2008 US Presidential Candidate: John McCain v3

This is version 2 of the McCain thread. The last few posts of version 1 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=117800) can be found in this thread.

Okay guys, based on some feedback we've received from some of you recently we're going with two separate threads for the candidates. Much less of a versus match and more of a focus, so we can can get more of what each campaign is doing and saying.

Now there is a very uneven split for the Liberal/Conservative base on CoS Forums in favor of the Liberal base. We ask that you respect the split and allow time for our Conservative friends to respond to comments. Both threads may be closed at the same time if we feel the need is there.

Now...

1. If something is a fact state your source.
2. If something is not a fact explain that it is your opinion. If it's not a fact backed up by a reliable source then it is your opinion and we expect you to say so.
3. You are not to cross-post between threads. You are not to quote from one thread into another. Pick a thread and commit. Evidence of cross-posting in any form will be removed
4. You do not need to be a supporter to post in the thread, but your comments must be constructive. No posting Joe. Q. Pundit's article about how McCain blends puppies and Obama steals candy from babies in both threads. Pick a thread and commit.
5. Bearing in mind the above, each thread is allowed to contain critical pieces on the opponents.

That's it. Something is a fact or it's your opinion. It should be clear which is which at all times.

If you do not follow these simple guidelines and as always How to have a pleasant conversation on any topic (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=104233), you will be removed from the DoIMC for at least one week or up to 30 days. This applies to everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike. Any questions on modding go to Jessica (http://www.cosforums.com/member.php?u=3571), lanifiel (http://www.cosforums.com/member.php?u=851) or myself. Any offensive posts should be reported. If you respond rudely to a rude post you will be warned and removed from the DoIMC. Ah yes, oh happy, happy days ahead.

If you intend to link very large images in the thread or quote long articles, please use the appropriate tags.

t e x t

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

t e x t

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

Questions Below

What qualities do you consider McCain to have that would make him a good President? Examples help.
What weaknesses do you perceive him to have? Examples help.
What are the major issues and challenges facing the future President right now and how do you think a McCain government would handle them?
What strengths should McCain look for in a running mate?
Is it your intention to vote for McCain? If so, are you voting on specific issues or is it a loyalty vote?


Questions on the VP Candidate.

As a conservative voter what is your opinion of the Democrat VP candidate?
How do you think the Republican Party will respond to this?
Who would make a good VP candidate for the party and why?
On hearing who Obama has chosen, does it change your opinion of the Democratic platform for the election and would you switch votes?


Note: Questions subject to change depending on arising issues such as VP selection

Let me repeat. My husband & I removed our 401K money to stay afloat. Also, our income is above average (U.S. average income is $25,000 BTW). (Household = $40,000 http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html)

My 401K's worthless.

Your suggestion is that people are removing money to move it offshore for fear of the Democrats.

Yep. And it's not just me who is talking about it. If you listen to, watch, or read financial reports, even on CNN, you'll hear the theory that Americans are moving money out of US markets in anticipation of higher taxes and redistribution by the Democrats. The report about a couple of powerful Democrats considering eliminating tax benefits for 401K programs and forcing an additional 5% government mandated "contribution" instead is argument enough for folks to see where things are heading.

Investors aren't stupid. They know that higher corporate taxes are passed down to consumers as higher prices and to employees in lower wages, lost benefits and eventually, lost employment. They know that its 401k investors who will lose value in their investments through higher corporate taxes. And they know that businesses that are able will simply relocate outside the US to corporate friendly nations like Ireland, that the super rich investors will protect their assets before the Democrats take over, that the truly destitute will continue to be taken care of by the taxpayers, and that the people who will truly suffer through higher prices for goods and services, reduced wages, and reduced value of their 401K's will be middle class Americans.

** Edit ***
Source added

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1224601440.php

Barack's tax plan contains sizable advantages to corporations that stay here and penalty provisions for those who relocate outside the U.S.

Campaign Money Watch has an ad running in swing states on McCain's addiction to the craps tables (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/us/politics/28gambling-web.html).

0quZvrS9NQM

My 401K's worthless.

So you are not moving any $$$ overseas. Just reality checking.

Campaign Money Watch has an ad running in swing states on McCain's addiction to the craps tables (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/us/politics/28gambling-web.html).

Given the way he doubles down on losing bets, I'm thinking the gambling houses let him win.
Article about McCain & ties to gambling lobby.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/us/politics/28gambling-web.html

Image from McCain's speech today.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/mccain-romney-whitman-sg-large.jpg

How different would race be if one of those 2 was VP candidate ?

Palin's makeup artist HIGHEST paid staffer on John McCain's staff in first 2 weeks of October.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-election/sarah-palins-makeup-artist-is-mccain-campaigns-highest-paid-staffer-14017176.html

McCain campaign hiring Obama volunteers to be employees for McCain Ohio ground game. (Hiring = $$$).
The workers are going to vote for Obama themselves. (...?) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5019585.ece

Similar story from Florida, where, oops, a camera crew caught the GOP field manager pretending they use volunteers when their workers are paid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiYl9Mno9rM. Graphic demonstration of "enthusiasm gap".

I suppose you heard Sen. Ted Stevens was convicted. The oil companies renovated his house & he didn't declare it. The contractor who did the work, is the same contractor who built the Wasilla Hockey Rink (contract awarded by Mayor Palin). http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/13/sen-stevens-and-palins-complicated-relationship/

The rumor is that Palin's house was built with supplies the contractor purchased & donated to them & he may have contributed paid workmen too. http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-10-08/news/the-book-of-sarah/

John Dickerson of Slate begs to differ with those who say McCain doesn't have a tight campaign message.

Who says John McCain doesn't have a tight campaign message (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F10%2F26% 2Fmagazine%2F26mccain-t.html%3F_r%3D1%26oref%3Dslogin&ei=rjoGSefILZSUesyV9e4N&usg=AFQjCNFG3tGeGKxVIkXRyYIEDr4vWQ2A6Q&sig2=ecEoR6uteUCzeiHYpKbDdQ)? At his rally here Monday, the message was clear and pithy:

Boo.

In three acts, McCain presented the Obama Horror Show. If Obama is elected, your taxes will go up, you'll be unsafe from foreign threats, and, especially if Congress goes Democratic, you will be forced to endure an era of unchecked liberalism.

Obama aides have long argued that their candidate offers hope while McCain offers fear. Judging by the balance of messages both candidates are giving voters before Election Day, it's hard to disagree.

This article is spot on - and a joy to read, to boot.

Political Halloween - McCain's message: Be afraid of Obama. Be very afraid. (http://www.slate.com/id/2203139/?from=rss)

Per Jason Linkins on Huffington Post, the anti-Palin leaks are coming from ex-Romney staffers who are on the McCain campaign. He theorizes that the GOP is going to split into three factions after November 5th, the pro-Palins, the pro-Romneys, and the intellectuals / pundits. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/27/gop-draws-internal-battle_n_138303.html

Interpretation is a funny thing, it usually depends upon the person's point of view when reading something. Therefore, not everyone is going to interpret some things with the same opinion.

I'm personally interested in seeing the degree of magnanimousness and graciousness that will be exhibited post-election - from both campaigns.

I'm personally interested in seeing the degree of magnanimousness and graciousness that will be exhibited post-election - from both campaigns.

If the vote goes the way of the polls, I expect McCain to show the requisite degree of magnanimity towards Obama. (Inside the GOP I think things won't be pretty.)

If the vote goes the way of the polls, I expect McCain to show the requisite degree of magnanimity towards Obama. (Inside the GOP I think things won't be pretty.)

I agree with Wab's take. I signed on the Senator Obama in part because of his stance on reconciliation and unity. I'm old enough to remember when we didn't have a "red America" and a "blue America," and it's something I would very much like to see put to rest.

