence that extremism is common to Islam as it is much easier to follow based on the writings themselves. In Christianity, it is far more difficult, and so the 'extremists' generally have to bend reality. Where in the Bible does it talk about the need to be a white European as if that is somehow associated with Jesus? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:45, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
: Spot on, Learn together. Anybody can ''call themselves'' "Christian", but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Therefore you need to look at whether their actions and beliefs are consistent with what the Bible teaches. The KKK doesn't qualify. The KKK does not have the support of most of the Christian community. In contrast, I've often noticed tacit if not explicit support for Muslim "extremists" by large sections of the Muslim population. If the rest of the Muslim population condemned the actions of the "extremists", I'd be happy to say that Islam doesn't do much killing either (only people ''calling themselves'' "Muslim"), but that appears to not be the case [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Saul didn't change his name to Paul. At one point Luke says, "Saul, who was also called Paul..." and carries the account on from there. This occurs several chapters after his conversion, and it is simply a Greek form of Saul's Hebrew name. For heaven's sake. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 16:05, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Muslims that kept Semitic or Islamic names ==

[http://www.hesavedme.com/story.htm Hussain Andaryas] kept his semitic name, as did [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1918728/The-Rt-Rev-Hassan-Dehqani-Tafti.html the Rt Rev Hassan Dehqani-Tafti], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CExvHJxJnY this convert (who kept the name "Mohammed")], and [http://www.farsinet.com/dibaj/ the Christian martyr Mehdi Dibaj]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 19:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it possible these people were baptized with Christian names, but chose not to use them as their everyday names? I know Jews often do something similar. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:06, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Islam==
Please upload the picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ObamaDrudge.jpg -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:52, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==He's Gay Too==

Since we're largely using the interview of one person to show that Obama is Islamic, perhaps we should add that [http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/i-had-sex-with-obama/2008/06/19/1213770824274.html he's gay] as well. I'm sure there are some slips of the tongue that will support it as well. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:A couple of our usual sources agree, the evidence is mounting: [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/03/02/obama_americas_first_gay_president][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-gurvitz/rnc-obama-busted-in-gay_b_87221.html] [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
::From what I read, it's nothing beyond an allegation. Until absolute, irrefutable proof shows up, we cannot state that he is gay...because if he is not, then it's libel. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:54, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Then report on the allegation, there is more than enough evidence to warrant its inclusion in the article, and opens the possibility of an alterior motive behind Obama's support for gay marriage. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:03, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: So, Karajou, on that basis we should also not claim that he's not a Christian, until "absolute, irrefutable proof shows up"? I'm glad you agree. So would you mind removing that part that questions his Christianity? Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::My statement here had to do with allegations that he was gay, '''NOT''' about his Christianity. Don't you ever put words in my mouth again. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:33, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: I know that your statement was about homosexuality. But you were rejecting putting that in the article on the basis of a ''principle'', so I merely applied ''your <s>principal</s>principle'' to a different case. Or is there some reason that different principles apply in the different cases? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:39, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::That's ''your conversation'' and ''your principle''. Deal with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:43, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Apart from the typo, that was ''your'' principle (although I basically agree with it). You didn't explain why the same principle doesn't apply in the other case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::These accusations should be in the article. We won't say he is gay, just that a credible source has publicly accused him of it, and he makes a convincing case. People deserve to know that if they vote for Obama, there is a chance they are voting for a homo. We're not making anything up here. It's reliably sourced. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Tony, "sourced" and "reliably sourced" are not the same thing. I can put up a webpage that says John McCain is gay, and then post it here and say it's "sourced". Does that mean it is reliable or in any way accurate? Absolutely not. The Townhall article states that he would be the first "gay" president, and compare it to Clinton being the first "black" president. They're not saying he's gay, but rather that he will fight for gay rights. The second article, from Huffington Post, repeats conservative smears that a picture showing Obama greeting another male is a sign that he's "gay". I've greeted many friends and co-workers in the same manner as the photo portrays, and I'm sure many on this site have made the same greeting as well, without being labeled gay. It's the most flimsy accusation I've ever seen. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't make it true. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:20, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Read the ''first'' article: "Larry Sinclair, a gay man from Minnesota who alleges he snorted cocaine and had sex with the Democratic nominee." This is a man giving a first hand account of a homosexual experience with Obama. We have absolutely no reason to believe that he is making it up. The liberal media is eager to smear Larry Craig as gay merely because an overzealous cop decided tapping his foot was the same as propositioning someone for sex. But someone, damaging his own reputation, admits he had a sexual relationship with Obama and there's a huge whitewash. We don't have to say the accusation is true (though it would explain a lot) but it is a disservice to ignore it. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 12:33, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

The Huffington Post was a piece of satire! The RNC never said that at all, the picture is actually of Barack Obama giving a hug to John Edwards, and it was made grainy on purpose as part of the joke. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 10:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks! It looked so ridiculous, but couldn't see someplace where they stated it was just a joke. I wouldn't put it past the RNC to stoop that low, though, so I had to at least consider that it may be real. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually Tony, there are some good reasons to seriously doubt Larry Sinclair's story. Starting with him failing the polygraph test and his '27-year criminal career which includes convictions for fraud, forging cheques, and stealing credit card numbers'. Then add in his arrest for an outstanding warrant after his press conference and he does not come across as the most credible of sources. There are enough actual problems with Obama that the American people should be focusing on and not getting side tracked by gossip. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 12:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Like the problem of him quite possibly being Muslim or strongly influenced by Islam? That would certainly be an actual problem - hence its inclusion in this article. Do you not think Obama being gay would be an actual problem as well, and lead to a strong pro-homosexuality bias? Anyway, I basically agree with StatsMsn on this matter - and as with the Muslim issue, tthere are sources, and we're not making statements, only relaying the words of others on this controversy. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:24, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

The problem with the whole gay thing is that the only source for that is VERY non-credible (Larry Sinclair). The Townhall article wasn't postulating that Obama is in fact a homosexual, but would be the first 'gay' President like Clinton was said to be the first 'black' President, as someone who is believed to strongly advocate for that community and is very much accepted by that community WITHOUT actually being a member. The Huffington Post was a bit of satire and not a serious article. I think that how Islam has influenced Obama is a legitimate topic and should be discussed but by engaging in gossip (Obama is gay) it takes away from the legitimacy of actual concerns that may (and should) be expressed about him. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 16:41, June 21 2008 (EDT)

==Unlock For Update==
In Senate section, this needs to be included in the GI Bill or the following sentence needs removed. ''"Taxes of those earning... for ten years."''

''Add-'' Democrats dropped a provision to pay for the GI college benefits by imposing a half-percentage point income tax surcharge on incomes exceeding $500,000 for singles and incomes over $1 million earned by married couples<ref>[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1], http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1 , AP Bipartisan accord reached on war funding bill, June 19, 2008</ref>--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Under Published criticism, A fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution. Dobson Accuses Obama of 'Distorting' Bible <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/rel_dobson_obama/2008/06/23/106961.html] , http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/rel_dobson_obama/2008/06/23/106961.html, June 23, 2008</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

These include the statements "God ....". I am starting to have seconds thoughts about seeing this posted here. It is just such an outlandish amount of disrespect to God, that maybe it shouldn't be repeated, thoughts(name in Vein)?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

== Examples of "non-charisma" ==

I saw this in the encyclopedia page ("Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a teleprompter. 'Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion.'[62] The New York Times noted that 'Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify.'[63] When Obama ridiculed Hillary Clinton for being like Annie Oakley, it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.[64]") and was wonderng if someone could direct me to a audio file or website that has an example of one of his bad speeches
--[[User:Thedude|Thedude]] 20:05, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Speculation vs Fact ==

I'm still relatively new here but would like to clarify something (at the risk of beating a dead horse). For the paragraph "Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation. Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors." should "presumably" be allowed in the article? It seems that the statement becomes speculation rather than an established fact. Also the citation attached to it does not make that claim either.

I don't have the rights to do an edit to the main article so I'm writing it here. Hope it doesn't count against my 90/10 thing.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:41, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh and on an unrelated note, there's a space missing in "thePennsylvania".--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:43, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm being anal here but the following need minor corrections 
"president of the United States" - Capitalization 
"office of the presidency" - should be "Office of the President" 
"Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book <s>and</s> ''or'' community organizing."--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:56, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

: I don't see your typos there any more. Were they fixed?

: As to pointing out how Obama has catered to anti-military donors, that can hardly be disputed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Hard to be disputed when dispute is not allowed or called "violation of 90/10 rule; talk, talk, talk". --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:01, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Hmm I still see the typos after refreshing the page. Specifically "thePennsylvania" is in paragraph 4, "president" in paragraph 2, "office..." in paragraph 7 under Presidential Campaign and "either/or" in the last paragraph under "Positions and Qualifications".

:: Perhaps Obama's pandering is obvious, but the current phrasing of "presumably" indicates speculation. But I guess the main concern I had was that the citation #15 isn't relevant to the statement since the main gist of the article is that Obama's actions have "frustrated some anti-war figures" rather than pandered to them. And the action it refers to is his voting record and not his lapel pin.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 23:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Corrected "thePennsylvania", but don't see a lowercase "p" in "president" as an error. The trend is towards using more lowercase, and the Economist uses a lowercase "p" for "president".

::: The "presumably" point can hardly be disputed or doubted, and I don't agree with the proposition that "presumably" is never appropriate in an encyclopedia. The citation is helpful because it shows that anti-military support was not guaranteed for Obama, and some pandering was required to obtain that. Of course, improvements in citations are always welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:19, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

== Article Locked ==

If the article is locked by a sysop, wouldn't that constitute [[last wordism]]? Obviously only sysops can then decide what may or may not be put in the article, becoming the final arbiters on any discussions. It doesn't seem very egalitarian. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wow ==
Take a look at this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=363195 article's last edit] before he won the Iowa caucus and compare it to the coat rack of half-truths and insinuations that it has become. It saddens me; I was hoping that Conservapedia would develop into a worthy competitor to Wikipedia and that the competition would inspire both sites to improve their content. Alas.

Unfortunately, this article now seems to be attempting to fulfill a political agenda instead of act as an encyclopedia. Of the myriad goals this article sets out to accomplish, the attempt to paint Obama as an anti-American secret Muslim is the most disgusting. Sure, he made a mistake and said 57 states. I look at that statement and think, "So he said fifty instead of forty." But instead of ignoring an obvious mistake and focusing on actual political issues, they assume his mind was wandering to the membership number of the Organization of Islamic States. That's not a remotely logical jump; perhaps a more reasonable one would be Interstate 57, which bisects his home state of Illinois? Personally, I just think the man was a tad tired - he was, after all, campaigning non-stop for six months straight.

Furthermore, the Muslim misdirection seems to me to be a direct attempt to play on people's fears. People are afraid of what's different, so the goal is to make him as different as possible. Hillary tried the same tactic; she, with ten times his earnings, managed to convince Pennsylvania that a biracial man abandoned by his father and raised by a single mom was an "elitist". But it's not enough, so we stack on the Muslim accusations and criticize his foreign sounding name (which, in my opinion, is not as weird as "Millard Fillmore") just to drive the point home. It's disgusting that we use such tactics in what is supposed to be a democracy, where problems are solved by our collective wisdom and not by beating the opposition into submission.

But perhaps most indicative of all, this article is also written from the approach of automatically assuming Obama to be a liar. He says his father was an atheist, but you assume he's lying. He finds Christ and goes to church (and what a church...) for years, but you call it "politically self-serving? ''Have we, as a nation, become so cynical and skeptical than we doubt one's conversion to Christ?''

