Slashdot Mirror

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

So far he has not declared any wars and has been keeping most of his promises. I'll take it. (especially so after bush)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Linked elsewhere in the thread:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

"tell us ONE promise he made he has kept????"

Take your pick.

Crikey did you even look at it? One of the broken promises listed had to do with transparency.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/

Which one are you talking about? The 5 day waiting period? Pfft... that's not about transparancy.

What about his promise that he wouldn't continue Bush's abuse of the state secrets privilege? Because he has ignored that.

I suggest that people monitor the following site:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

It gives a good overall view of whether it is 'bait and switch' or not.

So far the meter shows 15 promises kept and 2 broken. That is almost close to 90%. I'd say that is a pretty good score.

That's the thing that's killing me! On one hand, I'm extremely pleased to see some serious R&D go into battery research, it's long overdue. Portable power technology has been lame for years, IMO, and is lagging far behind the rest of electronic tech, comparatively speaking. It's been the bottleneck to more advanced electronic technology.
On the other hand, what has this go to do with short term economic stimulus? Nothing. It should've gone into it's own bill, and one where the American people could've had their "5 days" or whatever it is to look it over - an ability which Obama has promised to give the American people in his push for more gov't transparency. By shoehorning so many unrelated bills and projects into this "stimulus" package (which, as an "emergency bill" the transparency proposal is waived), the 111th Congress has circumvented that ability and as a result all kinds of bills have been "smuggled" into becoming reality.
Personally, I think this is very telling of Congress. They don't want or need our "input" and they don't want us to see how they're conducting business. It's ironic, but I see a Democratic led congress fighting Obama as much as the Republican minority, in this regard. Then again, Obama has already repeatedly broken that promise himself. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/234/allow-five-days-of-public-comment-before-signing-b/

ACK! ACK ACK ACK!

Living in Clearwater (and having the St. Pete Times as my newspaper), I assure you that they are NOT neutral in any sense of the word.

In addition to their editorial page being constantly slanted left, they regularly spin their new stories in the same way.

I have been following the politifact.com site since I found it weeks ago. In fact, I subscribe to the RSS feed here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/feeds/updates/

My main problem with this site in particular is that they count broken promises as "in progress" or "compromise", and they add new promises all the time. This doesn't just track promises made during the campaign: if he says (as president) he'll do something next week, and then he does it, it counts as a "Promise Kept". This ensures that their numbers always skew to the "Promise Kept" side.

That said, I find the site entertaining, if irritating. I just hate the idea that anyone things it's "Fair" or "Neutral".

A dozen? Try two. And they had to sign agreements strictly limiting how they could and could not interact with their former employers.

I agree this is a great concern. The article would do well to cite these promises, though. I do recall these being brought up, but it would be nice to post the evidence. Anyone have a link to support for these claims? So far I've found this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/

You can track the progress of Obama's many campaign promises at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ - its pretty interesting.

He's off to a fair (6 and 1) start. Track it here http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

You can always track his campaign promises. As of right now, 7 are kept, 1 stalled, 14 in the works, and no status on 488. Not a bad start after 3 days.

Fox Mulder forever!

There is, sadly, a lot of truth to the statement that conservatives are more likely to fall for conspiracy theories. There is iron-clad proof that Obama's birth certificate is real; despite this, conservative news sites still continue to believe "Obama's birth certificate is fake" conspiracy theories.

• Obama has never provided proof that he was born in Hawaii.

  When questions about his birth appeared, he published a scanned copy of his Certificate of Live Birth on his website. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com both show copies of it.

• That Certificate of Live Birth isn't the same as a birth certificate.

  For purposes of proving birth, it is accepted by all other states and the federal government as proof. You can use it to get a passport.

• It looks like a fraud done by a computer, for example it doesn't list the hospital, there's no doctor name, the form was revised in 2001, etc.

