Barack, you live in a glass house!!!!

[Bill in SD, CA]

Obama's swipe at Justice Thomas was a cheap shot at best and a typical liberal talking point when Pastor Rick Warren asked him which Supreme Court Justices he would not have nominated.

Obama on Clarence Thomas - Wall Street Journal

Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation.

By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.

Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer.

What great qualifications you have Obama!

Why McCain May Beat Obama by Father Jonathon Morris

The second telling moment of the debate was in response to Pastor Warren’s question regarding which of the eight sitting Supreme Court Justices the candidates wouldn’t have appointed.

Senator Obama named Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. But strangely, he considered it necessary to twice demean along the way the intelligence of Justice Thomas, the second and currently only black Supreme Court Justice of the United States of America. Obama said Justice Thomas isn’t a “strong enough jurist or legal thinker” and then backhanded Thomas’ intellect once again by saying that while he disagrees with Justice Scalia’s constitutional interpretations, he doesn’t doubt his (in comparison to Thomas’) “intellectual brilliance.”

What an embarrassment this man is to the American Presidential election process.


Bill

[Pexster]

I disagree. Obama has also taught law. He views Thomas as a lightweight, as do many, many other legal scholars. Thomas generally just agrees with whatever Scalia writes.

[Theophylact]

On the other hand, McCain says he wouldn't have nominated Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg or Breyer: every "liberal" on the Court, including the three he was actually in the Senate to vote on AND FOR.

More "straight talk".

[Atomic Rooster]

Seems like neither of these candidates are playing with a full deck.

[Pexster]

I don't know where all the threads went, but here is a post from cunokyle in the McCain thread --

He could not provide an answer to the majority of the questions posed at the forum! He skirted almost every issue and almost accused a Supreme Court Justice of not being experienced! This is not black and white. This is a simple matter of answering questions about your own feelings and policies you would try to enact, and it was a very telling sign of how things would be with Obama in charge!

He is nothing without a script. he can not think of an honest answer to some of the most important issues to the country at the moment. He could not even honestly look at himself when asked a question about an issue he has flip-flopped on and provide an adequate answer!

This is the man you want to see elected president? There are candidates among the Democratic Party that at least can stand their ground and give honest answers. I am not sure why Obama was even considered to be honest. Especially now, as we see more and more examples of his ignorance of what is important to this country, his inability to reply to a straight forward question, and the fact that he has no record or experience that would make him even a likely candidate.

McCain answered questions honestly, he did not skirt the issues, even those that are unpopular with his own party, and he spoke like a man that is confident in what he is saying. He did not seem nervous, was not worried about how he would be perceived, and he seemed to genuinely care.

Explain please how this is not what we should be looking for in the next president of the Untied States? You would rather vote for a man that has no strong values. A man that when pressured, left his Church of 20 years because it was going to hurt his political career. What does this say of the man when he would be in a much more important role? What happens when going to war is unpopular, and not going results in thousands, millions of deaths? Do you stand up and cheer because your puppet of a president caved to a Communist Government? He would idly sit by as war broke out and innocent people were killed, because it is not the popular thing to go to war.

That is the man that Obama is and would be as president. His failure to answer any issue genuinely and honestly is a sign of that. Your continued support for this kind of behavior is very telling of many things.

[Bill in SD, CA]

Bill