Now, one of two things will happen. One, you'll read what I wrote and maybe take some - not all - into consideration. You'll tone it down a bit and focus on substantiative criticism (since I hardly expect, and would be disappointed by, a full rewrite into a bright shiny happy piece about him) of Obama, such as his opposition to Petraeus' plans that are clearly working or his refusal to tap America's natural resources to relieve our pain at the pump. Or two, you'll see the five paragraphs I've written and ignore it as too long and do nothing, and the article will continue to be burdened by lies, accusations and insinuations, and if I'm not banned I'll still probably leave in disgust. I hope that we, as Americans, can come together to fix the more egregious errors and better our democracy through substantiative debate about the issues that we all hold so dear going into this critical election. Thank you for reading. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well that article doesn't go so far as to mention his last name is similar to Osama. Hussein in his middle name is Saddam Hussein's last name. And Barack rhyms with Iraq. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 17:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, but it's not so much the attacks as the nit picking nature of them- we've got calling a senior lectureship a professorship, saying 57 instead of 47, the fact that his uncle helped liberate a different concentration camp, the fact that he has no executive or military experience (I've been wondering about the executive part- is that refering to presidential experience?)... it all just seems a bit overplayed. [[WillD]]
::I agree, nitpicking is a good way to look at it. The article has missed the forest for the trees and, to further our usage of cliches, is missing the broad strokes. Although the executive experience part I believe refers to never holding a position similar to President but on a lower level; i.e., he's never been a governor, a mayor, or any other such position.--[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:08, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
::: ''"article will continue to be burdened by lies, accusations and insinuations"'' Hmmm, if there wasn't references, you might have had a valid point.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: It's the usage of sources and the presentation of them that is problematic. This article, instead of finding sources and writing an article based off of them, is making claims and then adding "sources" that loosely connect them. An example is the Kenyan father thing; he says his father was a Muslim-turned-atheist, but the article indicates that because less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, it's impossible. You don't see the problem with that? Even ignoring that Obama himself says his father was an atheist (and who, despite being abandoned by him, knew him far better than any of us), it isn't possible Obama Sr. is one of those less than 1% of Kenyans?
:::: And if that isn't enough, here's an interview by British newspaper The Guardian with [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/barackobama.uselections2008 one of Obama Sr.'s daughters by another mother], who says "His [Barack's] father was never a Muslim although he was born into a Muslim family with a Muslim name." That would be a proper source, if it weren't for the fact that it completely contradicts what's written. The Muslim insinuations should be removed. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:46, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: The entry is factual. Obama's self-serving claim that his father was an atheist has all the plausibility of anything else that occurs less than 1% of the time. That Obama asserts that this was true before Obama could have possibly known (e.g., before Obama was born) only adds to implausibility of it.

::::: By the way, your quote (also self-serving) by Obama's relative does not indicate that Obama Sr. was an atheist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

She doesn't say he was an atheist, but she does say he was not a Muslim. And I doubt that a woman who apparently has never left Kenya would have much to gain by lying about her father's religious beliefs. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 18:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

: But you missed the point, perhaps intentionally: Obama claimed Obama Sr. was an atheist, a claim having an obvious effect of appeasing both atheists and Christians. Too bad that it is so implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== President experience ==

Abraham Lincoln had 2 years in the house and 8 years in the state legislature. JFK was 8 years in the senate and 6 years in the house. Madison was 8 years in the house and 4 years in state legislature. Hoover was 7.5 years in the cabinet - was never in the state legislature, governor, house, or senate. Harrison was 6 years in the senate. http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html goes into the various experience of various presidents. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:30, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==James Dobson on Obama==
James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, points out that Obama distorts the Holy Bible for his own political ends [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_el_pr/rel_dobson_obama]--[[User:Goodman|Goodman]] 22:05, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::James Dobson was apparently not listening closely to his speech. Obama's point was that policy should be made by people who don't automatically use Christian principles alone to make decisions. The reasons for policy decisions should be made accessible by people of all affiliations, not just Judeo-Christian ones. Dobson is just angry because his name was mentioned in a speech by a liberal candidate. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:19, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Is it me or do liberals always need others to explain what they have said?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:04, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

==Islamic holidays==
"However, clearly Obama would have taken days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays. ". What are we suggesting he should have done, in a country where the schools close for Islamic holidays? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:31, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

For today, he should enlighten us all to his past. He refuses to give us much detail. When you are running for the highest office in the land, nothing can be hidden. Did he go home and watch TV during his days off? Maybe he celebrated the Holidays by attending a Mosque. What we don't know he can easily cast aside by explaining. He grew up in a predominate Muslim country. He left a Christian school after two years. The rest has yet to be explained.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
::Because you don't know something you think it has to be explained? Would you like to describe for us what you did on every holiday you took off school? Maybe you spent them attending meetings of the Communist party? "What we don't know he can easily cast aside by explaining." [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:What difference does it make what he did? You would think we'd be better off focusing on his foreign and energy policies than pondering what he did with his free time when he was 10. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I would focus on his foreign and energy policy, if he had one! The little he has accomplished, I disagree with completely.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:23, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Didn't want you to hurt yourself with actually, you know, looking, so here you go, Jpatt: [http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/ Foreign Policy] and [http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/ Energy Policy] --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

: yawn, much talk but nothing of logic--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 02:16, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Affirmative Action?==
The line "If elected, Obama would be the first Affirmative Action President" should be replaced with "If elected, Obama would be the first African-American Affirmative Action President." By Conservapedia's definition, many white male Presidents did benefit from their "race or gender", and qualify as Affirmative Action Presidents.

: I think the main problem is not the phrasing of the claim but rather the claim itself. Not only does it insinuate that Obama has done absolutely nothing noteworthy in his entire life, but it is also inherently racist. I'm a conservative and will be voting for John McCain, but I really don't think he'd approve of this either. This website seems to approach politics like it's some kind of all-out war in which you should do anything, from lie to slander to smear to win. That's just wrong. This article, this Obama article, is giving us conservatives a bad name. If Obama loses this election, it should be on his policies and ideas, not because someone told everyone he was a Muslim.

==Barack Obama Visits Wounded War Veterans==
Barack Obama makes a surprise visit to wounded war veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_veterans/2008/06/28/108211.html], http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_veterans/2008/06/28/108211.html ,AP Barack Visits Wounded Vets, June 28, 2008 </ref> The visit wasn't on his public schedule.

In the past, Obama criticized the Bush administration for veterans treatment returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since becoming a US Senator, it has taken Obama more than 1270 days or three and a half years to visit our countries finest wounder soldiers in Washington, D.C.
:I assume you specifically mean the ones at Walter Reed, since he's visited [http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_veterans/2008/06/28/108211.html other] veterans in the past. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

==Place of birth==
Last week on talk radio (the Shaun Hannity program I think) they raised the issue of where Barack Obama was born. Apparently, his campaign cannot produce a birth certificate. If he was not born in the United States, he cannot be the President. That is in the Constitution--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 13:08, 29 June 2008 (EDT).
:Technically they produced an image of his [http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert birth certificate]. Sean Hannity and Right-Wing blogs question its authenticity. This feeds into the "He's a foreigner! Scary!" meme. If you don't think he's a citizen and isn't eligible to be President, telling CP probably won't do much. Instead, I'd suggest you contact the appropriate federal agency and tell them. Although, since elections are technically handled state-by-state, you will probably need to contact the Secretary of State for each state and file your complaint. Would you like help locating those agencies to check into your allegations? Of course, one should be mindful, as I wonder whether this type of accusation would be considered "libel".--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 13:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::He should be required to produce an authentic certificate, issued by the state of Hawaii. As for libel, that is simply a liberal scare tactic. Truth is a perfect defense against libel. After all, you don't see Richard Lenski trying to sue Andy Schlafly do you? That's because he knows that Andy's doubts about his research are true.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 13:55, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Who should he be required to produce it to for verification? Again, if you think that he isn't constitutionally qualified, the onus falls on YOU to request that he provide verification. The requests should be sent to the Secretaries of State, as they are the ones who are in charge of elections in each state. So if you believe it so firmly, do something about it. Don't sit here and complain, go out and force it. Or are you going to just grumble about it and make accusations without following up? And as for Lenski suing Schlafly--I don't think CP's questions have done any "harm" to Lenski's reputation and the time of going through and filing a lawsuit for libel? You'd be up in arms claiming it was a waste of the court's time to hear that case. Seems if Lenski doesn't file a lawsuit you'll say it's because he knows he's wrong, and if he does file a lawsuit, you'll say it's a waste of time. So that example doesn't really hold any water, in my book. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:45, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::That's a good point. I'll add it to [[Lenski]]'s page. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:30, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Well when you get a job with the government (Senator falls in this category) you have to give the US Government your birth certificate. If it was false something would have come up earlier. If it is good enough for the US Government it should be good enough for everybody else.

::::: "If it is good enough for the US Government it should be good enough for everybody else." I'm afraid you may be on the wrong site, my friend. We tell the truth here regardless of what other people may or may not accept.

::::: The standards for confirming legal status for a government employee are not, obviously, as high as the standards for ensuring compliance with the U.S. Constitution by a potential U.S. President.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:44, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::What evidence would be acceptable proof of his being born in the US? I'm fairly certain that I could find such evidence, if I knew what would be considered valid. [[User:Ithig|Ithig]] 17:12, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Here is a link to a story regarding the birth certificate story. Obama may be in trouble if the Republicans have the gumption to pursue this.[http://americatalks.blogspot.com/2008/06/birth-certificate-could-doom-obama.html]--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 08:48, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::: The US Government would know where Obama was born. I think they would've spoken out and say "hey wait a minute" at some point in the past year and a half he's been running this campaign.

::::World Net Daily and The National Review (both trusted Conservapedia sources) acknowledge the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and consider it a non-issue.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66991

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=

Could some sysop please delete the word "alledged" from the birth information? I would do it myself (and do a productive edit) but the page is locked. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 14:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Why hasn't anyone made this change? It is absolutely clear that even trusted conservative sources don't think that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. Continuing to suggest otherwise is just a infantile smeer. Isn't any sysop gutsy (or fair) enough to make the change? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 22:48, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

== Death Knell for Affirmative Action? ==

Interesting article related to the opinion that Obama is an affirmative action candidate. It says that, in actuality, Obama proves [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/28/affirmative-action-hurt-by-obamas-success/ there's no need for affirmative action]. "Barack Obama's political success might claim an unintended victim: affirmative action, a much-debated policy he supports.
Already weakened by several court rulings and state referendums, affirmative action now confronts a challenge to its very reason for existing. If Americans make a black person the leading contender
for president, as nationwide polls suggest, how can racial prejudice be so prevalent and potent that it justifies special efforts to place minorities in coveted jobs and schools?" --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 13:51, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== List of Obama VP's refusing to take the number 2 job==

* Ted Strickland (D) Governor of Ohio
* Jim Webb (D) Senator of Virginia
* Jack Reed (D) Senator of Rhode Island
* Claire McCaskill (D) Senator Missouri
* John Edwards (D) Frm. Senator N. Carolina

==Employment while a student==

Does two summer jobs in six years at university count as "working your way through"? Even liberal Newsweek calls this [http://www.newsweek.com/id/144336 a bit of a stretch]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

That section should be revised , it currently says that Obama 'apparently did not hold any jobs during college or law school'. Wouldn't something along the lines of 'however his campaign can only provide information of two jobs held during those years' be more accurate? [[User:tordenvaer|tordenvaer]] 16:59, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

==Double up==
Hi,
This page is locked so I cant fix it but the whole intro is repeated under the section Published Criticism? Can someone fix?
Thanks!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 01:39, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

==Flip-flopping==

Can we include a section that specifically talks about his changes in policy positions (AKA flip-flops). This will help to accurately portray him in terms of what he is willing to do to win an election.