  When requesting proof of birth, the State of Hawaii, like many other states, does not send someone down to the archives to photocopy old records. Instead, the State of Hawaii will look up the data, print out a certificate, put a seal on it, and put a stamped signature. The COLB is a short form copy that does not have all the details of the long form original like the hospital. Because some individuals are not born in a hospital, the short form copy lists only those fields which are relevant to all births like "Place of Birth".

• But this makes Obama a liar because this isn't his original birth certificate that's because he doesn't have one.

  To be clear, Obama's team has never claimed that the COLB was his original birth certificate only that it was an official copy of his birth certificate. As for possessing an original birth certificate, many people do not have theirs. They may have been lost over the years. For most people, when you request a copy from your state, most likely the state will print out a copy as Hawaii as done here.

• But there was no seal or signature on the so-called "copy" I saw on the website.

  Both the seal and the signature appear on the back of the form which was not scanned. The seal is raised and would not easily appear on a scan anyways. Viewing the document at an angle, you can see the seal. Factcheck.org has seen the COLB and has taken other pictures.

• The signature doesn't look real.

  Most government signatures for documents like this are not hand signatures; they are stamped signatures.

• Still, it doesn't look like any other birth certificate I've seen.

  The look of birth certificates varies from state to state and in some cases, county to county. The COLB presented by Obama is the same form as any other COLB from Hawaii.

• But the COLB only records that someone was born somewhere. It doesn't actually prove he was born in Hawaii.

  The COLB lists the Place of Birth. In Obama's case, it lists "Honolulu".

• But you can get a COLB for people born outside Hawaii and the US even.

  Starting in 1982, the State of Hawaii allowed parents to register their children who were born elsewhere as an secondary means of proof just like a passport proves citizenship in lieu of a Certificate of Naturalization or a birth certificate. However, the COLB would not deviate the Place of Birth from the original birth certificate. If a child was not born in Hawaii, the COLB would list their Place of Birth as some place other than "Hawaii". This registration was not an option for Obama's mother as he was born in 1961.

• Why is the certificate number blacked out? This means it was altered.

  Obama's campaign says blacking out the numbers was a cautionary move just in case the number was security sensitive just like you would not post a SSN online. As it turns out, it was not. FactCheck shows the number.

• FactCheck's photos have the datestamp of March 2008 even though their article claims to have seen it around October 2008. This proves a fake.

  A datestamp on the jpeg can mean anything like

McCain is covered under three clauses. Children born abroad to 2 Citizens are considered natural born citizens at birth. This was enacted in the very first Congress. At his birth, the Panama canal (not the entire country of Panama) was a US territory. McCain was born in a Naval hospital as his father was stationed there.

As for Obama he was born in Hawaii in 1961 and Hawaii became a state in 1959. As for the other conspiracy allegations:

• Obama has never provided proof that he was born in Hawaii.

  When questions about his birth appeared, he published a scanned copy of his Certificate of Live Birth on his website. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com both show copies of it.

• That Certificate of Live Birth isn't the same as a birth certificate.

  For purposes of proving birth, it is accepted by all other states and the federal government as proof. You can use it to get a passport.

• It looks like a fraud done by a computer, for example it doesn't list the hospital, there's no doctor name, the form was revised in 2001, etc.

  When requesting proof of birth, the State of Hawaii, like many other states, does not send someone down to the archives to photocopy old records. Instead, the State of Hawaii will look up the data, print out a certificate, put a seal on it, and put a stamped signature. The COLB is a short form copy that does not have all the details of the long form original like the hospital. Because some individuals are not born in a hospital, the short form copy lists only those fields which are relevant to all births like "Place of Birth".

• But this makes Obama a liar because this isn't his original birth certificate that's because he doesn't have one.

  To be clear, Obama's team has never claimed that the COLB was his original birth certificate only that it was an official copy of his birth certificate. As for possessing an original birth certificate, many people do not have theirs. They may have been lost over the years. For most people, when you request a copy from your state, most likely the state will print out a copy as Hawaii as done here.