That said, it ain't gonna be easy, folks. :no:

ETA:

There are some ugly stories coming out of the McCain campaign these last few days. There have been rumors for a couple of weeks of an internal fight among McCain and Palin staffers. The rumors got a little more intense over the weekend, when a McCain adviser told CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html):

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone.... Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

Things got a bit nastier today. From Politico's Mike Allen (http://www.politico.com/playbook/1008/playbook476.html):

In convo with Playbook, a top McCain adviser one-ups the priceless "diva" description, calling her "a whack job."

It seems as if the McCain-Bush partisans hold Palin responsible for all of the campaign's problems. I'm not sure I see it quite that way: it was McCain who chose her, after all, thus her fault is also his fault.

ETA2:

I wish the GOP was more honest about what truly constitutes voter fraud.

A phony flier, purporting to be from the Virginia Board of Elections, is circulating in the African-American-heavy Hampton Roads region of the state, falsely informing people that, because of expected high turnout, Democrats should vote on November 5th.

The election is November 4th.

State election officials informed the local press of the flier, which was posted on the website of The Virginian-Pilot, and is designed to look like an official announcement. It even uses images of the state board logo and the state seal, both of which are available online.

It reads:

Due to the larger than expected voter turnout in this years [sic] electoral process, An [sic] emergency session of the General Assembly has adopted the following emergency regulations to ease the load on local electorial [sic] precincts and ensure a fair electorial [sic] process.

All Democratic party supporters and independent voters supporting Democratic candidates shall vote on November 5th as adopted by emergency regulation of the Virginia General Assembly.

All Republican party supporters and independent voters supporting Republican candidates shall vote on November 4th as precribed [sic] by law.

We are sorry for any inconvenience this may cause but felt this was the only way to ensure fairness to the complete electorial [sic] process.

Phony Virginia Flier Tells Dems To Vote November 5 (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/phony_virginia_flier_tells_dem.php)

This isn't out of the ordinary for the GOP. We've fought the exact same trash in Ohio over the last four elections. They always target black and/or Latino voters.

Meanwhile, in Tennessee where the two skinheads were arrested yesterday and charged with a plot to kill over one hundred black kids and assassinate Senator Obama, the Tennessee Republican Party felt compelled to issue a public statement (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Tenn_GOP_chair_draws_murder_plot_parallel.html?sho wall) after the arrests. I don't think I've ever read a more outrageous attempt at a parallel:

"Hate is not a political party, policy statement, agenda or ideology -- it is a pure evil that no place in civil society." Whether it is neo-Nazi skinheads plotting a racist shooting spree targeting Sen. Obama, or West Hollywood liberals hanging Gov. Sarah Palin in effigy and calling it 'art,' or unknown anarchists tossing bricks through the windows of a county Republican headquarters in Murfreesboro, Americans of all political views should be outraged."

I don't buy that bizarre comparison at all, frankly. The statement seems to argue, "Sure, white supremacists planned a killing spree, but we've been targeted, too."

There really is no comparison between a brick thrown through a window, or a tasteless effigy without the overt racism of the dozen or so Obama effigies found hanging around the country in recent weeks, and a plot to kill more than a hundred children and a presidential candidate. There just is no equivalency there.

I'm personally interested in seeing the degree of magnanimousness and graciousness that will be exhibited post-election - from both campaigns.

The minute we are post election, I will be as magnanimous as J.H.C.
We are still a week away from the "don't speak ill of the dead" phase.

If the vote goes the way of the polls, I expect McCain to show the requisite degree of magnanimity towards Obama.

As gracious as he was during the debates.

I think the campaign has a lot to accept blame for if they do lose. They failed to have a consistent strategy and jumped from topic to topic, most of it rather gimmicky, IMO. They focused on trivial matters during a time when the public wanted serious discourse (i.e. lipstick on a pig). They lost the media, which always liked McCain, by running ads like Paris Hilton celebrity ad, The One / messiah ad, and then the childhood sex ed ad. That ad was the last straw when McCain truly lost the press, since the law was supposed to protect young children from sexual predators and only teach them in terms a child could understand for that limited circumstance. At that point the word lie began to be used. It's important to note that the word lie is seldom used and other euphemisms are typically employed.

The ugly robocalls and the scary people attending his rallies were when he lost the Independents. He wasn't responsible for the scary people, but he could shut them down, which he did only after several days of bad press. Palin never did try to shut it down, and continued to paint Obama as an incipient communist / terrorist. Again, harping on Ayers and socialism (and even a potential Obama dictatorship) when there were more important things to discuss didn't help McCain at all, whether it was McCain or Palin saying it. In fact, McCain has improved slightly in the polls since he has discussed the economy more. But it's simply too little too late.

Also, McCain seemed truly erratic when the financial crisis hit. First he stated the fundamentals were sound, then he stated a few hours later that we had a crisis. First he said we shouldn't bail out AIG and then he said we should the next day (after Bush did bail them out). And then he suspended his campaign and tried to cancel the debate. That was one of his two most colossal blunders in his campaign. The public saw it as an exploitive gimmick, and perhaps a unwillingness (or fear) to debate.

The second most colossal blunder was Sarah Palin. They did not vet her or interview her or even know her that well. They wanted a woman to try to capture the disenchanted PUMA vote. Only they picked the anti-Hillary, and a woman that was not ready for the national stage, on top of it. She has actually driven women back to Obama.

And McCain's apparent anger and disdain for Obama during the debates made McCain seem scary and IMO mean, when the nation was looking for reassurance. And Obama provided the calm (and mastery of knowledge) needed.

That doesn't mean that Obama has this in the bag, since there could be a Bradley effect or some other dramatic impact. But it does mean that if McCain's loses, this was his to lose. This was a contest with a well known, popular war hero versus a relatively unknown black man with a foreign-sounding name (and a Muslim father, which unfortunately and unfairly connotes terrorism).

There's also a lot that Obama brought to the table both with natural talents and a drive to excellence, coupled with a brilliantly run campaign, but I'll leave details for the other thread.

All of the above is just my not-so-humble opinion.

There are some ugly stories coming out of the McCain campaign these last few days. There have been rumors for a couple of weeks of an internal fight among McCain and Palin staffers.

It seems as if the McCain-Bush partisans hold Palin responsible for all of the campaign's problems. I'm not sure I see it quite that way: it was McCain who chose her, after all, thus her fault is also his fault.

If the rumors were carried by any non-liberal station I'd buy them but as they were carried by CNN and cited the ever popular unnamed source I put very little faith in the reports. Especially as Palin has gotten the GOP base excited like it was for Reagan and is drawing huge crowds.

I wish the GOP was more honest about what truly constitutes voter fraud.

And the evidence that the flier originated with the GOP is what, specifically? Cause if you're going to make a charge like this then you really ought to have some evidence to back up your charge.

Meanwhile, in Tennessee where the two skinheads were arrested yesterday and charged with a plot to kill over one hundred black kids and assassinate Senator Obama, the Tennessee Republican Party felt compelled to issue a public statement (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Tenn_GOP_chair_draws_murder_plot_parallel.html?sho wall) after the arrests. I don't think I've ever read a more outrageous attempt at a parallel:

Which part is it that offends you - where they say that hate is pure evil, where they say that it has no part in civil society, or the part where they say that acts such as this should have all Americans outraged? Or is it that they actually listed several instances of hate and used all of them as examples of evil rather than just limiting their list of evil to the neo-Nazi plot? Is there some sort of gauge for evil where some acts are more evil than others? Cause I gotta tell you that to me any act of hatred, no matter how small or trivial is evil and ought to be stood up to and fought against. Certainly those skin heads aren't even worth the characterizations as human (in my opinion) but does the barbaric act they contemplated justify brushing off lesser acts of evil - like hanging Sarah Palin or Barack Obama in effigy or spray painting 666 on the sides of houses or even tossing a brick through a window?