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-07-24T19:07:57Z

RoyS:

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]

==Most Liberal?==

What about Bernie Sanders?

==False Citation==

In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer." when according to the source cited: "http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html" it says he is. When I edited it to say the truth according to the website, it was reverted. Why?

I have edited it again. I understand that this website is supposed to have a conservative twist, but unless conservatism is about spreading lies, then it shouldn't do so.

==Religious Views==
Is "reared a Baptist" accurate? Was he born and raised Baptist? Did he attend Christian church while going to Indonesian public schools? He talks of no religion and of finding religion in his book, I think (didn't read). reared?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:If you read the article correctly, you would know that Obama is a secret Muslim--[[User:Ivysaur|Ivysaur]] 17:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::Franklin Graham (son of Billy) tried to find out is Obama was a Christian. It looks like the answer is no![http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68581]--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 16:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Actually, the quote from that article is that Obama said, 'Jesus is the only way for me. I'm not in a position to judge other people.' when asked if he believed that Jesus was the only way to salvation. All of the accusations in that article indicating that he is a Muslim have already been cited (from the original sources, not an article which cites them in turn) on this or the main page. [[User:Ithig|Ithig]] 17:25, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== No citation ==

"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"

Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.

: No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting [[Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?

== Why lead with the criticisms? ==

This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Sad. No responses at all. The people conservapedia likes will get decent articles, those that it dislikes will lead with critcism. Hm, sounds like bias to me. Oh well. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 10:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: The response is obvious: good entries lead with the most informative material, just as newspaper articles and good encyclopedias do. We don't fall for the Wikipedia trick of [[placement bias]], where it leads with [[liberal fluff]] and buries or omits informative truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: LOL! [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 07:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::Yesaliberal indeed. Where reason fails, resort to infantile mockery. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Point taken. As I said, the criticisms and his misrepresentations should be included by all means. I'm a firm believer in the "warts and all principle." It's the differences between the layouts of the articles of say Obama and G.W. Bush which introduce the bias that you accuse Wikipedia of. Wouldn't it be unbiased to include criticisms of Bush at the same relative position as Obama, such as the WMDs issue in Iraq? Surely war criticism must rank at least as highly as the "57" issue mentioned in Obama's article, particularly since this is perhaps a case of mis-speaking on Obama's part. Bush is almost legendary for his oratory stumbling. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, if you want to get to "informative truth," why isn't the top of John McCain's page about how he sold other POWs out, didn't pay his taxes, and left his crippled wife in the 70's for a beer fortuness that was worth 100 mil and was 18 years younger than him? That would seem biased and mean toward McCain, wouldn't it? Yeah, it would, and it's no different here. We need to have respect for Republicans and Democrats alike, especially the two men who one of them is going to be the President by next January. [[User:Impm|Impm]]

== Nomination timing ==

Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the [http://www.democrats.org DNC's website] has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

: That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.

: The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Jareddr, [[conservatives]] don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Association with Black supremacists ==

I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.

He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

:I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switching the two pictures' placement ==

Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute [[photo bias]] according to previous attempts. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action ==

I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--[[User:Carterlansford|Carterlansford]] 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I thought he actually had won his seat in the Senate because more people voted for him. I had no idea that the other person had actually gotten more votes in the election, but because of Affirmative Action, they gave it to Obama anyway. Makes me wonder why they even had an election to begin with. [Dingus]

Well, look. Any black person who competes with any white person for anything in America has the benefit of white guilt and preferential treatment. That's because the liberals run everything. This in turn means that any time you see a black person in a good job you can say, "That just proves black people are inferior, because he wouldn't be there without affirmative action." This seems to be the subtext here, anyway. And not to put too fine a point on it, it's as racist as a burning cross.

ASchlafly: Is it inconvenient to be so transparent? Do people, like, see you digesting your breakfast and stuff? [[User:Archer070]]

==huh?==
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:: [[Liberals]] do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:

{{cquote|So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.}}

Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Complaint ==

''"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"''

This is clearly a heavily biased statement. After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes. This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased. Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.

Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"

''Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)''

This is simply amazing.

: Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources. Obama catered to that support in key ways.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Then why not call it "anti-war"? It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldier. In fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier. The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.

: It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many [[leftists]] hate soldiers. They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I know many leftists, and none of them seem to hate soldiers. One of my good friends is extremely left-wing (has gay parents), and is ''in'' the military. I'm not sure the "General Betrayus" comment was necessarily anti-military, it seemed more anti-a-specific-person. And what about all of the pro-veteran bills being introduced by Democrats? I think it's ''without a doubt'' that many leftists are anti-war, but I think it's a stretch to say they're anti-soldier.--[[User:Cockamamie|Cockamamie]] 12:32, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Don't you have to actually show that *Obama himself* hates soldiers and/or is anti-military before putting that in his entry? Are there no standards whatsoever here except not being liberal? [Dingus]

I don't appreciate you changing the title of my question to "liberal complaint". I am a conservative. The problem here is that you have such a great opportunity to present conservative and liberal viewpoints free of the bias normally associated with them. I believe that true conservative ideals do not need to be slanted or have their opposition omitted to be attractive. You are in fact using standard liberal practices of accepting only "convenient" facts and purposefully omitting opposing viewpoints. These practices, which are unfortunately present in abundance, are serving only to perpetuate a negative stereotype of conservatism. What you're doing is hurting our ideals when you have a tremendous opportunity to be helpful.

::: Obama raised money, big money, from anti-military supporters. Moveon.org actually endorsed Obama and raised a ton of money for him, and Moveon.org took out an ad in the NY Times mocking our top general. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: So when racists endorse McCain, you'll edit McCain's entry to indicate that he's running a racist campaign?[Dingus]

::::: You speak in non sequiturs. McCain does not welcome any racist donations. Obama welcomed tens of millions of dollars in largely anti-military donations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, but McCain accepted 300k from a man who likened rape to bad weather, saying that "as long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it." He also told a female competitor for Governor of Texas, the office he was running for, that he would "hog her and tie her and drag her through the dirt." McCain accepted 300,000 dollars for his campaign that this man raised. So I suppose McCain is a raging sexist, too?

:: If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:

:: ''* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

:: ''* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 17:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a '''citation needed'''{{fact}} to some [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=469755&oldid=469754 unreferenced opinions]], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why, yes. Yes they do.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 15:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Michelle Obama ==

To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: [http://obamaquotes.com/Squidoo-Xmas-Card-Portrait.jpg Obama Family Christmas Card]?

:: Might not be good enough for this page; they don't seem enough like angry black militants.

== Curious about removal of "liberal bias" ==

Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal ''bias'', not one that censors facts that happen to be ''inconvenient'' to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aehlinger|here]. If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.

::::: AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresome. Let's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as [[liberals]] are fond of saying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

::::::: Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say [[Obama]] that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obvious. Do you believe the press secretary for [[George W. Bush]] with such fervor also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:The press release reads, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama '''served as a professor''' in the Law School." Obama said, "I was a constitutional law professor," not "I held the title of professor." Your position is untenable, Mr. Schlafly; you might want to admit that you were wrong, and move on. Besides, the public relations arm of the University of Chicago—the world's leading school of conservative economics, I might add—is not a professional advocate for the Barack Obama campaign the way Dana Perino is a professional advocate for the President. [[User:Hindublog|Hindublog]] 17:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

If I could propose another track, the whole discussion about Obama's "professorship" is based on everyone's different idea of what a professor is. Some say a professor has to be the research/paper-publishing/tenured kind while others say it's up to the employer. How about actually using Conservapedia's definition of [[professor]] to decide whether or not he is one? Given this is an encyclopedia after all, I would think that's the most logical (conservatively or liberally) definition to use.

The current definition stands as ''"based on peer review of the scholar's work, and a process of election by his peers as specified by the rules of each college or university"''. I suggest everyone base their arguments on this definition, or alternatively work to improve the rather skimpy Professor article instead of waging an edit war here.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 22:19, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Punishment image ==
'''Note to editors''' 
If you remove the '''Image:Punishment.jpg''' from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the '''blocks for removing the image''' will be '''increased to 3 days'''. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 21:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp

:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Editors" not "Editor's" [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.[[User:Godlover|Godlover]] 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:That certainly does look like blocking for ideology. Besides, [[:Image:Punishment.jpg]] is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image. If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused as to how the image is relevant at all. It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information. The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter. And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only is the image accurate and acceptable, the fact that liberals are obsessed with removing it shows it makes a difference. Somebody removed it again. make sure you keep it up until the end of the year at the least.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The image is unrelated. The quote is very applicable, but should be used separately from the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:Since it is such a contentious issue the image should stay and the question should be referred to Andy or senior sysops for decision. It is not for anyone to remove. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::something being contentious is not reason enough for it to be in the article. In order for an image to be part of an article it has to have some connection to the article itself. The image in question, (a baby held in hands) has no connection to Barack Obama, and therefore deserves no place in the article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It is contentious between sysops and therefore hasty action ought not to be taken. You can read what Dean has said at the head of this section. Why should sysop CPAdmin1 have more or less authority than sysop DeanS? Where there is such a clash, the answer is not to have an edit war, but to refer the matter upstairs. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: If the image is unrelated, than consider taking down Obamas no hand over the heart during the national anthem. Obama says he is partiotic just not in a normal way. The guy has a 100% record on death to children in the womb. Abortion is a big issue and Obamas view of a mistake is a baby. He should be called out in any image. Is a baby a mistake? You decide if Obama is right by looking at the picture. The connection is clear. If not allowed to stand, then a picture of mutilated aborted child should take its place.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::The quote can stand without the image. People don't need a picture to know what a baby is. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