• But there was no seal or signature on the so-called "copy" I saw on the website.

  Both the seal and the signature appear on the back of the form which was not scanned. The seal is raised and would not easily appear on a scan anyways. Viewing the document at an angle, you can see the seal. Factcheck.org has seen the COLB and has taken other pictures.

• The signature doesn't look real.

  Most government signatures for documents like this are not hand signatures; they are stamped signatures.

• Still, it doesn't look like any other birth certificate I've seen.

  The look of birth certificates varies from state to state and in some cases, county to county. The COLB presented by Obama is the same form as any other COLB from Hawaii.

• But the COLB only records that someone was born somewhere. It doesn't actually prove he was born in Hawaii.

  The COLB lists the Place of Birth. In Obama's case, it lists "Honolulu".

• But you can get a COLB for people born outside Hawaii and the US even.

  Starting in 1982, the State of Hawaii allowed parents to register their children who were born elsewhere as an secondary means of proof just like a passport proves citizenship in lieu of a Certificate of Naturalization or a birth certificate. However, the COLB would not deviate the Place of Birth from the original birth certificate. If a child was not born in Hawaii, the COLB would list their Place of Birth as some place other than "Hawaii". This registration was not an option for Obama's mother as he was born in 1961.

• Why is the certificate number blacked out? This means it was altered.

  Obam

• Obama has never provided proof that he was born in Hawaii.

  When questions about his birth appeared, he published a scanned copy of his Certificate of Live Birth on his website. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com both show copies of it.

• That Certificate of Live Birth isn't the same as a birth certificate.

  For purposes of proving birth, it is accepted by all other states and the federal government as proof. You can use it to get a passport.

• It looks like a fraud done by a computer, for example it doesn't list the hospital.

  The COLB is a short form copy that does not have all the details of the long form original like the hospital. Because some individuals are not born in a hospital, the short form copy lists only those fields which are relevant to all births like "Place of Birth". When requesting proof of birth, the State of Hawaii, like many other states, does not send someone down to the archives to photocopy old records. Instead, the State of Hawaii will look up the data, print out a COLB, put a seal on it, and put a stamped signature.

• But there was no seal or signature on the so-called "copy" I saw on the website.

  Both the seal and the signature appear on the back of the form which was not scanned. The seal is raised and would not easily appear on a scan anyways. Viewing the document at an angle, you can see the seal. Factcheck.org has seen the COLB and has taken other pictures.

• The signature doesn't look real.

  Most government signatures for documents like this are not hand signatures; they are stamped signatures.

• Still, it doesn't look like any other birth certificate I've seen.

  The look of birth certificates varies from state to state and in some cases, county to county. The COLB presented by Obama is the same form as any other COLB from Hawaii.

• But the COLB only records that someone was born somewhere. It doesn't actually prove he was born in Hawaii.

  The COLB lists the Place of Birth. In Obama's case, it lists "Honolulu".

• But you can get a COLB for people born outside Hawaii and the US even.

  Starting in 1982, the State of Hawaii allowed parents to register their children who were born elsewhere as an secondary means of proof just like a passport proves citizenship in lieu of a Certificate of Naturalization or a birth certificate. However, the COLB would not deviate the Place of Birth from the original birth certificate. If a child was not born in Hawaii, the COLB would list their Place of Birth as some place other than "Hawaii". This registration was not an option for Obama's mother as he was born in 1961.

• Why is the certificate number blacked out? This means it was altered.

  Obama's campaign says blacking out the numbers was a cautionary move just in case the number was security sensitive just like you would not post a SSN online. As it turns out, it was not. FactCheck shows the number.

• Just because he has a COLB doesn't mean he has an original.

  Because of the voluminous questions surrounding this issue, the Director of Health of Hawaii Dr. Chiyome Fukino, and registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka have viewed the long form original in private and affirm Obama was born in Hawaii. The governor of Hawaii considers this matter closed and will not entertain any more inquiries.