I don't buy that bizarre comparison at all, frankly. The statement seems to argue, "Sure, white supremacists planned a killing spree, but we've been targeted, too."

Or perhaps the statement says that all hatred is evil and unjustified and ought to outrage all of us.

My 401K's worthless.
If it's anything like our 401 K, it won't be worthless by the time you need it. I've left ours alone because this is a great time to buy. If we were 64, though, I'd feel very differently.
Back to chparadise's question, in order to turn things around, I think that McCain needs to focus positively on his own campaign rather than negatively on Obama's campaign. Undecided voters are swayed a lot by tone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCXqKEs68Xk

Take a look at the crazy...Sarah Palin dismisses medical fruit fly research! Clearly 2 minutes of googling Wiki was too much work for her advisors! Her anti-science position is frightening!

If the rumors were carried by any non-liberal station I'd buy them but as they were carried by CNN and cited the ever popular unnamed source I put very little faith in the reports. Especially as Palin has gotten the GOP base excited like it was for Reagan and is drawing huge crowds.

I am one of many Obama supporters who hasn't been happy with CNN and its coverage of the presidential race. The network has, in my opinion, moved quite a bit to the right. Jim Vanderhei has a story up at Politico discussing claims of media bias (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14982.html) in favor of Senator Obama:

There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site — when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring — has made us cringe.

As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.

I like that last paragraph because it supports my view on the issue.

And the evidence that the flier originated with the GOP is what, specifically? Cause if you're going to make a charge like this then you really ought to have some evidence to back up your charge.

Well, I could ask if you know of another player in this race who would want Republicans to arrive at the polls on the right date, and Democrats to arrive a day after they close. Here's a story from Hampton Roads.com (http://hamptonroads.com/2008/10/phony-flier-says-virginians-vote-different-days) with a copy of the letter. I think it's a safe bet that no Democratic organization or individual would be misleading Democrats this way.

Or perhaps the statement says that all hatred is evil and unjustified and ought to outrage all of us.

McCain had to rebuke the Tennessee GOP earlier this year for spewing a vile brand of hatred (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/tennessee_republican_party_sla.php).

And today, the Anti-Defamation League condemned an email circulated by an organization called the "Republican Federal Committee of PA - Victory 2008." It was sent to 75,000 Jewish Pennsylvanians and linked Barack to Hitler and the Holocaust.

"Ugly, divisive personal attacks against a candidate for any political office should never be acceptable, and using Holocaust analogies is completely beyond the pale," Foxman said. "Regardless of which candidate one supports, it is shocking and profoundly distressing that anyone would see fit to make such an odious, false and repugnant analogy. Not only does it further debase the level of our political discourse, but it also diminishes and trivializes the virulent anti-Semitism and Nazi aggression that led to the slaughter of six million Jews and millions of others."

The Pennsylvania GOP denies authorizing the email. But political consultant Bryan Rudnick, hired by the PA GOP as a consultant to do outreach to Jewish voters, told the Associated Press: "I had authorization from party officials."

Who authorized it?

"I'm not looking to drag anyone else through the mud, so I'm not naming names right now," Rudnick said.

Missed the boat entirely there, Rudnick. It's Senator Obama whose name was dragged through the mud with this smear.

ADL Condemns "Ugly, Divisive" Pennsylvania GOP Email to Jewish Voters Comparing Rise of Obama to Third Reich (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/adl-condemns-ug.html)

I've moved some comments here and kept some out. Kindly discuss the campaign in it's last few days. Thank you

GQ reporter Robert Draper will be spending this last week of the presidential campaign as a blogger. His first column today focuses on the extent to which McCain's team scrambled after Sarah Palin joined the Republican ticket.

Palin’s debate prep was going miserably, to the point where Schmidt had to peel off from McCain (who was having his own challenges responding to the financial crisis) and join Nicolle’s husband Mark Wallace in simplifying Palin’s prep so as to avert catastrophe. The latter efforts resulted in what one senior adviser would describe to me with palpable relief as “a campaign-saving performance.”

I’m sympathetic to Eskew and Wallace, and not just because they’re decent people. They’ve held their tongue from leaking what a couple of McCain higher-ups have told me—namely, that Palin simply knew nothing about national and international issues. Which meant, as one such adviser said to me: “Letting Sarah be Sarah may not be such a good thing.”

[...]

I’ve heard from one well-placed source that McCain has snubbed her on one long bus ride aboard the Straight Talk Express, to the embarrassment of those sitting nearby. It has surely been implied to the governor that she should be eternally grateful to have been plucked from obscurity. And yet the high water mark of John McCain’s campaign for the presidency unquestionably began on September 3, when Palin gave her nomination speech—and ended precisely twelve days later, when McCain went off-script—I have that on the authority of the person who participated in the writing of said script—and told an audience that he still believed the fundamentals of the economy were strong.

Palin, Alone Aboard the Bus (http://men.style.com/gq/blogs/gqeditors/2008/10/palin-alone-abo.html?mbid=typepad)

Draper has another post up today entitled How the Campaign Reined in Free-Wheelin' McCain (http://men.style.com/gq/blogs/gqeditors/2008/10/how-the-campaig.html)

I wouldn't have posted any of this if there weren't so many, many stories on the dysfunction and infighting within the McCain campaign. I've been reading about it for weeks, from sources as diverse as the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/magazine/26mccain-t.html?scp=1&sq=Infighting%20McCain%20campaign&st=cse), the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/politicalperceptions/2008/10/28/political-wisdom-the-flaws-of-mccains-gadfly-candidacy/?mod=rss_WSJBlog?mod=newsColBlog), and the National Review (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjIyYzU1ZTY3OThhNGNjNDZiMWU5MDY2MDI2YjYwYjM=).

According to Politico (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081028/pl_politico/14982)there has been a huge disparity between how the media has been covering Obama and McCain. Pew Research Center conducted a study and determined that the media has been spinning Obama in a much better light than McCain, and perhaps unjustly so. Politico even admits there is some merit to it, especially in recent weeks. They admit there is some bias, and that it may have been creeping into the written works of journalism. SO MUCH FOR FAIR AND BALANCED!

I posted that article earlier today, I think, before we were given this forum to play in. For me, one of the operative passages is this one:

There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site — when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring — has made us cringe.

As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.

Politico was not included in the Pew study. But our researcher Alex Burns pulled out his highlighter pen and did his own study of Politico's October stories last week: 110 stories advanced a narrative that was more favorable to Obama than McCain. Sixty-nine did the opposite.

Emphasis mine.

I agree with that conclusion. McCain's campaign is in disarray and a lot on the national front has gone badly for them in recent weeks. Obama, on the other hand, doesn't have those problems. So why, the Politico reporters ask, should they "impose an articifial balance" which would be, in truth, another kind of bias?

http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=118501

As part of the elections special subforum, we have a shiny new media thread. Questions 1, 1a, 11, 12, 13, and 14 may especially interest you :)

I am one of many Obama supporters who hasn't been happy with CNN and its coverage of the presidential race. The network has, in my opinion, moved quite a bit to the right. Jim Vanderhei has a story up at Politico discussing claims of media bias (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14982.html) in favor of Senator Obama:

There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site — when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring — has made us cringe.

As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.

I find the analysis attempting to justify the overt liberal bias in the media laughable. Especially from Politico which hasn't done much to hide it's Anti-McCain, pro-Obama reporting lately.

I like that last paragraph because it supports my view on the issue.

I think the last paragraph is a load of you know what, but I guess that just shows what different people think of different issues.

Well, I could ask if you know of another player in this race who would want Republicans to arrive at the polls on the right date, and Democrats to arrive a day after they close. Here's a story from Hampton Roads.com (http://hamptonroads.com/2008/10/phony-flier-says-virginians-vote-different-days) with a copy of the letter. I think it's a safe bet that no Democratic organization or individual would be misleading Democrats this way.