: Where is DeanS? There is a picture of a child in womb on John McCains page. What is the difference between images? Remove Obama's quote and keep the Picture with the headline Punishment.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::I also removed the picture from the McCain article.
I have protected this article because of disruptive edit-warring. Wil the involved parties please seek consensus on this talk page instead of reverting? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:57, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:A great idea - perhaps someone should convene the Student Panel and get them to rule on this.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::Why don't you do it? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I assume that is something a sysop/site administrator would do.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope. You can do it if you want. But why not have the involved editors (or even the entire conservapedia community) come to consensus on this talk page? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Are you talking about a true consensus - one editor one vote? or one sysop one vote? Or one senior admin one vote? Well, for my two cents' worth - the picture is silly, adds nothing to the article and makes Conservapedia look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It does the whole project a disservice and robs the implied editorial position (a position which I disagree with but respect), that B.O. is an inferior candidate to J.M. of a lot (as in almost all) credibility. Oh, yeah - the U of C CLEARLY stated that B.O. held a title "equivalent to professor." Why is that such a problem? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Thank you for your opinion. Now we are going to wait to see what other editors say. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I would make the image smaller, and with a more detailed caption as to what it is, where it came from, and the source of the Obama quote within. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: There's no reason to have the image at all, as it has nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry on Obama. Alice is correct in saying that it makes CP look like a conservative blog. Like I said previously, I could go through and do the same thing to other pages, slapping on "witty" macros, but that wouldn't contribute anything to the encyclopedic goals of CP. The image should stay removed. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::::::Do you think this image would be better in an article about the campaign between Obama and McCain, as in a something about means and methods used to get a point across? It may have an actual quote from Obama, but it's still a campaign poster. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Is that an article yet? It is fairly early. Does it still need to be written? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou - only if the poster came from somewhere with some sort of notability - the RNC, the McCain campaign, a large, nationwide right-to-life group, something of that nature. As far as I understand, this thing was put together on an open access website and published on Some Guy's Blog. I could run off a dozen similar things in an hour and put them on a blog somewhere - that hardly warrants their inclusion in an encyclopedia article.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::True, but it doesn't automatically exclude it either. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::As a campaign image, it could go in an article about the current campaign, but I agree with Alice in that the image appears to have been created by a single individual not connected to anything beyond a personal blog. If the image was created by a McCain staffer, than it could be included.
::::::::::The article should be titled "2008 Presidential Campaign", and have subtopics on all the participants and their outcomes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Page does exist: [http://www.conservapedia.com/2008_Presidential_Campaign]. Maybe make a subtopic on methods used by all sides to put their point across. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:38, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::Or we could not put any propaganda up on the encyclopedia at all until the issue is over with or unless it is highly influential (a la that ad with the atomic bomb and the young girl), as would seem more appropriate for a reference site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 23:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::The image has no place in an encyclopedia article. It does not relate to Obama or to the quote. I think it should be deleted. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Your removal of the image defeats the purpose of my locking the page in an dispute resolution attempt. I am now entirely confused as to how to solve this, now the other users will cry foul and I will be forced to unlock commencing the revert war. I personally thought that we were on our way to reaching consensus. *sigh* [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::I think that a consensus can be reached just as easily without the image in the article in the meantime. I think that while debating and coming to a consensus it makes more sense to have the questionable image out of the article. It is certainly not hurting the article, or the credibility of this site while it is not in the article. The debate is over whether it does that while in the article. Therefore, it makes more sense to keep it out of the article, and not in a position to be a problem. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
If it is deleted from the article how can people reach an informed decision on whether it should be in the article or not? It appears to me that you are asserting ownership of this piece, and that is neither justified nor justifiable. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I oppose the picture, it offers no value. The quote might but the picture does not
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I support the picture, it offers enormous value. The left wins when it is removed. The left that supports abortion and the candidate who condones abortion wins. Silence opposition to abortion, go ahead, smart move that you will answer for one day.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I oppose the picture's inclusion. The quote is already in the article; the picture is unnecessary and does not belong in an encyclopædia. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:Don't get me wrong. I hate abortion as much as anyone here. That photo just is not related to Obama. If you want to put the photo in the abortion article, go ahead. as for making an informed decision, I'll put the photo here where people can look at it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
[[Image:Punishment.jpg|325px|thumb|right|]]

== "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." ==

Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins. Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, now Obama supporters are going to imply that a criticism about his lack of lapel pin has something to do with his ethnicity?! Obama supporters are hilarious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::Guess who does wear a flag pin.....[http://tingilinde.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/29/craigmugshot.jpg Mr. Bathroom Knocker] himself. Lets automatically vote him for president, as he completes the only requirement to be a president, wearing the sacred flag pin. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:Right wingers are terrifying. You may think I'm hilarious, but the vast majority of African Americans think the flag pin controversy is simply a front by the right (As well as the constant use of his middle name, Hussein) to make the case that Obama is somehow 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic'. Well, the American people are really sick of it this time Mr. Schlafly. We're not going to stand for this dinosour 'got ya' politics anymore. Come November, the American people will have spoken and your brand of smear, insult and pettiness will become nothing more than an internet phenonomon, where only the most disjointed will indulge in the politics of character destruction. I hope you enjoyed your twenty years under the sun, but finally, America is going to enter the 21st century. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 09:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

The sentence which indicates that Obama wearing a flag pin "might be political pandering" has no reference and no basis in verifiable fact. This comment should be removed. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 11:50, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Introduction==

The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone have any interest in discussing how to actually improve this article, or are we happy to allow the outline of an article be overwhelmingly critical? If you are serious about making an encyclopedia, then please, consider professional measures even about people you dislike. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 10:02, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:TB - The site's administration has made it clear that the tone of this article is not up for negotiation: From the professor-not-a-professor question and the choice to ignore what the U of C has to say on the matter, to the baby image to the fact that while the McCain article excuses his voting absences due to the fact that JM is running for President while the Obama article makes no such excuse.... So while some editors may, as you put it, "have [an] interest in discussing how to actually improve this article," Conservapedia, as an institution, would prefer to "allow the outline of [the] article be overwhelmingly critical." You don't like it? Go edit at Wikipedia, or do as Aschafly did, and start your own wiki project.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Why the concern, though? I too was annoyed at the coverage, and then came to a realization last night. Who is CP's audience? Homeschoolers? Assuming this is their only political reference point---they're too young to vote anyway. And any adult who uses CP as a primary source of information isn't likely to vote for Barack Obama regardless of whether CP acknowledges he served as a professor or not. Anyone who sees this site and buys the information presented was never, and will never be, a Barack Obama voter. So why waste the energy trying to correct the misinformation on the site for viewers that won't use it anyway? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Structure==

I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would like to see a standardized structure for articles on politicians. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] is what you are looking for. It seems to me that the first step in complying with this template would be to move most of the intro into the relevant sections in the article. The intro should only include "'''Subject's Name''' (in bold) followed by a brief synopsis of notable positions held or sought." ~ [[User:Ithig|Ithig]] 11:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== The Senior Lecturer Reference ==

The reference that CPadmin1 used says that Obama "served as a professor in the law school." Since that information, quoted verbatim, was removed earlier, perhaps another reference should be used, lest that information leak out? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The references being used for this section are incorrect. If you follow the link on the pages you eventually get to this page: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html. There it states: Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The statement being made is blatantly false and has been addressed by the university of Chicago.--[[User:Redragon104|Redragon104]] 14:09, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam." ==

"Presidential scrutiny" is vague - did the President scrutinize the school? I think "media scrutiny" is what you mean.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Great point. Please change accordingly. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
: It's wrong to say he went to an Islamic school. He did not, and there is no evidence that there is. Conservatism is about a set of ideals, not fudging the truth. {{unsigned|Impm}}

== 57 Islamic states... ==

1. "It has been observed" is passive voice and weak. 2. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, but I don't think all of these are "Islamic states" in the way that say, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:In addition, make note of the mistake, by all means. But that is the most far-fetched explanation for the number. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, so he must have been thinking that instead? Come on, let's at least TRY to be realistic, if not encyclopedic. This has gone past the line of conservative into fringe thinking. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

No one has come up with any other explanation. Also, by the way, when there is a Muslim majority, it is common to consider it to be an Islamic state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:The other explanation is that it was a slip of the tongue. Not every slip is Freudian and indicates he's actually a Muslim. That's a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, here's the explanation, clear and simple. If you listen to the entire remark, he states that he has one more to go, and Alaska and Hawaii as well. Taking three states from the 50 total, gives you 47 states that he visited. A slip between saying forty-(seven) and fifty-(seven) is more likely especially if he was going to say something about visiting all 50 states (putting fifty in his head). It's more likely he slipped between the forty part and said fifty, as opposed to some outlandish theory of how many Islamic states there are. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::here is the full quote.
::''"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."''
::It is obvious where the number 57 comes from. He accidentally added 10. He excluded Alaska and Hawaii, because his staff "would not justify it" and he had been to all the other states except 1. That leaves 47. I simple mistake, "slip of the tounge" as Jareddr said is the only plausible explanation. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's another explanation - "57 states" is a figure of speech meaning "a whole lot of states". Why 57? Because of the well-known Heinz slogan "57 varieties". A far more likely explanation than some far-fetched attempt to link it to Islam, at least! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Oh right. And Obama learned about Heinz 57 in ... his Islamic grade school!

: Face it, guys. Americans learned that we have 50 states in grade school and no one educated here would ever make a mistake about the number. Obama was educated in an Islamic grade school, which is a very different experience. Perhaps that's not a big deal, but let's be truthful and honest about it rather than pretending he's something he's not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::It was a slip of the tongue, not an actual mistake in knowledge. No one who has lived in the united states any length of time, and served as a US senator would make a mistake about that. If you read the entire quote which I posted above, he clearly goes through the math starting from 50 (all the states) subtracting Alaska and Hawaii, and one other state that he doesn't name. This brings him to 47. He accidentally said 57 (possibly because the number 50 was in his head because that is the number of states) instead of 47. There is no reason for the number of islamic states to have anything to do with it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Tim, that makes a lot of sense. I was puzzled when reviewing the YouTube speech, because he said "fifty ... seven" (where the ellipse indicates a kind of dragging out or pause, where he have begun to be aware of his verbal slip. It makes sense if he meant to say forty-seven because
:::#He went on to say that he was not going to visit Alaska or Hawaii (50 - 2 - 48)
:::#He said he had one state to go (48 - 1 - 47)

:::It might be good for us to contact his campaign HQ and ask for a clarification. Does he stand by fifty-seven, or did he mean forty-seven? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:56, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

According to this site http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp the senator poked fun at himself for saying 57 when he meant 47. It seems like just a verbal slip up to me. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 10:29, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==Drug use==
Why is my statment about drug use being removed? It's an important thing. We all know drugs are dangerous and immoral. People need to be warned that a man who wants to be president used to be a drug addict. What sort of role model would he be? What does this say about his morals? What if he has a relapse while in office? Maybe the drugs have effected his brain. Do we want a president whos brain might be damaged from drug use? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:Please provide a cite. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::He talks about it in his book. Even Wikipedia mentions it. Here is a cite they use [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/21/obama_gets_blunt_with_nh_students/]. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 15:55, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, you can out it in, just put it somewhere further down the page because it is from a long time ago, and has little importance at this point. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do you have any proof he was an addict? Additionally, you put "has allegedly stopped doing them" - why? He is the source for both statements (taking drugs, stopped taking them). [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not that difficult, Wandering. A harmful self-revelation ("I'm a drug user") is likely to be true. In the nature of things, a beneficial self-revelation ("I'm nice and clean now") is less likely to be true. It comes from an understanding of human nature, something in which Liberals are curiously deficient. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, if nothing else, I have to applaud your consistency and the efficiency of your early methods. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:I can't quite see how you're planning to use this against him. After all, the current president was also a cokehead and a pothead-- Oh. Nevermind, I see. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::Are you trying to say drugs aren't addictive? Or it's OK if he didn't do them every day? As for George W. Bush do you have any proof to back up your slanderous attacks, or are you just going to smear him like all liberals do? Barack Hussein Obama admits he did illegal hard drugs. He has no reason to lie about that. He would have a reason to lie if he were still doing them. I don't know if he still does or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. Drug habits are very hard to break. Has he released the results of a drug test to the public? I don't think so. Do you wonder why he hasn't? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Marijuana is not physically addictive, my parodist friend. I'm also not saying it's OK-- Please stop putting words in my mouth. Yes, yes I do: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/ Bush makes sure you know he didn't deny it.] Furthermore, you called marijuana a hard drug, which is incorrect. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::"Marijuana is not physically addictive". Liberals love to pretend their favorite drugs aren't harmful. And did you not see that he did cocaine as well, or are you going to pretend that's not addictive either? He may say he only did it on occasion, but when it comes to drug use you have to take what a person admits they did and multiply it by 10, at least, if you want the truth. And Bush did not say what he did in his youth, so to say he did cocaine is speculation, and just making things up. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good sir, do you have a source to prove that Marijuana is physically addictive? Furthermore, yes, I saw that he did cocaine-- And to say that someone did cocaine ten times doesn't make sense. At that point they'd be addicted. Your logic is flawed terribly. Furthermore, he made a specific effort to not deny he did cocaine. Your remarks that Obama might be doing cocaine in office are, however, pure speculation. Good day. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Whether or not it is "physically addictive" is not important. It is illegal, immoral, and dangerous. It is also a gateway drug to the hard drugs that are even more dangerous. In Obama's case it led to cocaine. You say someone is addicted to cocaine after doing it 10 times. I don't doubt it. How many times has Obama done it? Did he get addicted? I don't know, and I didn't put that in the article. But it is something everyone should be concerned about. We don't say that he is secret a Muslim even though he might be because we can't prove it, but we do rightly mention that he went to an Islamic school, and the 57 Islamic states statement so people can decide for themselves. We should also prominently mention his drug use, so people know that he used to do drugs regularly, and they can decide for themselves if they think it did him any long term harm or if they think he still does and will continue to do so. It's a risk people need to know. It's much more important than his lies about his uncle. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:00, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Tim, I agree with putting it further down the page. Right now the lead looks bad with all these criticisms. I agree that it belongs in the article but I think we should make a seperate section for all of this or include it in the relevant sections already there. We had the same thing on the McCain page. A lead section full of little criticisms of mistakes in speeches until I removed it. What do you think? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::I agree. I think the lead should only include major biographical information. Everything else belongs further down. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:16, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If CP is going to be credible, then George W. Bush's admitted alcoholism needs to be added to that article, or the drug comments removed from this one. Trustworthy means being consistent and fair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:21, 13 June 2
::::No one ever went to prison for being an alcoholic (a word that people use to describe conservatives who drink but rarely liberals). Obama's looking to get into the white house when he should be in the big house. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Be careful what you say. several of your comments have been thinly veiled claims that Obama is a drug addict. You are very close to being blocked. As for Bush, feel free to put anything in that you can find a reference for. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Since you've decided... ==