• There are birth records that Hawaii won't let anyone have access to, like the original long form. What are they hiding?

  All birth records are always deemed private by the State of Hawaii. This is not an exception made for Obama. No one but the family can ask for them.

• How do we know Obama's Democratic friends aren't j

Thanks for proving my point because you seem to spouting the uninformed rumors that conspiracy nuts are spreading.

• Obama has never provided proof that he was born in Hawaii.

  When questions about his birth appeared, he published a scanned copy of his Certificate of Live Birth on his website. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com both show copies of it.

• That Certificate of Live Birth isn't the same as a birth certificate.

  For purposes of proving birth, it is accepted by all other states and the federal government as proof. You can use it to get a passport.

• It looks like a fraud done by a computer, for example it doesn't list the hospital.

  The COLB is a short form copy that does not have all the details of the long form original like the hospital. Because some individuals are not born in a hospital, the short form copy lists only those fields which are relevant to all births like "Place of Birth". When requesting proof of birth, the State of Hawaii, like many other states, does not send someone down to the archives to photocopy old records. Instead, the State of Hawaii will look up the data, print out a COLB, put a seal on it, and put a stamped signature.

• But there was no seal or signature on the so-called "copy" I saw on the website.

  Both the seal and the signature appear on the back of the form which was not scanned. The seal is raised and would not easily appear on a scan anyways. Viewing the document at an angle, you can see the seal. Factcheck.org has seen the COLB and has taken other pictures.

• The signature doesn't look real.

  Most government signatures for documents like this are not hand signatures; they are stamped signatures.

• Still, it doesn't look like any other birth certificate I've seen.

  The look of birth certificates varies from state to state and in some cases, county to county. The COLB presented by Obama is the same form as any other COLB from Hawaii.

• But the COLB only records that someone was born somewhere. It doesn't actually prove he was born in Hawaii.

  The COLB lists the Place of Birth. In Obama's case, it lists "Honolulu".

• But you can get a COLB for people born outside Hawaii and the US even.

  Starting in 1982, the State of Hawaii allowed parents to register their children who were born elsewhere as an secondary means of proof just like a passport proves citizenship in lieu of a Certificate of Naturalization or a birth certificate. However, the COLB would not deviate the Place of Birth from the original birth certificate. If a child was not born in Hawaii, the COLB would list their Place of Birth as some place other than "Hawaii". This registration was not an option for Obama's mother as he was born in 1961.

• Why is the certificate number blacked out? This means it was altered.

  Obama's campaign says blacking out the numbers was a cautionary move just in case the number was security sensitive just like you would not post a SSN online. As it turns out, it was not. FactCheck shows the number.

• Just because he has a COLB doesn't mean he has an original.

  Because of the voluminous questions surrounding this issue, the Director of Health of Hawaii Dr. Chiyome Fukino, and registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka have viewed the long form original in private and affirm Obama was born in Hawaii. The governor of Hawaii considers this matter closed and will not entertain any more inquiries.

• There are birth records that Hawaii won't let anyone have access to, like the original long form. What are they hiding?

  All birth records are always deemed private by the State of Hawaii. This is not an exceptio

Obama, on the other hand, didn't give the press much chance to cover McCain. His attacks were far fewer, and according to most fact checkers nearly every one of them had merit.

Just to support your claim: Throughout the campaign, I used FactCheck.org and Politifact.com to check the veracity of the candidates' statements. Politifact was especially helpful because they give a count of how truthful the candidates were.

Obama ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/ ) had 49 True statements, 31 Mostly True, 33 Half True, 19 Barely True, 25 False, and 2 "Pants On Fire."

McCain ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/john-mccain/ ) had 30 True statements, 28 Mostly True, 28 Half True, 27 Barely True, 34 False, and 7 "Pants On Fire."