Unless the whole thing is a hoax, cause I can't imagine any group directly affiliated with the GOP being so stupid as to put out such a letter. And apparently you have no actual evidence to support your assertion that the GOP has sent out letters to voters in the Hampton Roads area telling them to vote on Nov 5th, but the post still carries that accusation as if it were fact and not supposition.

The Pennsylvania GOP denies authorizing the email. But political consultant Bryan Rudnick, hired by the PA GOP as a consultant to do outreach to Jewish voters, told the Associated Press: "I had authorization from party officials."

Who authorized it?

"I'm not looking to drag anyone else through the mud, so I'm not naming names right now," Rudnick said.

Missed the boat entirely there, Rudnick. It's Senator Obama whose name was dragged through the mud with this smear.

So he's basically covering his backside and claiming that he had authorization for the email but, as has become par for the course, there's no actual evidence linking anyone in the GOP or McCain campaign to the email other than the guy covering his own butt.

***

On the butt covering issue, two people have now been charged with inappropriately accessing Ohio government databases to obtain information on Joe the Plumber.

First up is a records clerk in the police department (http://www.wnwo.com/news/story.aspx?id=213580)

Toledo Police have confirmed that a TPD records clerk is accused of performing an illegal search of information related to ‘Joe the Plumber.’

Julie McConnell, has been charged with Gross Misconduct for allegedly making an improper inquiry into a state database in search of information pertaining to Samuel Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16.

Wurzelbacher came under the spotlight after being spoken about during the final presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain.

The inquiry into Wurzelbacher’s record is a violation of department and state policy governing the use of the Law Enforcement Automated Data System. The clerk is under fire for making the inquiry for a non-law enforcement purpose.

She's apparently not naming names as to who asked her to search "Joe's" records.

Next up is Helen Jones-Kelly, a Democrat and Obama supporter and donor. (http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/27/copy/joe28.html?adsec=politics&sid=101)

Ohio’s inspector general is investigating why a state agency director approved checking the state child-support computer system for information on “Joe the Plumber.”

Helen Jones-Kelly, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, confirmed today that she OK’d the check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher following the Oct. 15 presidential debate.

She said there were no political reasons for the check on the sudden presidential campaign fixture though the Support Enforcement Tracking System.

Amid questions from the media and others about “Joe the Plumber,” Jones-Kelley said she approved a check to determine if he was current on any ordered child-support payments.

Such information was not and cannot be publicly shared, she said. It is unclear if Wurzelbacher is involved in a child-support case. Reports state that he lives alone with a 13-year-old son.

“Our practice is when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight, we often take a look” at them, Jones-Kelley said, citing a case where a lottery winner was found to owe past-due child support. “Our practice is to basically look at what is coming our way.”

Ohio Inspector General Thomas P. Charles confirmed today that he is investigating the incident to determine if “Joe’’s” records were legally accessed by Job and Family Services employees.

The use of a state computer system to search for information on Wurzelbacher is the fourth uncovered by The Dispatch.

Unlike the records clerk she claims her search was justified.

****

The Republicans have a couple of new political adverts out. Here's the first

DiB4EobS_ZM

Interestingly enough this comes on the heels of some confusion from the Obama campaign regarding just whose taxes they'll increase. (:http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/joe-the-plumber.html") We've all heard the much touted $250,000 but recent comments from Obama and Biden tend to bring that figure down a bit to as low as $150,000 for individuals and $200,000 for families. I'm sure that one will be cleared up as soon as the tax increases are passed.

Here's the second

SVWBl4A-7WI

This one comes on the heels of Ha’aretz reporting that France's Sarkozy has expressing some reservations about Obama's position on Iran: (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html)

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is very critical of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama’s positions on Iran, according to reports that have reached Israel’s government.

Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate’s stance on Iran as “utterly immature” and comprised of “formulations empty of all content.”
Obama visited Paris in July, and the Iranian issue was at the heart of his meeting with Sarkozy. At a joint press conference afterward, Obama urged Iran to accept the West’s proposal on its nuclear program, saying that Iran was creating a serious situation that endangered both Israel and the West. According to the reports reaching Israel, Sarkozy told Obama at that meeting that if the new American president elected in November changed his country’s policy toward Iran, that would be “very problematic.”

Actually, I just talked to the ex-Chief UN weapons inspector of Iraq...yup, he was here in town. He is a republican, by the way, and ex-marine. His name is Scott Ritter. Wickedly smart guy.

He told me that the current claims that Iran is running or attempting to run a nuclear weapons program is flatly false. He outlined why he believes that (he quoted enrichment processes for fuel grade uranium vs. weapons grade which is WAY higher enrichment) and said that not only do they not have the ability to do so, but he also knows of NO report from weapons inspectors in Iran that weapons grade enrichment would be hidden (he said it would be impossible to not detect).

His claim is that the U.S. (egged on by Isreal) is attempting to "build a case" to be able to do another government swap.

I don't have a written source for this as he told this to me (and there was a group of people in the coffee shop listening, too). His take on Iran's threat is that it is being exaggerated greatly due to political influences of world powers and those struggles. That Iran, in and of itself, is not that great a threat (not to say they aren't a threat on a conventional level, however).

Based on this assessment, Iran is not so much a threat physically as it is "politically"--because of the power struggle surrounding it.

I have to agree with Obama that there are greater physical threats. The threat with Iran is in the power struggle and powers behind Iran, not Iran itself due to a nuclear issue.

Whoever controls Iran & the middle east, controls the rate of growth for nations like Russia and China because they control the flow of oil (According to Scott Ritter).

I found the man fascinating..someone who had REALLY been there, really doing the monitoring and understood the complexities of the political forces, follies and nature of the middle east struggles. I feel like I REALLY got to do some homework on this issue!

Scott Ritter believes Obama's foreign policy is better than McCain's (and definitely Bush's), but would like to see Obama stick to his guns more about diplomatic talks, and drop the hawkish rhetoric. He's not pleased about that.

I am one of many Obama supporters who hasn't been happy with CNN and its coverage of the presidential race.

Update with Linda's Mom's take on things. My mom is very angry with CNN & the media. She says this idea of "balance" and not contradicting obvious lies is ridiculous. She says no wonder people are getting the real news from comedy shows.

This one comes on the heels of Ha’aretz reporting that France's Sarkozy has expressing some reservations about Obama's position on Iran: (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html)



"according to a senior Israeli government source"... hah, no surprise there. Israel is losing its marbles on a potential Obama presidency. they are much more comfortable with a McCain win.

And I would not be surprised if Sarkozy said that... the neoconservative force is strong with him.


ETA: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Sarkozy_calls_Iran_remarks_groundless.html

The remarks attributed by the newspaper Haaretz to the president of the French Republic concerning Sen. Obama's positions on Iran are groundless. To the contrary, the in-depth discussions between the president of the Republic and Sen. Obama on Iran during their meeting in Paris in July demonstrated a broad convergence of views on this issue. President Sarkozy and Sen. Obama agree to oppose Iran's development of a military nuclear capability.

Update with Linda's Mom's take on things. My mom is very angry with CNN & the media. She says this idea of "balance" and not contradicting obvious lies is ridiculous. She says no wonder people are getting the real news from comedy shows.

Your mom is right. As a matter of fact, I'm sure I bored my own daughter to death with a rant on the same topic. McCain's campaign has negative since last summer. They have internal issues that don't play out nicely in press coverage. I don't know what kind coverage they're expecting with all that's going on.

That Columbus Dispatch link (http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/27/copy/joe28.html?adsec=politics&sid=101) posted above contains a couple things that weren't in the original post:

Republicans have seized on the incidents to suggest that the checks were politically motivated invasions of Wurzelbacher's privacy and attempts to dig up dirt to discredit the man.