Since the powers that be have decided to include every single verbal folly (that means word mess-up for all you fancy non-elitist spawns of NON-doctor crazy women who like rape) that Mr. Obama has made, I suggest we include in the page for George W. Bush, that he falsely claimed that OBGYN's all sleep with their patients, childrens are learning, that IRAQ was a good idea, that people in a hundred thousand years will look back and say "Gee, bombing the crap out of a country for no specific reason then sending thousands of troops to die because he liked war was the best idea ever. Lets give him a medal, and every other mess-up that Bush, Sir Quail Hunter, Dan Quayle, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and every other human being who has ever, ever in their life, made a mess mistake is speaking, then connect it to conspiracy theories. Like, for instance when Bush said "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"....HE’S A CANNIBAL!!!!!. And, when the over lord of all of Conservapedia once said "See if you can learn out to spell "superior"....He is a Satanist because the Satanists have a code word which replaces how with out in a condescending tone of voice which means "I hate Jesus". I tried to be a good boy. I tried to do something interesting, then I realized, you can't. Not here. Because the evil commie overlords will always keep you in the dark, tell you to shut up, and hypocrite their way to the top. Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Bush II did it.....and Andy did it. It is amazing that we don't go on merit in this world. We go on who gets up one morning and says, you know what....I don't like them. Sure they are peaceful and aren't bothering me, but they don't quite believe what I believe. I like Jesus, they like Mohammed Ali or some other boxer, so I'm gonna blow their heads up. And tell the people its for their own good, that those evil non Jesus fanatics hate us. Well guess what. Everybody hates americans, for good reason. We are a 231 year old country that thinks we own everything, know better than everybody and have the right to blow you up, all in the name of Jesus, Cash, and the third god, National Frickin Pride. Ban me, and remove the vile stench of idiocy and intolerance from me.

The (hopefully) Gone,

JMarks.

bravo

==Political Views==

My quote below keeps getting (citation needed) put after it. I am glad to site this except I think yellow belly liberals are messing with me. Since when do we need to citations for 'often refers' or 'frequently refuses'? Common, every week occurances don't need citations.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:53, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

quote
Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him just 'George Bush'.

There needs to be a citation, because you can't just say that he does something without proof. Also, when the article says he has 'no executive experience', what does that refer to? Executive as in 'Presidential'? [[WillD]]

OK. I'll make the necessary citations--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Christians==

Any reason why he doesn't belong in this category? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Obama has left his church, and there is substantial skepticism about what he really believes as opposed to merely posturing for political gain. Most Christians do not take the political positions that Obama has taken, such as his support for [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Not being affiliated with a Church does not mean a person is not a Christian, a majority of Christians (at least here in Australia) do not attend Church regularly and have no membership with a religious organisation. Same with the second point, just because Christians disagree with someone it does not remove their faith. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: As often occurs here, detractors like yourself insist on the possibility of an exception rather than accepting a general rule. Obama doesn't simply disagree with "someone", he disagrees with the vast majority of Christians about [[abortion]]. Also, he never changed his Muslim name, while most Christians would upon any real conversion, just as Christians change to Muslim names when the conversion is in the opposite direction (e.g., Cassius Clay -> Muhammad Ali). So numerous indications weight against insisting that Obama must be a Christian. Conservapedia is not fooled by political expedience that can distort the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I would have no problem with Obama being excluded from this category if there were consistency in how it is used, but it seems there isn't. I believe we've never had a non-Christian president, yet several are not in that category (apparently more Democrats than Republicans, which isn't surprising, but excluding George W Bush and Reagan, which is). There are many liberal Christians, so I don't see political position being the deciding factor. As for his name, well, how many people change their name upon conversion to Christianity? (You mention Saul, but are there examples from the past 1900 years to back up your case?) In fact, changing one's name seems to be a Muslim trait (Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Yusef Islam aka Cat Stevens). And is his name a Muslim name, or just a foreign one? Is Fugimori a "Shinto Name"? What is the criteria for being Christian enough to be in the category? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 22:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Christians and Abortion===
[http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Here are some poll results about Americans and abortion]. [http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19771020&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8 Here are some poll results specific to Americans who self-identify as Christians]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 17:59, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Why Wouldn't he Change his Name?===
If he were trying to fake his Christianity, he would certainly change his name '''unless the name "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." had some meaning greater that his political ambition.''' How could we not conclude that the name is a reminder to him of his true loyalties? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why would he change his name? Hussein is not by any means a Muslim name, but rather than Arabic name. You're confusing race with religion here... [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 20:29, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Why WOULD he change his name?===
The entire portion of the article that discusses this is ridiculous. Why should a person change their name at all? It's similar to saying that a person named Weinstein should change their name if they were a Christian, because "Weinstein" is a Jewish name. This portion of the article has no purpose and should be removed. If you want to show why Obama is a poor choice for president, do so. But juvenile attacks like this just make the people doing it look silly. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 11:56, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==57 states, again==

Sorry to say, but that line just seems ignorant. At the time Obama left grade school in 1971, the OIC had 30 members. One of its members, Albania, was officially atheist, while Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Mozambique and Suriname ''did not even exist'' as independent countries. (Bangladesh became independent in 1971, the year he left Indonesia, but in any case didn't join the OIC until 1974.) So the notion that he "learned in grade school" about "57 Islamic states" is absurd on its face. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 12:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: The article doesn't claim Obama learned about "57 Islamic states" in grade school. It does make clear why Obama did not learn about "50 states" in grade school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::1. He had from, say, 1965 to 1967, from 1971 to 2008, and for that matter from 1967 to 1971 to learn that the US has 50 states. In all likelihood we're talking about a slip of the tongue from someone who's made other gaffes (not unsurprising in a grueling primary fight with a loaded schedule and reporters recording his every word). Moreover, if you take the 50 states and add DC, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and Democrats Abroad - all of which had nominating contests - you get to 56.
::2. Even if his remark has some significance (which it doesn't), a serious biography doesn't mention, in its lead section, a remark barely noticed by anyone. You talk about his background, his education, his accomplishments (such as they are), the campaign - but don't veer into speculation on the basis of what is most likely a verbal slip. I don't like the man myself, but some pretense of objectivity should be kept when discussing him. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 14:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It may be a slip of a tongue, just as a racist or other offensive remark can be. But slips of the tongue can cry out for explanation, as this "57 states" slip does. You can bet if any Republican candidate had a "slip of the tongue" that was racial in nature, then liberals would run him out of the contest.

::: I've never heard any American say, as a slip of the tongue, that there are more than 50 states. So Obama's remarks are significant and do cry out for explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Is it appropriate to list all the gaffes of George W. Bush or John McCain as well? He could've read the number fifty seven in something he read before the speech and just slipped up. Surely you've misspoke before? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your explanation is implausible. Yes, of course, we all make mistakes. Dan Quayle made one once, and [[liberals]] hounded him out of politics for it. The point is not that Obama made a mistake, but why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::"He read a piece of information" is a more implausible explanation for misspeaking than "He's a Muslim manchurian candidate who compromised his mission to take over the US and give it to the Muslims"? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats true but G.W.Bush once said he never stopped thinking of ways to harm his country. We dont wonder why he slipped there.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Karl Rove has advised conservatives not to imply that Obama is connected to Islam because it might do more damage to McCain than Obama. I wonder if he might have a point. Christians, after all, did not demand that David Livingstone change his name when he went on a mission trip to Africa. A name is something personal and I would not change my name if I went abroad. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Does Conservapedia avoid telling the truth because it is politically incorrect? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

this conversation is pointless, the idea of whether or not Obama is Islamic has been debated and settled by the media, the conservatives, everyone, sometime ago. Lets do some work not debating about a moot point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp Snopes takes apologist stance on Obama's ignorance of number of US states] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Spot on-- This dirty Muslim clearly mixed up the number of states in the glorious USA with the number of non-observer states in an obscure organization! There is no WAY he could've misspoken, saying fifty-seven instead of fourty seven! [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 18:51, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== More on changing his name ==

I'm starting a new section because it's hard to know where to put this, given that this matter has been touched on a few places above.

AdenJ earned a month-long block for removing the part of the following text that I've italicised:
{{QuoteBox|Obama has declared himself to be a [[Christian]]'', yet never replaced his Muslim name with a Christian one as many do.<nowiki><ref></nowiki>For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]].<nowiki></ref></nowiki>''}}
I don't consider the lack of a name change to be of much significance, and the supporting reason in the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags don't hold up or support the point.
* The evidence seems to be that Saul ''didn't'' change his name to Paul when he became a Christian.[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XOH_jfr5jSYC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=how+saul+became+paul&source=web&ots=Sf3Ox9lJfT&sig=u4VhlygigMQPFiMnzPkuk5hd_mw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA2,M1][http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99746.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/iiim][http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/p/paul.html].
** Rather, he already had both Jewish (Saul) and Roman (Paul) names
** Although it seems that he changed to favouring the Roman one, this was not done at conversion
** There's apparently no good evidence that it was because of his conversion.
** "Paul" being a ''Roman'' name, you can't argue that he changed his name to a ''Christian'' name anyway.
* The text says "as many do", which is an implicit admission that not all do, so an individual not doing so means little.
* Evidence of a "Christian" changing his name upon conversion to Islam is ''not'' evidence that people with Muslim names normally change their name to a Christian one.
So the supporting evidence doesn't support the claim, the claim is questionable, it's removal was justifiable, and AdenJ's block, to the extent that it was due to this edit, was not warranted. And as for it being his ninth block, at least some of the earlier eight do not appear to have been warranted.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:37, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: There were additional reasons for AdenJ's block, including numerous prior blocks by many other Sysops, [[last wordism]] on my talk page after being warned, and what I considered to be deception in his claims about partnerships/marriage in New Zealand ([[Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative]]).