McCain thus had less truthful statements (True, Mostly True) and more non-truthful statements (Barely True, False, Pants On Fire). To make it easier to rate the politicians overall, I would assign numbers to their statements: True was +2, Mostly True was +1, Half True was +0.5, Barely True was -0.5, False was -1, and Pants on Fire was -2. Adding up the totals (and taking the average to prevent any bias from more statements being made) gives us a Truth rating of 0.69 for Obama (between Half True and Mostly True) and 0.26 for McCain (between Barely True and Half True). Obama obviously was more truthful.

And just for the sake of completeness, the VPs:

Biden ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/joe-biden/ ) had 8 True statements, 5 Mostly True, 7 Half True, 6 Barely True, 4 False, and 2 "Pants On Fire."

Palin ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/sarah-palin/ ) had 6 True statements, 2 Mostly True, 5 Half True, 3 Barely True, 2 False, and 2 "Pants On Fire."

Assigning my scores for them gives Biden a score of 0.42 and Palin a score of 0.45. Both are just under Half True rating. Palin's truth score is above Biden's but just barely.

(NOTE: These scores include statements made from the beginning of the Primaries up until the election.)

Obama, on the other hand, didn't give the press much chance to cover McCain. His attacks were far fewer, and according to most fact checkers nearly every one of them had merit.

Just to support your claim: Throughout the campaign, I used FactCheck.org and Politifact.com to check the veracity of the candidates' statements. Politifact was especially helpful because they give a count of how truthful the candidates were.

Obama ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/ ) had 49 True statements, 31 Mostly True, 33 Half True, 19 Barely True, 25 False, and 2 "Pants On Fire."

McCain ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/john-mccain/ ) had 30 True statements, 28 Mostly True, 28 Half True, 27 Barely True, 34 False, and 7 "Pants On Fire."

McCain thus had less truthful statements (True, Mostly True) and more non-truthful statements (Barely True, False, Pants On Fire). To make it easier to rate the politicians overall, I would assign numbers to their statements: True was +2, Mostly True was +1, Half True was +0.5, Barely True was -0.5, False was -1, and Pants on Fire was -2. Adding up the totals (and taking the average to prevent any bias from more statements being made) gives us a Truth rating of 0.69 for Obama (between Half True and Mostly True) and 0.26 for McCain (between Barely True and Half True). Obama obviously was more truthful.

And just for the sake of completeness, the VPs:

Biden ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/joe-biden/ ) had 8 True statements, 5 Mostly True, 7 Half True, 6 Barely True, 4 False, and 2 "Pants On Fire."

Palin ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/sarah-palin/ ) had 6 True statements, 2 Mostly True, 5 Half True, 3 Barely True, 2 False, and 2 "Pants On Fire."

Assigning my scores for them gives Biden a score of 0.42 and Palin a score of 0.45. Both are just under Half True rating. Palin's truth score is above Biden's but just barely.

(NOTE: These scores include statements made from the beginning of the Primaries up until the election.)

Obama, on the other hand, didn't give the press much chance to cover McCain. His attacks were far fewer, and according to most fact checkers nearly every one of them had merit.

Just to support your claim: Throughout the campaign, I used FactCheck.org and Politifact.com to check the veracity of the candidates' statements. Politifact was especially helpful because they give a count of how truthful the candidates were.

Obama ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/ ) had 49 True statements, 31 Mostly True, 33 Half True, 19 Barely True, 25 False, and 2 "Pants On Fire."

McCain ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/john-mccain/ ) had 30 True statements, 28 Mostly True, 28 Half True, 27 Barely True, 34 False, and 7 "Pants On Fire."

McCain thus had less truthful statements (True, Mostly True) and more non-truthful statements (Barely True, False, Pants On Fire). To make it easier to rate the politicians overall, I would assign numbers to their statements: True was +2, Mostly True was +1, Half True was +0.5, Barely True was -0.5, False was -1, and Pants on Fire was -2. Adding up the totals (and taking the average to prevent any bias from more statements being made) gives us a Truth rating of 0.69 for Obama (between Half True and Mostly True) and 0.26 for McCain (between Barely True and Half True). Obama obviously was more truthful.