Obama's campaign says it has nothing to do with the incidents and joined Republicans in calling for investigations.

And therein lies the real thrust of this story.

Dispatch columnist Anne Fisher laments: "It's tough to be Ohio at election time (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/27/ANN27_ART_10-27-08_B1_EQBNB4J.html?sid=101)."

I'll stop there and post the rest in the Ohio thread.

Watch the polls tonight, apparently they are going to announce that Arizona is within 2 points - I want an Arizona battleground state poll !

Wow...Arizona? Incredible (and, if true--a bit of a slap in the face to McCain. That's his home state).

I went over to TPM and found these recent polls. It appears the latest one today does, indeed, show only a 2 point margin. I'll post all the more recent polls for fairness:
AZ-Pres
Oct 28 AZ State Univ.McCain (R) 46%, Obama (D) 44%AZ-Pres
Oct 28 AZ State Univ.McCain (R) 46%, Obama (D) 44%AZ-Pres
Oct 27 Northern AZ Univ.McCain (R) 49%, Obama (D) 41%AZ-Pres
Oct 27 RasmussenMcCain (R) 51%, Obama (D) 46%AZ-Pres
Oct 25 Myers (D), Grove (D)McCain (R) 44%, Obama (D) 40%AZ-Pres
Oct 21 Zimmerman (D)McCain (R) 44%, Obama (D) 42%
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/azpres/

Guess who's currently winning in Pennsylvania? Hint: it's not McCain or Obama !!

Aw, c'mon - tell us!

Go to Pennsylvania thread to see ! With results link.
http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=5169384#post5169384

More post-mortems before the death has occurred.

It has surely been implied to the governor that she should be eternally grateful to have been plucked from obscurity. And yet the high water mark of John McCain’s campaign for the presidency unquestionably began on September 3, when Palin gave her nomination speech—and ended precisely twelve days later, when McCain went off-script—I have that on the authority of the person who participated in the writing of said script—and told an audience that he still believed the fundamentals of the economy were strong.

http://men.style.com/gq/blogs/gqeditors/2008/10/palin-alone-abo.html

OMG - McCain went off-script to say that line ?

This may or may not be a rhetorical question, but if the guy who directs the script goes off-script, is it really going "off-script" any more? Or is it redefining the script on the fly? (Deep thoughts, presented by chparadise)

Well, if it's not part of the script than it is ad-libbing no matter who wrote the script.

leah49 - you hit that one on the head !

GOP plans a strategy meeting 2 days after election
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/Conservatives_plan_secret_postelection_strategy_se ssion.html

Heh--be careful on the PA early results. I sorta snooped around the site and got "all" the results list by county. 99% of those numbers were from "Bucks" county.

Now, when you go to the "Bucks Co." webpage, it says:
2008 General Election
(Test from 10/20/2008 till 10/31/2008)
Tuesday, November 04, 2008


Unofficial Returns
*** 189 out of 9,281 Districts (2.04%) Reporting Statewide ***

then..below that it counterdicts itself: *** 0 out of 304 Districts (0.00%) Reporting Countywide ***

So, 2.04% of the vote is said to be coming from "Bucks county" on the state page...and "Bucks county" is saying 0% of it's districts are counted.

Um...may want to recheck these results later. They may be running some sort of a test program

So...it's possible they are running a test program or something.

I hear what you are saying. It was on the official SOS site, so I went with it.

Heh--be careful on the PA early results. I sorta snooped around the site and got "all" the results list by county. 99% of those numbers were from "Bucks" county.

Now, when you go to the "Bucks Co." webpage, it says:
then..below that it counterdicts itself:

So, 2.04% of the vote is said to be coming from "Bucks county" on the state page...and "Bucks county" is saying 0% of it's districts are counted.

Um...may want to recheck these results later. They may be running some sort of a test program

So...it's possible they are running a test program or something.



See; one Libertarian gets an edge and the "real party pundits" have to knock him back into obscurity by finding facts and checking on the story. Why, oh God, why can't we have at least 1 stinking poll to simply verify our existance? Oh well, back to the "other" and "also ran" categories, I suppose. At least a moment in time belonged to the party!

Well that was quick! :grumble:

I hear what you are saying. It was on the official SOS site, so I went with it.

Thanks for the moment, I appreciate the sentiment, and it did my heart good. Well until Red had to go killing the moment with research and facts and such, but at least there was a moment!

:huggles: Lupe!

See; one Libertarian gets an edge and the "real party pundits" have to knock him back into obscurity by finding facts and checking on the story. Why, oh God, why can't we have at least 1 stinking poll to simply verify our existance? Oh well, back to the "other" and "also ran" categories, I suppose. At least a moment in time belonged to the party!

Well that was quick! :grumble:



Thanks for the moment, I appreciate the sentiment, and it did my heart good. Well until Red had to go killing the moment with research and facts and such, but at least there was a moment!

Awwww....now I feel bad (looking ashamed). Honestly, when I saw the numbers, I felt a little excited for old Barr :lol: Okay, next time I see a Libertarian ahead (and then find it's an error or test), I'll wait 24 hours and let you bask in the possibility :D

:huggles: Lupe!

Awwww....now I feel bad (looking ashamed). Honestly, when I saw the numbers, I felt a little excited for old Barr :lol: Okay, next time I see a Libertarian ahead (and then find it's an error or test), I'll wait 24 hours and let you bask in the possibility :D

I really do love you guys.

I really do love you guys.

We :love: you too, bud!

Talking Points Memo has put up an interactive on "The Palin Effect (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/fullpage/the-palin-effec.php)," which chronicles conservatives' short and sour fling with Sarah Palin.

Just a few days after John McCain announced first term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for his VP pick bloggers and broadcasters were buzzing about the so called Palin Effect-- Sarah's ability to, as Howard Fineman told TPMtv (http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/tpmtv_renegade_jam_session_wit.php), energize the GOP. "Oh she'll energize it. But the energy she supplies will spread like... [eyebrow raise].. through the tentacles of the Republican party."

Palin was a surprising pick-- virtually unknown outside Alaska (including, as it turned out, by the McCain campaign itself (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/212192.php))-- and she lacked experience (a key talking point for McCain). But her effect was supposed to be three fold-- a woman and feminist for life (http://www.feministsforlife.org/), she'd pick up disgruntled Hillary supporters, an avowed Christian, she'd consolidate and energize the religious right, and with her youth and self described Mavericky ways (http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/how_can_you_not_love_her.php), she'd counter Obama's fresh enthusiasm (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/obama-and-the-palin-effec_b_123943.html).

Two months later? Not so much. The Palin Effect exists-- but it's not energizing the base. On the contrary. Of the 70 odd conservative politicians, pundits and newspapers that have turned from McCain to endorse Obama this fall, 38 of them have cited Palin as a significant contributor to the decision. Hover over for quotes, and click on the pictures for links. And enjoy.

I had a great time playing with this, especially with regard to clicking on one of the conserative pundits and discovering their views about Palin.

One warning: This feature did not work for me in Internet Explorer. It does work in Firefox.

See; one Libertarian gets an edge and the "real party pundits" have to knock him back into obscurity by finding facts and checking on the story. Why, oh God, why can't we have at least 1 stinking poll to simply verify our existence?

If it makes you feel any better, I also emailed the link to MS-NBC and indecision2008 & said "Why isn't this a headline?"

Personally, I'm more likely to vote Libertarian than Republican. I like the fiscal conservative, small government, let people chose their own values message.

I think the article you linked, purplehawk, is wrong. The Republicans I know, which includes my family, are still very much digging Palin. I do think there was a point where she saturated the media so much that we grew tired of always seeing her on the TV, but she is a great addition to the campaign and to party nationally.