: AdenJ's outright deletion of the name issue without improving it was simply censorship. Philip, you've identified some room for improvement in the entry and those are always welcome. Censorship is not. If someone keeps a Muslim name and, with obviously [[political benefits]], claims to be a Christian, or vice-versa, the name is plainly reason to be skeptical about the self-serving political claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I've already answered the point about his other blocks, which were by ''three'' other sysops, hardly "''many'' other Sysops". I see no sign of ''deception'' on that talk page. The only fault I can see is in implying a generalisation based on anecdotal evidence. As for his "last wordism", he had made a total of ''one'' prior post in that conversation, and his final post was merely trying to explain himself, not continue that particular discussion. It's hardly a good case of "last wordism". Sometimes outright deletion ''is'' improvement, and hardly constitutes censorship unless, perhaps, the deletion is enforced, which he was and is unable to do. As for it being "plainly a reason", I've already provided reasons why, at the very least, it is not ''plain'', and likely not even a reason. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::A small point here, as it's been brought up many times. Muhammed Ali did ''not'' change his name because of his conversion to Islam. He changed his name because Cassius Clay was a "slave name." In other words, his name was a continuation of a name given to an ancestor when his family was enslaved. His name changing was simply part of a larger trend going on in that time period. I won't disagree that what he changed to wasn't religiously motivated, but the change itself was to free himself of what he considered to be a denigrating name, not because of his religious conversion. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 15:28, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: You'll have to explain thousands, or millions, of similar name changes if you are unwilling to acknowledge that a fundamental change in belief does cause most to change their name away from what they reject. To take another high-profile example, Robert Earl Moore changed his name to Ahmad Rashād.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Thousands or millions? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:10, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it is common when people convert ''to'' Islam (it might be a specific tenet of Islam), but is it to religions other than Islam, or is it just a requirement for Muslims? Does anybody with more knowledge of Islam know? It doesn't seem to be common when people convert to Christianity, so that might explain it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::It is a requirement for Muslims. Christianity has no similar requirement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:36, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Some Christian churches do require it. In fact, I think the largest does. Moreover, nearly all evangelical Christians would be uncomfortable keeping a Muslim name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: What church are you referring to? And is it a formal requirement, or just a convention? If the former, can you point me to the requirement? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I think most, perhaps all, churches that authorize [[baptism]] require a Christian name for it. For example, I think the Catholic Church requires a Christian name for baptism. I would expect the Anglican Church to require likewise, and expect that virtually all evangelicals reject continued use of a Muslim name at baptism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::An interesting point. However, that brings up some questions. Is this true of Obama's church? And what exactly is meant by a "Christian name"? In some usage it is a synonym for a first name, which he obviously has. "Barack" is a derivative of "Baruch" an apocryphal Biblical name preceding the foundation of Islam by over a thousand years. I admit I don't know much out baptismal names, but do they have to be "Christian" in the sense that they appear in the New Testament? When someone baptizes their child with one of those trendy new names like "Dakota" or "MacKenzie" do they have separate baptismal names, and if so, do they ever actually use them? If "Bruce" converts in his adulthood and is baptized, does he take a new more distictly Christian name that he then uses regularly? There has been a bit of a backlash recently against changing names, as a response to having "American" names forced upon immigrants at Ellis Island in years past. And I'm still not sure his name is "Islamic" so much as foreign. It's not as if his name is "Barack Muhammad Allah Akbar Hijra Abu Bakr" or anything. [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 11:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama is not an evangelical, however, nor is he answerable to evangelical conventions. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your comment begs the question of what Obama really believes. There's precious little objective evidence that he's a Christian, and much to suggest otherwise. His politically self-serving claim that his Muslim father was a "confirmed atheist" has less than a 1% chance of being true, and that implausibility casts doubt over Obama's other religious claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:53, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

If you have trouble believing that he is actually a Christian, then why would you have trouble believing that he is not an evangelical? Also, what evidence are you referring to that he is not really a Christian? Does this have something to do with the "Freudian slip" that no "real" American could possibly have ever made regarding the number of states in the Union?

As for the prevalence of atheism in Kenya, is it not possible that many people deny being atheists because of anxieties regarding cultural perceptions of atheism? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it really surprising anyone that CP has hopped on the right-wing "Obama is a secret Muslim" bandwagon? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:59, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::Well, I'm not so sure that it's a secret. The evidence may not be perfect, but it is evidence nonetheless. I think he protests too much. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 17:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Is it really surprising that liberals believe Obama's implausible myth that he is a committed Christian? His own brother says he was a Muslim, and there is precious little evidence he ever gave it up. He's been caught in a blatant lie about his past beliefs, there's less than a 1% chance he's telling the truth about his father's beliefs, and less than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity, so there's a less than .01% chance he's been telling the truth about him and his father. But, of course, for people who believe we evolved from monkeys when even if it were possible would be a trillions to one chance, .01% seems probable. People should go to Wikipedia if they want a glowing article on Obama that he could have written himself. We're interested in the ''truth'' here. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::Response to an earlier post:Mr. Schlafly, My comment had nothing to do with debating whether or not all muslims change their names. I was simply stating that Ali's change was not for religious reasons, it was for slavery/cultural reasons '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 19:11, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Ya know what? Now that I think of it, why should it matter what religion he follows? Do people think that there is something inherently wrong with Muslims that makes them unfit for public office? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 19:40, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, there is a problem with the religion he follows. Christians don't kill people, but Muslims kill lots of people all the time. THAT is why it is important.--[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 19:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Actually, it goes like this: ''Moderate'' Christians and Muslims don't kill people. ''Radical'' Christians and Muslims do kill people. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 21:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: If that's true, then there must be relatively few radical Christians, and relatively many radical Muslims, as the latter do a lot more killing than the former. But disagreeing with AdmiralNelson's specific reason, because it doesn't follow that a particular individual is going to be killing just because he's a Muslim, the reason that the religion of a president is important is because a worldview/religion is what shapes one's values and standards, and these ''will'' affect decisions that he will make. So the religion of a president is a very relevant matter to voters. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
::::"Christians don't kill people"? Last I checked, the military was full of Christians, often evangelical. Killing people is a big part of what they do, is it not? Sure you don't want to modify that statement? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 08:12, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: The discussion was clearly about people doing it ''because they were Christian'' or Muslim, so we weren't talking about self-defence, wars, or legal executions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:51, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: If you're implying that radical Muslims kill more often than radical Christians, you're suffering from media/selection bias. Groups like the Army of God and the KKK pridefully kill in the name of Christianity.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:00, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, I'm suffering from truth bias. The KKK is hardly Christian, and the Army of God is an exception to the rule. Besides, how many have those groups killed compared to Muslim killings? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: According to the [http://www.kukluxklan.bz/faq.html KKK FAQ] (on requirements to join):
:::::::#You must be be a free white male or female of European descent, at least 18 years of age.
:::::::#You must be able to profess faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior.
:::::::It's unfortunate, but yes, they are Christian extremists.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:44, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) For me, part of what I look into is what do the texts of the religion say, in this case the Bible and the Koran, with the Koran also having follow up material compiled in the same time period that is revered by Islam as well. I've found it's not a coincidence that extremism is common to Islam as it is much easier to follow based on the writings themselves. In Christianity, it is far more difficult, and so the 'extremists' generally have to bend reality. Where in the Bible does it talk about the need to be a white European as if that is somehow associated with Jesus? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:45, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
: Spot on, Learn together. Anybody can ''call themselves'' "Christian", but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Therefore you need to look at whether their actions and beliefs are consistent with what the Bible teaches. The KKK doesn't qualify. The KKK does not have the support of most of the Christian community. In contrast, I've often noticed tacit if not explicit support for Muslim "extremists" by large sections of the Muslim population. If the rest of the Muslim population condemned the actions of the "extremists", I'd be happy to say that Islam doesn't do much killing either (only people ''calling themselves'' "Muslim"), but that appears to not be the case [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Saul didn't change his name to Paul. At one point Luke says, "Saul, who was also called Paul..." and carries the account on from there. This occurs several chapters after his conversion, and it is simply a Greek form of Saul's Hebrew name. For heaven's sake. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 16:05, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Muslims that kept Semitic or Islamic names ==

[http://www.hesavedme.com/story.htm Hussain Andaryas] kept his semitic name, as did [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1918728/The-Rt-Rev-Hassan-Dehqani-Tafti.html the Rt Rev Hassan Dehqani-Tafti], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CExvHJxJnY this convert (who kept the name "Mohammed")], and [http://www.farsinet.com/dibaj/ the Christian martyr Mehdi Dibaj]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 19:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it possible these people were baptized with Christian names, but chose not to use them as their everyday names? I know Jews often do something similar. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:06, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Islam==
Please upload the picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ObamaDrudge.jpg -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:52, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==He's Gay Too==

Since we're largely using the interview of one person to show that Obama is Islamic, perhaps we should add that [http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/i-had-sex-with-obama/2008/06/19/1213770824274.html he's gay] as well. I'm sure there are some slips of the tongue that will support it as well. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:A couple of our usual sources agree, the evidence is mounting: [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/03/02/obama_americas_first_gay_president][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-gurvitz/rnc-obama-busted-in-gay_b_87221.html] [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
::From what I read, it's nothing beyond an allegation. Until absolute, irrefutable proof shows up, we cannot state that he is gay...because if he is not, then it's libel. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:54, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Then report on the allegation, there is more than enough evidence to warrant its inclusion in the article, and opens the possibility of an alterior motive behind Obama's support for gay marriage. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:03, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: So, Karajou, on that basis we should also not claim that he's not a Christian, until "absolute, irrefutable proof shows up"? I'm glad you agree. So would you mind removing that part that questions his Christianity? Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::My statement here had to do with allegations that he was gay, '''NOT''' about his Christianity. Don't you ever put words in my mouth again. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:33, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: I know that your statement was about homosexuality. But you were rejecting putting that in the article on the basis of a ''principle'', so I merely applied ''your <s>principal</s>principle'' to a different case. Or is there some reason that different principles apply in the different cases? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:39, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::That's ''your conversation'' and ''your principle''. Deal with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:43, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Apart from the typo, that was ''your'' principle (although I basically agree with it). You didn't explain why the same principle doesn't apply in the other case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::These accusations should be in the article. We won't say he is gay, just that a credible source has publicly accused him of it, and he makes a convincing case. People deserve to know that if they vote for Obama, there is a chance they are voting for a homo. We're not making anything up here. It's reliably sourced. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Tony, "sourced" and "reliably sourced" are not the same thing. I can put up a webpage that says John McCain is gay, and then post it here and say it's "sourced". Does that mean it is reliable or in any way accurate? Absolutely not. The Townhall article states that he would be the first "gay" president, and compare it to Clinton being the first "black" president. They're not saying he's gay, but rather that he will fight for gay rights. The second article, from Huffington Post, repeats conservative smears that a picture showing Obama greeting another male is a sign that he's "gay". I've greeted many friends and co-workers in the same manner as the photo portrays, and I'm sure many on this site have made the same greeting as well, without being labeled gay. It's the most flimsy accusation I've ever seen. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't make it true. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:20, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Read the ''first'' article: "Larry Sinclair, a gay man from Minnesota who alleges he snorted cocaine and had sex with the Democratic nominee." This is a man giving a first hand account of a homosexual experience with Obama. We have absolutely no reason to believe that he is making it up. The liberal media is eager to smear Larry Craig as gay merely because an overzealous cop decided tapping his foot was the same as propositioning someone for sex. But someone, damaging his own reputation, admits he had a sexual relationship with Obama and there's a huge whitewash. We don't have to say the accusation is true (though it would explain a lot) but it is a disservice to ignore it. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 12:33, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