And just for the sake of completeness, the VPs:

Biden ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/joe-biden/ ) had 8 True statements, 5 Mostly True, 7 Half True, 6 Barely True, 4 False, and 2 "Pants On Fire."

Palin ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/sarah-palin/ ) had 6 True statements, 2 Mostly True, 5 Half True, 3 Barely True, 2 False, and 2 "Pants On Fire."

Assigning my scores for them gives Biden a score of 0.42 and Palin a score of 0.45. Both are just under Half True rating. Palin's truth score is above Biden's but just barely.

(NOTE: These scores include statements made from the beginning of the Primaries up until the election.)

Obama, on the other hand, didn't give the press much chance to cover McCain. His attacks were far fewer, and according to most fact checkers nearly every one of them had merit.

Just to support your claim: Throughout the campaign, I used FactCheck.org and Politifact.com to check the veracity of the candidates' statements. Politifact was especially helpful because they give a count of how truthful the candidates were.

Obama ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/ ) had 49 True statements, 31 Mostly True, 33 Half True, 19 Barely True, 25 False, and 2 "Pants On Fire."

McCain ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/john-mccain/ ) had 30 True statements, 28 Mostly True, 28 Half True, 27 Barely True, 34 False, and 7 "Pants On Fire."

McCain thus had less truthful statements (True, Mostly True) and more non-truthful statements (Barely True, False, Pants On Fire). To make it easier to rate the politicians overall, I would assign numbers to their statements: True was +2, Mostly True was +1, Half True was +0.5, Barely True was -0.5, False was -1, and Pants on Fire was -2. Adding up the totals (and taking the average to prevent any bias from more statements being made) gives us a Truth rating of 0.69 for Obama (between Half True and Mostly True) and 0.26 for McCain (between Barely True and Half True). Obama obviously was more truthful.

And just for the sake of completeness, the VPs:

Biden ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/joe-biden/ ) had 8 True statements, 5 Mostly True, 7 Half True, 6 Barely True, 4 False, and 2 "Pants On Fire."

Palin ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/sarah-palin/ ) had 6 True statements, 2 Mostly True, 5 Half True, 3 Barely True, 2 False, and 2 "Pants On Fire."

Assigning my scores for them gives Biden a score of 0.42 and Palin a score of 0.45. Both are just under Half True rating. Palin's truth score is above Biden's but just barely.

(NOTE: These scores include statements made from the beginning of the Primaries up until the election.)

%40 of Americans don't pay taxes.
Eat crow.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/228/

Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation (if he has it)? Everyone else has to.

What, his birth certificate (which has been verified to be valid) isn't documentation enough for you?

(You are talking about documentation of U.S. citizenship, right? Or did I just misunderstand you?)

I don't get the fear about Obama, though.

Agreed. I'd like to see a list of fears that your average registered republican voter has of Obama getting into office. I'd bet that a huge portion of them are along the lines of "He's Muslim!"/"He's gonna take away our guns!"/"He pals around with terrorists!"/"He's going to raise taxes on me!" (of course, this is true for people who make over $250K/yr, but plenty of people not in that bracket who are voting against him believe this to be true). Bleh.

(...And I shouldn't ignore PolitiFact...)

Do a little more research. Obama was the #2 candidate of donations from Fannie.

Nice cherry picking. For starters, Fannie Mae donated mostly to Democrats, but Freddie Mac donated mostly to Republicans. I haven't seen individual breakdowns to show what one candidate received from just Fannie, but I don't particularly care - the big picture is more important.

Politifact has a decent explanation of what is going on, and I would like to highlight the fact that the statistic that shows Obama as the second highest receiver of donations is only counting donations by individual employees, not the board of directors/lobbyists/etc. When you add in those numbers, McCain's donations swells a good bit over Obama's.

And honestly, is it so bad that individual employees of large companies that donated to a candidate? Do you think the Obama had a chance of directly spending time with every one of these donors as much as McCain had of the lobbyists who donated significantly more $/person?