She gave McCain a bounce that lasted maybe 12 days, but after that he really began to tank in the polls. Over half of Barack's endorsements from conservatives listed Palin as the reason they crossed over. TPM documented all that, so I wouldn't say the article is wrong so much as you disagree with its conclusion. And that's okay.

I was just reading Clive Crook's essay in the Financial Times - How McCain lost the centrist vote (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4604086e-a36c-11dd-942c-000077b07658.html) - which is excerpted in his Atlantic (http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/how_mccain_lost_the_centrist_v.php) column.

The choice of Sarah Palin as running mate was pivotal. Mr McCain's mistake was not his decision to choose a social conservative with no experience of national politics. He needed a running mate to energise his party's activists, who would otherwise have found the prospect of a McCain presidency uninspiring. And inexperience, in itself, is not a disqualification for high political office - if it were, Mr Obama would be ruled out, too. The first response to Ms Palin was everything Mr McCain could have wished. She appealed not only to the conservative base but to many independents as well. The instant contempt many Democrats expressed at her selection hurt them, not her, and the Republican ticket moved ahead in the polls for the first and only time in the race.

Against the odds, this was a position from which Mr McCain could have won. But two things had to happen for him to capitalise on this advantage. First, Ms Palin needed to withstand scrutiny. Second, Mr McCain, with the conservative base now in his pocket, needed to exploit the opportunity this gave him to move his campaign to the centre.

Neither of those two things happened, of course.

I don't agree with any of it. The media has tried (and it appears to us that they are doing it on purpose, but I have no proof to back that up) to make Palin look bad and the supporters aren't buying it. Who's to say the reader who responded with that paragraph wasn't already supporting Obama anyway? Anyone can go anywhere and pretend to be a supporter for the other side to make them look bad.

In my opinion Sarah Palin has done way more good for the McCain campaign. I suspect her high "negatives" in polls reflect the highly partisan atmosphere of the country at the moment, since they seem to mirror national polling numbers. But I don't think that the enthusiasm level she brings to the republican base should be belittled. I cant imagine any of the other possible republican VP potentials bringing the kind of enthusiasm she does to the ticket. Without her I don't think McCain would stand a chance of winning. As it is now though I actually think he has a very real chance.

Now Leah, while there are many in the Republican base who do truly still like her, agree with her and resonate with Palin, I have met many republicans who feel differently.

There seem to be conservatives of varying reasons for their belief. Sarah, in my opinion, appears to do the best with social conservatives and the "religious right" (if you'll pardon the expression).

There are other types of conservatives as well. For instance, I have a friend who is, what she calls herself, a "fiscal" conservative. She's not very religious but believes in fiscal responsibility, accountability and less spending. She does not really care for all the theology in the party...she's voting for someone else (but not Obama). She's a professional, college educated older woman who works in the medical field.

Another woman I met the other night while volunteering for an election phone bank is also a Republican--she calls herself a moderate-centrist, fiscal republican. She was actually organizing the Obama phone bank and a supporter! She does NOT like Palin and is disappointed in the selection of her. She would very much like to see a conservative woman running--but has a hard time with her lack of depth on international, national and women's rights. She is a pro-choice republican woman. She's a middle-income, blue collar worker who also belongs to a local union.

I also went to hear Scott Ritter speak the other night in town when he was here. He's the ex-UN Chief Weapons inspector to Iraq, and an ex-marine. He stated that he's also a lifetime Republican, but referred to himself as a "Constitutional" Republican...he very much takes the Constitution as the American Document of deepest respect and is not at all happy with how Bush has conducted his administration as it pertains to the Constitution. He hoped McCain would offer more on that, but said he was disappointed with foreign policy plans and feels that McCain's foreign policy would not adhere to our founding father's vision of how America should conduct itself (based on the Constitution). He believes Palin unknowledgeable and both Republicans far too hawkish in their rhetoric and outlined future policies concerning his area of expertise.

So, there you have three Republicans that I have personally met and know that are not voting for the McCain/Palin ticket--each for their own reasons.

I do not doubt that there are others, like you and your family, Leah, that do fit into the group that McCain and Palin most appeal to. If there were not a large group of people like you, McCain's polling numbers would be much lower. But, I personally see a lot of evidence of some Republicans (or independent Conservatives) who are not voting for them due to their own ideological differences rather than simply the media.

Americans are a very diverse bunch...even within the two major parties, there is lots of diversity. Certainly all of the blame for various choices cannot be put solely on the Media, in my opinion.

It appears that conservatives also come in quite a few varieties judging by the broad range of opinions on Palin and the state of the party.

Robert Stacy McCain (http://spectator.org/blog/2008/10/28/the-sarah-party) (is he a son?) took aim at Chris Buckley, who has denounced Palin and McCain and endorsed Obama today with this barb:

I've got news for the Christopher Buckleys of the world -- if Sarah Palin is enough to make you decide you're not a Republican, you're not a Republican.

Meanwhile, Dan Larison of The American Conservative (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/28/please-tell-me-where-to-go/) noted Robert McCain saying that he "saw the Republican Party today, standing in line to see Palin at Shippensburg University," and replied:

"At the rate the McCain campaign is going, pretty soon I wouldn’t be surprised if you could fit the entire party into a single auditorium for one of her rallies."

Conor Friedersdorf (http://culture11.com/blogs/theconfabulum/2008/10/28/the-palin-litmus-test/) of Confabulum chimed in with this bit:

In case you haven’t been paying attention, an enormous turnout at an Obama rally means that he is a celebrity cult leader who talks pretty to his mindless supporters but lacks substance, whereas smaller crowds turning out to see Palin prove that she is the best decision John McCain has ever made, and that she is obviously qualified to be vice-president."

Christopher Buckley's dad, William F. Buckley, is considered the father of the modern conservative movement, but Chris has followed quite a few other renowned conservatives (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/240619.php) in denounching what's going on in their party these days and Palin in particular. The names documented on that last link include: General Colin Powell, Senator Chuck Hagel, Kathleen Parker, David Frum, Charles Fried, Peggy Noonan, Arne Carleson, Scott McClellan, Ken Adelman, George Will, Josh Trevino and Christopher Hitchens.

In my opinion Sarah Palin has done way more good for the McCain campaign. I suspect her high "negatives" in polls reflect the highly partisan atmosphere of the country at the moment, since they seem to mirror national polling numbers. But I don't think that the enthusiasm level she brings to the republican base should be belittled. I cant imagine any of the other possible republican VP potentials bringing the kind of enthusiasm she does to the ticket. Without her I don't think McCain would stand a chance of winning. As it is now though I actually think he has a very real chance.This is a very good point. Palin provides something for McCain that no other possible candidate for VP would have, especially considering the majority had tried to win the nomination for President and thus were not new to the public.

Palin was a choice to please the base, not the center.

It was McCain's choice & management to chose her without:
(a) knowing her strengths & weaknesses, &
(b) without thinking about ALL the implications, &
(c) without understanding how she would fit into his overall general election strategy.

You can't win without the middle.

I do think she was an asset that was poorly handled - ironically, because McCain rolled her out not like a person but like a prop. (Palin: "my clothes belong to the RNC, they are like these lights & stage, they are not mine" i.e. stage props). So McCain's goal to appeal to women backfired because they could see by how he handled Palin how sexist he was.

When I compare this to how carefully Obama picked his running mate: having a known committee doing the vetting, releasing the list of 6 semi finalists, listening to the press, letting each get attention & praise, highlighting the diversity & strength of the Democratic Party, then narrowing it down to 3, letting the press do the vetting before he committed, and getting all this free publicity on the VP hunt for 2-3 months.

Is it possible the VP speculation about Bayh (IN) & Kaine (VA) helped Obama turn those states "toss up" and "light blue" as the local press paid attention to the search ? Do you see the brilliance of the strategy ?