The Huffington Post was a piece of satire! The RNC never said that at all, the picture is actually of Barack Obama giving a hug to John Edwards, and it was made grainy on purpose as part of the joke. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 10:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks! It looked so ridiculous, but couldn't see someplace where they stated it was just a joke. I wouldn't put it past the RNC to stoop that low, though, so I had to at least consider that it may be real. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually Tony, there are some good reasons to seriously doubt Larry Sinclair's story. Starting with him failing the polygraph test and his '27-year criminal career which includes convictions for fraud, forging cheques, and stealing credit card numbers'. Then add in his arrest for an outstanding warrant after his press conference and he does not come across as the most credible of sources. There are enough actual problems with Obama that the American people should be focusing on and not getting side tracked by gossip. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 12:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Like the problem of him quite possibly being Muslim or strongly influenced by Islam? That would certainly be an actual problem - hence its inclusion in this article. Do you not think Obama being gay would be an actual problem as well, and lead to a strong pro-homosexuality bias? Anyway, I basically agree with StatsMsn on this matter - and as with the Muslim issue, tthere are sources, and we're not making statements, only relaying the words of others on this controversy. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:24, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

The problem with the whole gay thing is that the only source for that is VERY non-credible (Larry Sinclair). The Townhall article wasn't postulating that Obama is in fact a homosexual, but would be the first 'gay' President like Clinton was said to be the first 'black' President, as someone who is believed to strongly advocate for that community and is very much accepted by that community WITHOUT actually being a member. The Huffington Post was a bit of satire and not a serious article. I think that how Islam has influenced Obama is a legitimate topic and should be discussed but by engaging in gossip (Obama is gay) it takes away from the legitimacy of actual concerns that may (and should) be expressed about him. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 16:41, June 21 2008 (EDT)

==Unlock For Update==
In Senate section, this needs to be included in the GI Bill or the following sentence needs removed. ''"Taxes of those earning... for ten years."''

''Add-'' Democrats dropped a provision to pay for the GI college benefits by imposing a half-percentage point income tax surcharge on incomes exceeding $500,000 for singles and incomes over $1 million earned by married couples<ref>[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1], http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1 , AP Bipartisan accord reached on war funding bill, June 19, 2008</ref>--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Under Published criticism, A fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution. Dobson Accuses Obama of 'Distorting' Bible <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/rel_dobson_obama/2008/06/23/106961.html] , http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/rel_dobson_obama/2008/06/23/106961.html, June 23, 2008</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

These include the statements "God ....". I am starting to have seconds thoughts about seeing this posted here. It is just such an outlandish amount of disrespect to God, that maybe it shouldn't be repeated, thoughts(name in Vein)?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

== Examples of "non-charisma" ==

I saw this in the encyclopedia page ("Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a teleprompter. 'Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion.'[62] The New York Times noted that 'Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify.'[63] When Obama ridiculed Hillary Clinton for being like Annie Oakley, it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.[64]") and was wonderng if someone could direct me to a audio file or website that has an example of one of his bad speeches
--[[User:Thedude|Thedude]] 20:05, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Speculation vs Fact ==

I'm still relatively new here but would like to clarify something (at the risk of beating a dead horse). For the paragraph "Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation. Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors." should "presumably" be allowed in the article? It seems that the statement becomes speculation rather than an established fact. Also the citation attached to it does not make that claim either.

I don't have the rights to do an edit to the main article so I'm writing it here. Hope it doesn't count against my 90/10 thing.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:41, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh and on an unrelated note, there's a space missing in "thePennsylvania".--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:43, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm being anal here but the following need minor corrections 
"president of the United States" - Capitalization 
"office of the presidency" - should be "Office of the President" 
"Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book <s>and</s> ''or'' community organizing."--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:56, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

: I don't see your typos there any more. Were they fixed?

: As to pointing out how Obama has catered to anti-military donors, that can hardly be disputed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Hard to be disputed when dispute is not allowed or called "violation of 90/10 rule; talk, talk, talk". --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:01, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Hmm I still see the typos after refreshing the page. Specifically "thePennsylvania" is in paragraph 4, "president" in paragraph 2, "office..." in paragraph 7 under Presidential Campaign and "either/or" in the last paragraph under "Positions and Qualifications".

:: Perhaps Obama's pandering is obvious, but the current phrasing of "presumably" indicates speculation. But I guess the main concern I had was that the citation #15 isn't relevant to the statement since the main gist of the article is that Obama's actions have "frustrated some anti-war figures" rather than pandered to them. And the action it refers to is his voting record and not his lapel pin.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 23:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Corrected "thePennsylvania", but don't see a lowercase "p" in "president" as an error. The trend is towards using more lowercase, and the Economist uses a lowercase "p" for "president".

::: The "presumably" point can hardly be disputed or doubted, and I don't agree with the proposition that "presumably" is never appropriate in an encyclopedia. The citation is helpful because it shows that anti-military support was not guaranteed for Obama, and some pandering was required to obtain that. Of course, improvements in citations are always welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:19, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

== Article Locked ==

If the article is locked by a sysop, wouldn't that constitute [[last wordism]]? Obviously only sysops can then decide what may or may not be put in the article, becoming the final arbiters on any discussions. It doesn't seem very egalitarian. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wow ==
Take a look at this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=363195 article's last edit] before he won the Iowa caucus and compare it to the coat rack of half-truths and insinuations that it has become. It saddens me; I was hoping that Conservapedia would develop into a worthy competitor to Wikipedia and that the competition would inspire both sites to improve their content. Alas.

Unfortunately, this article now seems to be attempting to fulfill a political agenda instead of act as an encyclopedia. Of the myriad goals this article sets out to accomplish, the attempt to paint Obama as an anti-American secret Muslim is the most disgusting. Sure, he made a mistake and said 57 states. I look at that statement and think, "So he said fifty instead of forty." But instead of ignoring an obvious mistake and focusing on actual political issues, they assume his mind was wandering to the membership number of the Organization of Islamic States. That's not a remotely logical jump; perhaps a more reasonable one would be Interstate 57, which bisects his home state of Illinois? Personally, I just think the man was a tad tired - he was, after all, campaigning non-stop for six months straight.

Furthermore, the Muslim misdirection seems to me to be a direct attempt to play on people's fears. People are afraid of what's different, so the goal is to make him as different as possible. Hillary tried the same tactic; she, with ten times his earnings, managed to convince Pennsylvania that a biracial man abandoned by his father and raised by a single mom was an "elitist". But it's not enough, so we stack on the Muslim accusations and criticize his foreign sounding name (which, in my opinion, is not as weird as "Millard Fillmore") just to drive the point home. It's disgusting that we use such tactics in what is supposed to be a democracy, where problems are solved by our collective wisdom and not by beating the opposition into submission.

But perhaps most indicative of all, this article is also written from the approach of automatically assuming Obama to be a liar. He says his father was an atheist, but you assume he's lying. He finds Christ and goes to church (and what a church...) for years, but you call it "politically self-serving? ''Have we, as a nation, become so cynical and skeptical than we doubt one's conversion to Christ?''

Now, one of two things will happen. One, you'll read what I wrote and maybe take some - not all - into consideration. You'll tone it down a bit and focus on substantiative criticism (since I hardly expect, and would be disappointed by, a full rewrite into a bright shiny happy piece about him) of Obama, such as his opposition to Petraeus' plans that are clearly working or his refusal to tap America's natural resources to relieve our pain at the pump. Or two, you'll see the five paragraphs I've written and ignore it as too long and do nothing, and the article will continue to be burdened by lies, accusations and insinuations, and if I'm not banned I'll still probably leave in disgust. I hope that we, as Americans, can come together to fix the more egregious errors and better our democracy through substantiative debate about the issues that we all hold so dear going into this critical election. Thank you for reading. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well that article doesn't go so far as to mention his last name is similar to Osama. Hussein in his middle name is Saddam Hussein's last name. And Barack rhyms with Iraq. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 17:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, but it's not so much the attacks as the nit picking nature of them- we've got calling a senior lectureship a professorship, saying 57 instead of 47, the fact that his uncle helped liberate a different concentration camp, the fact that he has no executive or military experience (I've been wondering about the executive part- is that refering to presidential experience?)... it all just seems a bit overplayed. [[WillD]]
::I agree, nitpicking is a good way to look at it. The article has missed the forest for the trees and, to further our usage of cliches, is missing the broad strokes. Although the executive experience part I believe refers to never holding a position similar to President but on a lower level; i.e., he's never been a governor, a mayor, or any other such position.--[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:08, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
::: ''"article will continue to be burdened by lies, accusations and insinuations"'' Hmmm, if there wasn't references, you might have had a valid point.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: It's the usage of sources and the presentation of them that is problematic. This article, instead of finding sources and writing an article based off of them, is making claims and then adding "sources" that loosely connect them. An example is the Kenyan father thing; he says his father was a Muslim-turned-atheist, but the article indicates that because less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, it's impossible. You don't see the problem with that? Even ignoring that Obama himself says his father was an atheist (and who, despite being abandoned by him, knew him far better than any of us), it isn't possible Obama Sr. is one of those less than 1% of Kenyans?
:::: And if that isn't enough, here's an interview by British newspaper The Guardian with [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/barackobama.uselections2008 one of Obama Sr.'s daughters by another mother], who says "His [Barack's] father was never a Muslim although he was born into a Muslim family with a Muslim name." That would be a proper source, if it weren't for the fact that it completely contradicts what's written. The Muslim insinuations should be removed. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:46, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: The entry is factual. Obama's self-serving claim that his father was an atheist has all the plausibility of anything else that occurs less than 1% of the time. That Obama asserts that this was true before Obama could have possibly known (e.g., before Obama was born) only adds to implausibility of it.

