I dislike all politicians who back corrupt incumbents. I dislike President Bush for backing Senator Specter over Congressman Toomey in the 2004 Senate primary. I dislike House Republicans for standing behind corrupt Congressman Don Young and I dislike Senator Republicans for standing behind corrupt Senator Ted Stevens.

I dislike Obama for working hard to invalidate the petitions of all of his opponents. It was legal, but it was hardly the epitome of a clean campaign.

I dislike him for claiming to work with Senator McCain on a bill when the record shows that he only worked with him for one day. He misrepresented the extent of his cooperation. Isn’t that really a lie?

He misrepresented his involvement with Senator McCain. He worked very hard to remove all of his competition and make sure voters only had one option on the ballot. He endorsed corrupt politicians and spurned politicians fighting for change.

I don’t like it when a candidate does that. Should I?

Furthermore, a lot of what is in that article is not even fact. The whole end section about Obama’s supposed “endorsements of Chicago’s machine politicians” is laughable. “They probably would have succeeded, too, had Mr. Obama taken their side.” That is hardly a fact.

We all see things through certain lenses. Don’t be naive.

Quoting an entire newspaper article and then saying, this is my opinion, doesn’t represent much political savvy. Nor does it represent much individual thought. This may not be the case, but it makes it seem as though you’re just thinking what you’re told to think.

I was giving a list of facts and saying that I don’t like a politician that engaged in those activities. That is my own opinion.

Do you dispute the facts?