The Palin surprise was a really short term strategy. I mean, these strategic blunders were McCain's fault, not Palin's.

Now Leah, while there are many in the Republican base who do truly still like her, agree with her and resonate with Palin, I have met many republicans who feel differently.

There seem to be conservatives of varying reasons for their belief. Sarah, in my opinion, appears to do the best with social conservatives and the "religious right" (if you'll pardon the expression).

From what I've seen of Republicans, but social and fiscal conservatives, is overwhelming support for Palin. They all love her, they want their kids to meet her, they respect that she's made difficult decisions and is willing to accept and live with the consequences of those decisions, they love that she's just an ordinary person they feel they could trust and believe in and who would stand up for them.

The only people I've seen who dislike Palin are the intelligentsia (if you'll excuse the expression) - the people who believe that you have to have a pedigree to serve in elected office and those who do not possess such pedigrees are mindless masses who go for the brightest and shiniest toy in the store. Perhaps that's why at McCain and Palin rallies now you see lots of I am Joe the Plumber or Tito the Construction Worker or Sally the schoolteachers signs. These are the plain old ordinary people who are thrilled that someone like them might just be VP.

There are other types of conservatives as well. For instance, I have a friend who is, what she calls herself, a "fiscal" conservative. She's not very religious but believes in fiscal responsibility, accountability and less spending. She does not really care for all the theology in the party...she's voting for someone else (but not Obama). She's a professional, college educated older woman who works in the medical field.

If she disagrees with the party philosophy then I have a hard time envisioning her supporting any Republican candidate unless he / she eschews the party philosophy.

Another woman I met the other night while volunteering for an election phone bank is also a Republican--she calls herself a moderate-centrist, fiscal republican. She was actually organizing the Obama phone bank and a supporter! She does NOT like Palin and is disappointed in the selection of her. She would very much like to see a conservative woman running--but has a hard time with her lack of depth on international, national and women's rights. She is a pro-choice republican woman. She's a middle-income, blue collar worker who also belongs to a local union.

So she's organizing the Obama phone back and you're surprised that she doesn't support Palin?:lol:


I also went to hear Scott Ritter speak the other night in town when he was here. He's the ex-UN Chief Weapons inspector to Iraq, and an ex-marine. He stated that he's also a lifetime Republican, but referred to himself as a "Constitutional" Republican

Ritter has long opposed the war in Iraq - he once predicted complete and utter failure in Iraq. In that light I don't find his support for Obama surprising at all.

He hoped McCain would offer more on that, but said he was disappointed with foreign policy plans and feels that McCain's foreign policy would not adhere to our founding father's vision of how America should conduct itself (based on the Constitution). He believes Palin unknowledgeable and both Republicans far too hawkish in their rhetoric and outlined future policies concerning his area of expertise.

Ritter has always held rather isolationist views while McCain has not shared that opinion. Ritter predicted complete and utter failure in Iraq and is more than slightly miffed that McCain suggested reinforcing our troops and changing our engagement strategy instead of withdrawal. As the strategy change and troop surge has proven to be so effective and Ritter's prediction of complete and utter failure has not materialized, he has even more reason to dislike McCain. Considering his position on the war in Iraq alone I don't find Ritter's support for Obama surprising.

So, there you have three Republicans that I have personally met and know that are not voting for the McCain/Palin ticket--each for their own reasons.

You found three "Republicans", one who doesn't buy the party philosophy, one who is a pro-choice union member, and another who is strongly anti-war and you're surprised they're supporting Obama?

How about we consider the change of heart of an avowed lifelong Democrat. One who has been on the inside of democratic politics for nearly 10 years. One who, until a week ago, was one of Obama's speech writers and is now supporting McCain / Palin.

Since I started writing speeches more than ten years ago, I have always believed in the Democratic Party. Not anymore. Not after the election of 2008. This transformation has been swift and complete and since I’m a woman writing in the election of 2008, “very emotional."

...The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.”

Having worked in politics, I know that absolutely none of this is on the level....

......The party I believed in wouldn’t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.

Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton “dishonest.” They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over “Bros before Hoes” or “Iron My Shirt.” Did Senator Clinton make mistakes? Of course. She’s human....

...I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.

I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges

Full letter below the expand tags.

Since I started writing speeches more than ten years ago, I have always believed in the Democratic Party. Not anymore. Not after the election of 2008. This transformation has been swift and complete and since I’m a woman writing in the election of 2008, “very emotional."

When we first met, Obama and I had a nice conversation about speeches and writing, and at the end of the meeting I handed him a pocket-sized bottle of Grey Poupon mustard so he wouldn’t have to ask staff if it was okay to put it on his hamburger. At the bottom of the bottle was the logo for “The South Beach Diet” and he snapped, “Oh so you read People magazine.” He seemed to think that I was commenting on his bathing suit picture.

I helped with his announcement speech and others. I worked in the Senate when he was in D.C. One day after a hearing on Darfur, we were walking back to the office. I was still hobbling from a very bad ankle injury and in a very kind and gentle way he offered his arm when we approached the stairs. But later in debate preps and phone conversations and meetings, I realized that I had made a mistake. I didn’t belong. No matter how hard I tried, my heart wasn’t in it anymore.

...The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.”

Having worked in politics, I know that absolutely none of this is on the level. This back and forth is posturing, a charade, and a political game. These lines are what I refer to as “hooker lines”—a sure thing to get applause and the press to scribble as if they’re reporting meaningful news.

As the nation slouches toward disaster, the level of political discourse is unworthy of this moment in history. We have Republicans raising Ayers and Democrats fostering ageism with “erratic” and jokes about Depends. Sexism. Racism. Ageism and maybe some Socialism have all made their ugly cameos in election 2008. It’s not inspiring. Perhaps this is why I found the initial mocking of Joe so offensive and I realized an old line applied: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me.”

The party I believed in wouldn’t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.

...Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton “dishonest.” They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over “Bros before Hoes” or “Iron My Shirt.” Did Senator Clinton make mistakes? Of course. She’s human.

But here we are about a week out and it’s déjà vu all over again. Really, front-page news is how the Republican National Committee paid for Governor Sarah Palin’s wardrobe? Where’s the op-ed about how Obama tucks in his shirt when he plays basketball or how Senator Biden buttons the top button on his golf shirt?

...Governor Palin and I don’t agree on a lot of things, mostly social issues. But I have grown to appreciate the Governor. I was one of those initial skeptics and would laugh at the pictures. Not anymore. When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper. When someone fights her way to get scholarships and work her way through college even in a jagged line, that shows determination and humility you can’t learn from reading Reinhold Niebuhr. When a mother brings her son with special needs onto the national stage with love, honesty, and pride, that gives hope to families like mine as my older brother lives with a mental disability. And when someone can sit on a stage during the Sarah Palin rap on Saturday Night Live, put her hands in the air and watch someone in a moose costume get shot—that’s a sign of both humor and humanity.

Has she made mistakes? Of course, she’s human too. But the attention paid to her mistakes has been unprecedented compared to Senator Obama’s “57 states” remarks or Senator Biden using a version of the Samuel Johnson quote, “There’s nothing like a hanging in the morning to focus a man’s thoughts.”

...I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.

I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges.

Heh--sounds like a disgruntled Hillary voter.

The point is, there are many diverse reasons why people may not like Palin both outside and even within her own party.

And yes--I get to meet these republicans and it's probably why you don't meet them...they are working on the other side (or have dropped out).

My father-in-law is another long-time Republican voting for Obama. He's a Texan, a retired, career army sargent and simply thinks McCain hasn't shown the temperment. He doesn't care for Palin, either...and frankly, he hasn't told me why (he's southern gentleman type and isn't the type to say negatives about a lady). He only said that McCain's pick of Palin was the last straw for him.