::::: By the way, your quote (also self-serving) by Obama's relative does not indicate that Obama Sr. was an atheist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

She doesn't say he was an atheist, but she does say he was not a Muslim. And I doubt that a woman who apparently has never left Kenya would have much to gain by lying about her father's religious beliefs. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 18:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

: But you missed the point, perhaps intentionally: Obama claimed Obama Sr. was an atheist, a claim having an obvious effect of appeasing both atheists and Christians. Too bad that it is so implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== President experience ==

Abraham Lincoln had 2 years in the house and 8 years in the state legislature. JFK was 8 years in the senate and 6 years in the house. Madison was 8 years in the house and 4 years in state legislature. Hoover was 7.5 years in the cabinet - was never in the state legislature, governor, house, or senate. Harrison was 6 years in the senate. http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html goes into the various experience of various presidents. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:30, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==James Dobson on Obama==
James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, points out that Obama distorts the Holy Bible for his own political ends [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_el_pr/rel_dobson_obama]--[[User:Goodman|Goodman]] 22:05, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::James Dobson was apparently not listening closely to his speech. Obama's point was that policy should be made by people who don't automatically use Christian principles alone to make decisions. The reasons for policy decisions should be made accessible by people of all affiliations, not just Judeo-Christian ones. Dobson is just angry because his name was mentioned in a speech by a liberal candidate. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:19, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Is it me or do liberals always need others to explain what they have said?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:04, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

==Islamic holidays==
"However, clearly Obama would have taken days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays. ". What are we suggesting he should have done, in a country where the schools close for Islamic holidays? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:31, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

For today, he should enlighten us all to his past. He refuses to give us much detail. When you are running for the highest office in the land, nothing can be hidden. Did he go home and watch TV during his days off? Maybe he celebrated the Holidays by attending a Mosque. What we don't know he can easily cast aside by explaining. He grew up in a predominate Muslim country. He left a Christian school after two years. The rest has yet to be explained.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
::Because you don't know something you think it has to be explained? Would you like to describe for us what you did on every holiday you took off school? Maybe you spent them attending meetings of the Communist party? "What we don't know he can easily cast aside by explaining." [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:What difference does it make what he did? You would think we'd be better off focusing on his foreign and energy policies than pondering what he did with his free time when he was 10. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I would focus on his foreign and energy policy, if he had one! The little he has accomplished, I disagree with completely.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:23, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Didn't want you to hurt yourself with actually, you know, looking, so here you go, Jpatt: [http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/ Foreign Policy] and [http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/ Energy Policy] --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

: yawn, much talk but nothing of logic--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 02:16, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Affirmative Action?==
The line "If elected, Obama would be the first Affirmative Action President" should be replaced with "If elected, Obama would be the first African-American Affirmative Action President." By Conservapedia's definition, many white male Presidents did benefit from their "race or gender", and qualify as Affirmative Action Presidents.

: I think the main problem is not the phrasing of the claim but rather the claim itself. Not only does it insinuate that Obama has done absolutely nothing noteworthy in his entire life, but it is also inherently racist. I'm a conservative and will be voting for John McCain, but I really don't think he'd approve of this either. This website seems to approach politics like it's some kind of all-out war in which you should do anything, from lie to slander to smear to win. That's just wrong. This article, this Obama article, is giving us conservatives a bad name. If Obama loses this election, it should be on his policies and ideas, not because someone told everyone he was a Muslim.

==Barack Obama Visits Wounded War Veterans==
Barack Obama makes a surprise visit to wounded war veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_veterans/2008/06/28/108211.html], http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_veterans/2008/06/28/108211.html ,AP Barack Visits Wounded Vets, June 28, 2008 </ref> The visit wasn't on his public schedule.

In the past, Obama criticized the Bush administration for veterans treatment returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since becoming a US Senator, it has taken Obama more than 1270 days or three and a half years to visit our countries finest wounder soldiers in Washington, D.C.
:I assume you specifically mean the ones at Walter Reed, since he's visited [http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_veterans/2008/06/28/108211.html other] veterans in the past. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

==Place of birth==
Last week on talk radio (the Shaun Hannity program I think) they raised the issue of where Barack Obama was born. Apparently, his campaign cannot produce a birth certificate. If he was not born in the United States, he cannot be the President. That is in the Constitution--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 13:08, 29 June 2008 (EDT).
:Technically they produced an image of his [http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert birth certificate]. Sean Hannity and Right-Wing blogs question its authenticity. This feeds into the "He's a foreigner! Scary!" meme. If you don't think he's a citizen and isn't eligible to be President, telling CP probably won't do much. Instead, I'd suggest you contact the appropriate federal agency and tell them. Although, since elections are technically handled state-by-state, you will probably need to contact the Secretary of State for each state and file your complaint. Would you like help locating those agencies to check into your allegations? Of course, one should be mindful, as I wonder whether this type of accusation would be considered "libel".--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 13:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::He should be required to produce an authentic certificate, issued by the state of Hawaii. As for libel, that is simply a liberal scare tactic. Truth is a perfect defense against libel. After all, you don't see Richard Lenski trying to sue Andy Schlafly do you? That's because he knows that Andy's doubts about his research are true.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 13:55, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Who should he be required to produce it to for verification? Again, if you think that he isn't constitutionally qualified, the onus falls on YOU to request that he provide verification. The requests should be sent to the Secretaries of State, as they are the ones who are in charge of elections in each state. So if you believe it so firmly, do something about it. Don't sit here and complain, go out and force it. Or are you going to just grumble about it and make accusations without following up? And as for Lenski suing Schlafly--I don't think CP's questions have done any "harm" to Lenski's reputation and the time of going through and filing a lawsuit for libel? You'd be up in arms claiming it was a waste of the court's time to hear that case. Seems if Lenski doesn't file a lawsuit you'll say it's because he knows he's wrong, and if he does file a lawsuit, you'll say it's a waste of time. So that example doesn't really hold any water, in my book. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:45, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::That's a good point. I'll add it to [[Lenski]]'s page. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:30, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Well when you get a job with the government (Senator falls in this category) you have to give the US Government your birth certificate. If it was false something would have come up earlier. If it is good enough for the US Government it should be good enough for everybody else.

::::: "If it is good enough for the US Government it should be good enough for everybody else." I'm afraid you may be on the wrong site, my friend. We tell the truth here regardless of what other people may or may not accept.

::::: The standards for confirming legal status for a government employee are not, obviously, as high as the standards for ensuring compliance with the U.S. Constitution by a potential U.S. President.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:44, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::What evidence would be acceptable proof of his being born in the US? I'm fairly certain that I could find such evidence, if I knew what would be considered valid. [[User:Ithig|Ithig]] 17:12, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Here is a link to a story regarding the birth certificate story. Obama may be in trouble if the Republicans have the gumption to pursue this.[http://americatalks.blogspot.com/2008/06/birth-certificate-could-doom-obama.html]--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 08:48, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::: The US Government would know where Obama was born. I think they would've spoken out and say "hey wait a minute" at some point in the past year and a half he's been running this campaign.

::::World Net Daily and The National Review (both trusted Conservapedia sources) acknowledge the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and consider it a non-issue.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66991

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=

Could some sysop please delete the word "alledged" from the birth information? I would do it myself (and do a productive edit) but the page is locked. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 14:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Why hasn't anyone made this change? It is absolutely clear that even trusted conservative sources don't think that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. Continuing to suggest otherwise is just a infantile smeer. Isn't any sysop gutsy (or fair) enough to make the change? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 22:48, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

== Death Knell for Affirmative Action? ==

Interesting article related to the opinion that Obama is an affirmative action candidate. It says that, in actuality, Obama proves [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/28/affirmative-action-hurt-by-obamas-success/ there's no need for affirmative action]. "Barack Obama's political success might claim an unintended victim: affirmative action, a much-debated policy he supports.
Already weakened by several court rulings and state referendums, affirmative action now confronts a challenge to its very reason for existing. If Americans make a black person the leading contender
for president, as nationwide polls suggest, how can racial prejudice be so prevalent and potent that it justifies special efforts to place minorities in coveted jobs and schools?" --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 13:51, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== List of Obama VP's refusing to take the number 2 job==

* Ted Strickland (D) Governor of Ohio
* Jim Webb (D) Senator of Virginia
* Jack Reed (D) Senator of Rhode Island
* Claire McCaskill (D) Senator Missouri
* John Edwards (D) Frm. Senator N. Carolina

==Employment while a student==

Does two summer jobs in six years at university count as "working your way through"? Even liberal Newsweek calls this [http://www.newsweek.com/id/144336 a bit of a stretch]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

That section should be revised , it currently says that Obama 'apparently did not hold any jobs during college or law school'. Wouldn't something along the lines of 'however his campaign can only provide information of two jobs held during those years' be more accurate? [[User:tordenvaer|tordenvaer]] 16:59, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

==Double up==
Hi,
This page is locked so I cant fix it but the whole intro is repeated under the section Published Criticism? Can someone fix?
Thanks!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 01:39, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

==Hi!

Can we include a section that specifically talks about his changes in policy positions (AKA flip-flops). This will help to accurately portray him in terms of what he is willing to do to win an election.

Global warming

2008-07-24T17:35:35Z

RoyS:

[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]

'''Global warming''' is an increase in average air temperature in the [[Earth]]'s atmosphere.
As far back as temperature records can be reconstructed, periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated; see [[ice age]]s and [[interglacial warming]].

In the modern period of global warming, a slight increase of {{temperature|0.8|1.4}} has been measured at weather stations throughout the world, since around 1850, when organized records began to be kept. Since this happens to correlate with increases in [[carbon dioxide]], many have speculated about their possible relationship. Despite this, there is no completely proven model explaining the rise in global temperatures.

==Controversy==
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}

Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for modern periods of global warming; see "[[greenhouse warming]]" and [[global warming theory]].<ref>Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]</ref>

Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote that:

*Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. <ref>http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf</ref>

Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] calls it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, "It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it." <ref>http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc</ref>
However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.{{Fact}}

In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850.

The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.

Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:
* Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it. <ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] </ref>

Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing <ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, january 10, 2008</ref>

==The Modern Warm Period==

Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref> How much of this is due to contamination of the temperature record from the [[urban heat island]] effect is hard to assess. Efforts are currently underway to detect and remove this bias. Spurious warming trends that might be considered as global warming can occur almost anywhere. <ref name="col">http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/01/29/do-urban-areas-have-larger-long-term-temperature-trends-than-other-locations/feed/</ref>
Nonetheless, controversy has persisted over the influence of urban warming on reported large-scale surface-air temperature trends. <ref name="col" />

According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.

==False Claims of "Consensus"==

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,

:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). <ref name="cato">http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory{{fact}} then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into "consensus" support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989.


By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.

==Natural Variability of the Climate System==
Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately {{temperature|6|11}} and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977. A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself. The reasons for this are not understood.<ref>http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf</ref>

Global temperatures change on other plants even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming. Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth. There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.

==Politics of Global Warming==

'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14167</ref>

The need to fight "global warming" has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. <ref name="cato" />

Clearly, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit.
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. <ref name="cato" />

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.9 °F over the second half of the 20th Century.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

*In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. <ref name="cato" />

Richard Lindzen wrote:
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right" results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming" in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). <ref name="cato" />

Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered.
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no "Climate Crisis" and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. <ref>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensativity Reconsidered, July 2008</ref> This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer "The article has not undergone any scientific peer review" and "the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions" In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.

After the successful completion of a lawsuit against his movie 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', filmmaker Martin Durkin statements read <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796 UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming[ CNSNEWS July 22, 2008</ref>

*“Everywhere you are told that man-made climate change is proved beyond doubt,” “But you are being told lies.”
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”

==Al Gore's Claims==

*[[Al Gore]] claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame." <ref name="sun">http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article</ref>


*Gore claims the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine." <ref name="sun" />\

*Al Gore is therefore an example of how in such an important debate [[deceitful|deceit]] tactics have been used by liberals to make a position seem more solid than it is.

==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==

[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.

According to [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]]'s website <ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]</ref> he will take a more "aggressive approach" to global warming which he has declared as "undeniable and urgent." He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the "real deal on the environment".<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]</ref>.

In his own words, McCain says "the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.

==Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Movie Claims==

A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007</ref>

Those inaccuracies include the following

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
*[[Global Warming Controversy]]
*[[Politics of global warming]]
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from "More News"]]

==External Links==

*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann

===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===

*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.


==References==
{{reflist}}

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]