This story is bullshit

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/704/
As for Kilkenny's claim, there is no proof that Palin tried to fire the librarian because she refused to consider removing books. In fact, Palin asked for the resignation of a handful of department heads to test their loyalty, according to reports at the time. The claim that Palin had specific books she wanted removed is also unsupported. Kilkenny herself said she does not recall that any titles were named by Palin at the time.

Yes, a reporter provides a secondhand account 12 years later in which he says the librarian named books Palin wanted removed. But Stuart's recollection seems hazy (he didn't get the right title at first). The librarian isn't talking. There are no public records or meeting minutes to substantiate the claim. And no one else corroborates that Palin ever listed any titles. So we find no basis to find that part of the story true.

But Palin did ask the librarian if she would consider removing books. Maybe it was posed as a rhetorical question as Palin says. But she asked. So we rule the statement Half True.

In the end, estimates are all we have to work with here. Estimates of oil production, estimates of gasoline savings. For our purposes in evaluating Obama's claim, all the available evidence shows that he's on solid ground in saying that better car and tire maintenance would save as much gasoline as drilling would generate. We appreciate McCain's campaign pointing out a GAO source we'd missed in our original research, but it's not at odds with our original ruling, True.

I'm not an Obama guy - His lack of experience scares me

You're right. 20 years of experience in public service and law isn't nearly enough.

Damn straight. As of next January, he'll have completed 4 years of service at the national level (with basically no experience internationally). 8 years at the state level (and as a state senator - good experience, but not not that impressive on the national stage). And from your own link which seems to debunk his 20 year claim:

To get to 20 years of experience, we still need eight years from Obama's career prior to holding public office. Obama graduated from Columbia University in 1983. He worked for a year as a financial analyst; in his memoir he said he spent his days behind a computer terminal, "checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages across the globe" and feeling like "a spy behind enemy lines." He gave up that job to go into community organizing, work he felt was more important politically. He worked three years as a community organizer in Chicago before going to Harvard Law School. We won't count the junior-level business experience as working "on behalf of families who are having a hard time," but the community organizing work does seem to fit the bill. That brings his work experience to 15 years.

Did you read that article before you linked to it?

I'm not an Obama guy - His lack of experience scares me

You're right. 20 years of experience in public service and law isn't nearly enough.

Damn straight. As of next January, he'll have completed 4 years of service at the national level (with basically no experience internationally). 8 years at the state level (and as a state senator - good experience, but not not that impressive on the national stage). And from your own link which seems to debunk his 20 year claim:

To get to 20 years of experience, we still need eight years from Obama's career prior to holding public office. Obama graduated from Columbia University in 1983. He worked for a year as a financial analyst; in his memoir he said he spent his days behind a computer terminal, "checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages across the globe" and feeling like "a spy behind enemy lines." He gave up that job to go into community organizing, work he felt was more important politically. He worked three years as a community organizer in Chicago before going to Harvard Law School. We won't count the junior-level business experience as working "on behalf of families who are having a hard time," but the community organizing work does seem to fit the bill. That brings his work experience to 15 years.

Did you read that article before you linked to it?

I'm not an Obama guy - His lack of experience scares me

You're right. 20 years of experience in public service and law isn't nearly enough.

Romney - Many past leadership accomplishments: 1. 2002 Winter Olympics - $379M deficit turned to $100M surplus - Scandal turned to tremendous success 2. Saved a coworkers daughter - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/245/ 3. Turned several businesses around 4. Deficit to surplus in Massachusetts as governor Also: A. Even though devout, doesn't push his religion on anyone. B. Not a unilateralist--seeks to understand in detail before acting -- Which may explain why he's so successful in business. C. Was vacationing in San Diego area (where I'm from) and took his own time (with no press or campaign people around) to help someone remove a large stump from their yard--I believe after the awful fires we had last fall. He wants to serve people.