Too many candidates for public office have backgrounds in political science and law, with no business, economics or entrepreneural background. A candidate whose only job experience has been in federal government or academia is Not prepared to lead the country. This country is in a financial crisis in which nothing is going to help the economy -- except MORE JOBS. No wonder Obama thinks we have to "spread the wealth".. he has no clue how to do anything else.

Obama wants to "spread the wealth" because he doesn't know how to "create new jobs" The current economic crisis can only be solved by creating new jobs to replace all the good paying jobs that left this country. Refundable tax credits and spreading the wealth are a band-aid, not a solution.

I really don't care if Obama is half black and white, or where

his father came from. What Americans should be concerned about is which candidate is "pro-business", because if you're "against business", you can't create jobs. We're in a downward spiral if we don't create more jobs - fast.

Anyone concerned about the economy needs to vote for the candidate who is pro-business, as jobs are the core of the economy. Being "against" business is a really bad place to be. Obama seems oblivious to this, though. I guess it shouldn't surprise anyone, since Obama has no business experience or background...but who cares when we have "hope"!

Better invest your money in "temp agencies" because if Obama wins,there will be a big demand for "temporary" employees.

Anyone who remembers the first debates, recalls how awkward and

ignorant Obama was.. Hillary ran circles around Obama, and still does. The media has been particularly harsh and cruel to women: Hillary certainly didn't deserve the daily criticism and battering; Palen, the newcomer, (but still with more executive experience than Obama), was ridiculed and dismissed by the media. Is the media anti-female? The media let us down, they did not effectively cover the campaign, and the way they treated women candidates seemed more like 1960's than 2008.

We'll all be crying if Obama wins the election. Crying because

we'll discover that "hope" and "change" doesn't create jobs.

Election results can be deceiving. Yes, Obama won. It appears Ohio turned democrat, but actually, the election

results map shows Ohio predominantly red, with "pockets" of blue.. mainly in Columbus and Athens, Ohio. Its no coincidence, Ohio State University is in Columbus and, Ohio University is in Athens. Obama won Ohio through the youth vote, black vote obviously -- many "non-taxpayers" influenced the outcome of the election. Real taxpayers voted predominantly for McCain in Ohio.

Oh, and could Michelle Obama have picked a worse dress to wear

on the night her husband wins the election. On TV, it looked like it was tie-dyed. Michelle, you need to represent us Americans a little better. I can just see that dress splashed

across Europe's papers...we're a laughing stock now. No, you

don't need a $2,500 suit to look classy. You can find classy suits, in the $300 range that will be just fine for the inauguration.

Hmmm, something doesn't sound right. No one is forcing blacks to vote Democrat...there was also a surge in Catholic voters voting Democrat and youth voting Democrat.

How lame. This is so 8th grade. Anyone who makes lists of "winners and losers" is a LOSER!

It means he's been given the opportunity to:

1. Create more jobs

2. create an Affordable healthcare plan available for everyone;

3. keep our country secure

4. Eliminate waste/pork in the federal government;

5. Enforce tax laws so that everyone pays their fair share;

6. Reduce the deficit

His success as a president should be judged on whether or not he's successful with these issues. I know that's how I'll decide who to vote for in 4 years.

If anyone looked into Obama's campaign expenses, I'm sure there are many, many questionable items, including his trips to Hawaii to visit grandma. Secondly, the amount of money Obama spent on the campaign was Grossly Obscene...especially considering the current state of the economy. And his surrogates keep telling us you can judge how he'll manage as a president by the way he managed his campaign.

The U.S. auto industry is failing because of their own horrible, inept management, mediocre quality, lack of vision, etc. If we bail them out, without also identifying benchmarks they need to meet in order to be successful,we're not helping them, we're just putting a bandaid over the problem. There are

empty, abandoned GM plants all over the country, some of them fairly new; these plants should be used again to re-tool new models. Also, the union contracts should be replaced with new

contracts that reflect the global economy we compete in.

It would be irresponsible to bail them out, without addressing

the major problems, and with a stipulation that they have to meet benchmarks to get the money.

People voted for Obama because they're "against Bush", not because they agree with Obama's socialist ideas. Anyone who

takes college level economics eventually comes to the realization why socialism is not a good thing.

I'm not a fan of Bush, however, I do believe the recent financial disaster is very deep-rooted and can be traced back

to Clinton policies. NAFTA opened the door for manufacturing jobs, (high-paying jobs for the middle class)to leave the country,and caused their suppliers to close also. When hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs are gone, that eventually affects the economy.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were established because Clinton pressured government to provide loans for people who can't afford to own a home.

Bush is responsible for the war in Iraq., and mishandling of Katrina. The Republican party sat back and did nothing, as everything unraveled. One of the problems with the GOP is they all seem to cult-like "followers", as if they don't have a mind of their own.