This post isn’t going to sway anyone (and it probably will start some mini flame wars), but it does seem fair from what I know of both candidates. Good job on getting that done (which was the intent of the post).

It makes it clear what they think you want them to stand for

Thanks for posting, but unfortunately this confirms my suspicion that I don’t want either person in office. Oh well. Whee for two party systems.

“Repeal tax cuts on wealthy”

That’s a heavily biased assessment of the tax cuts in question.

(to be fair, however, I appreciate your otherwise fair, rational and fact-oriented approach to the matter!)

For those who are interested, these are the facts I felt were relevant to my comment:

“Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush’s tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

# The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

# The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

# The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.”

There are many sources, this was the most concise, and the source of the citation above:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm

Speaking as someone from the UK I would pick Obama as the lesser of two evils.
The two key points I have issue with as far as Obama is concerned are:
1. How many more people does the US of A want to see die because of your restrictive trade practises. Mny countries in Africa have stated that they would not need the Aid funding if they were not prohibited from trading on an equal footing with the USA and Europe. But, of course, it’s in the interests of the USA to keep those countries dependent on Aid. You only have to take a look at how the money allocated to rebuild Iraq was used to see that.
2. Why does Obama see any need to expand the armed forces? This could only mean an intention to expand the USA’s global influence. Unless the USA foriegn policy shapes up, this is bad news for the world - or is there some place that Americans aren’t hated enough by American military standards and he just has to send troops there?

It is, however, some relief to see his stance on gun ownership.

A notable ommission is any policy regarding the signing of the Kyoto treaty from either candidate. With 25% of the worlds polution coming from the USA, isn’t it time a President took some real responsibility?