There are others..but, we could get into a this-for-that argument. The point was that Palin does NOT appeal to all Republicans in my experience and with what I've seen. True, she appeals to a core base of a specific type, but not all Republicans are Republicans for the same reason (just like not all Dems are Democrats for the same reasons--we're pretty diverse, too). The core she does appeal to she seems to do so passionately...but, for those outside that core, there is a definite hesitancy for many.

Personally, I don't want "Joe the Plumber" to be my President. I actually want someone smarter, more educated and more versed on the issues than me!!! I happen to think the President SHOULD be an exceptional individual of mind, heart and temperment.

Of course she doesn't appeal to all Republicans. No one does. Just like no one appeals to all Democrats.

Heh--sounds like a disgruntled Hillary voter.

Possibly. But you're the on who implied that Palin as VP was causing a mass exodus from the GOP. I could argue that Obama's treatment of Clinton and Palin during this campaign is causing an equally large exodus from the Democratic Party.

The point is, there are many diverse reasons why people may not like Palin both outside and even within her own party.

And my point is that there are equally many and diverse reasons why she's an inspiration to people across this country and across party lines. Team Sarah is a prime example of that. It's a web site that was started just a few weeks ago and now has over 41,000 members. Members who are Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Undecideds.

http://www.teamsarah.org/

Personally, I don't want "Joe the Plumber" to be my President. I actually want someone smarter, more educated and more versed on the issues than me!!! I happen to think the President SHOULD be an exceptional individual of mind, heart and temperment.

I tend to think that sometimes the most exceptional among us come in plain wrappings.

I've talked to so many disgruntled or disaffected Republicans this year that I've long since lost count. One of them is in the same room with me, badgering me to accompany him on a walk to relieve some stress.

John McCain is running robo-calls in his home state of Arizona.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/mccain_now_running_robocalls_i.php

John McCain is running robo-calls in his home state of Arizona.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/mccain_now_running_robocalls_i.php

I got a robo call from Michelle Obama yesterday.

The only people I've seen who dislike Palin are the intelligentsia (if you'll excuse the expression)

Unfortunately, without the intelligentsia of your own party, you take the risk of running a short sighted, clumsy, why do I keep hitting my head against the wall and not learning anything, incompetent type of campaign.

I got a robo call from Michelle Obama yesterday.

What state do you live in ?

And let's take a deep breath in here as well. It's less than a week - we can get along for one week can't we?

Unfortunately, without the intelligentsia of your own party, you take the risk of running a short sighted, clumsy, why do I keep hitting my head against the wall and not learning anything, incompetent type of campaign.

I've seen many simple people do amazing things without the collective wisdom of the intelligentsia. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln would be two of them.

That's not to say that the intelligentsia don't add value, because they do, but they are no more important to society or government and no more wise about the way of the world than the person who paints houses or flips burgers or gets a degree from a state college at night school.

What state do you live in ?

Virginia

The only people I've seen who dislike Palin are the intelligentsia (if you'll excuse the expression) - the people who believe that you have to have a pedigree to serve in elected office and those who do not possess such pedigrees are mindless masses who go for the brightest and shiniest toy in the store. Perhaps that's why at McCain and Palin rallies now you see lots of I am Joe the Plumber or Tito the Construction Worker or Sally the schoolteachers signs. These are the plain old ordinary people who are thrilled that someone like them might just be VP.


That might have been acceptable centuries ago but not today.

It takes a little more than ordinary to run for the most powerful offices of the 21st century. I'll be blunt, she lacks intelligence. The Palins of the world hold back scientific progress. They use their extrem ideology to justify wars and their lact of intellect and free thinking makes them more prone to exploitation by some of these "intelligentsia".

Believe it or not, I feel sorry for her for being pulled into this. She should go back to being a hockey mum and perhaps the small town mayor of wasilla (sp?).

What state do you live in ?

Michelle does have a robocall, but its a positive one in that it urges people to get out and vote. I got one myself the same day I received notice it would be aired in Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Florida.

I get 3 or 4 nasty ones from McCain every day!

That might have been acceptable centuries ago but not today.

I disagree. The world has been lead by the learned class for many years. Look where it's gotten us. Maybe it's high time for some good old fashioned common sense.

It takes a little more than ordinary to run for the most powerful offices of the 21st century. I'll be blunt, she lacks intelligence. The Palins of the world hold back scientific progress. They use their extrem ideology to justify wars and their lact of intellect and free thinking makes them more prone to exploitation by some of these "intelligentsia".

And you base your assertion that she lacks intelligence on what? That she believes in a power greater than herself? That she believes in her convictions and is willing to accept when those convictions make life a bit more difficult?

"The Palin's of the world hold back scientific progress?" Huh? How - because she believes all life is sacred, even life that's different, like her son? Because she believes in God?

"{The Palin's of the world} use their extreme ideology to justify wars" ? Huh? Which wars? Perhaps during the crusades they did, but the crusaders at that time were the "intelligentsia" and I can hardly hold Palin responsible for events which occurred many many years ago.

"{The Palin's of the world's} lack of intellect and free thinking ?" Huh? You base that on what - that she's from a small town in Alaska?

Seems to me like the Palin's of the world are the ones who openly and willingly accept everyone without judgment or recrimination. I wish I could say the same about, well, others.

The only people I've seen who dislike Palin are the intelligentsia (if you'll excuse the expression) - the people who believe that you have to have a pedigree to serve in elected office and those who do not possess such pedigrees are mindless masses who go for the brightest and shiniest toy in the store. Perhaps that's why at McCain and Palin rallies now you see lots of I am Joe the Plumber or Tito the Construction Worker or Sally the schoolteachers signs. These are the plain old ordinary people who are thrilled that someone like them might just be VP.

To be perfectly honest, I only know of one person in real life who still believes in Palin after seeing her on the campaign trail. I've heard some say that they're willing to overlook the veep. Of course, I spend most of my time these days on a university campus, but it's a very conservative university. If that's the intelligentsia, I guess I'm part of the intelligentsia, but I have to say I don't match the description. I'm a mother of 3 who has gone back to school full time to finish something I started when I was eighteen and make a better life for my family.
Yesterday or the day before, Palin was talking about helping special education. She went off about the government spending money on pet projects instead of things that would actually help the American people. She used a fruit fly study as an example without doing a quick Google and learning that this study is helping the exact population she was talking about: special ed kids. I just don't see what this woman really has to offer our country.
I really wonder if McCain is regretting his decision. Yes, she's a woman. Yes, she's an everyday "Joe." Yes, obscure people can make something big of themselves. There is someone who has proven that, and he's running on the other side of the aisle.
(And I never in a million years thought I would post that, especially on this website!)

To be perfectly honest, I only know of one person in real life who still believes in Palin after seeing her on the campaign trail. I've heard some say that they're willing to overlook the veep. Of course, I spend most of my time these days on a university campus, but it's a very conservative university. If that's the intelligentsia, I guess I'm part of the intelligentsia, but I have to say I don't match the description. I'm a mother of 3 who has gone back to school full time to finish something I started when I was eighteen and make a better life for my family.

Yesterday or the day before, Palin was talking about helping special education. She went off about the government spending money on pet projects instead of things that would actually help the American people. She used a fruit fly study as an example without doing a quick Google and learning that this study is helping the exact population she was talking about: special ed kids. I just don't see what this woman really has to offer our country.
I really wonder if McCain is regretting his decision. Yes, she's a woman. Yes, she's an everyday "Joe." Yes, obscure people can make something big of themselves. There is someone who has proven that, and he's running on the other side of the aisle.
(And I never in a million years thought I would post that, especially on this website!)

And I know many many people who believe that Sarah Palin is an extraordinary woman who speaks directly to them.

FYI - The fruit fly study at as USDA facility in France is intended to provide a means to defend California olive growers from invasive species. The studies underway at UNC Chapel Hill, which use a variety of animals including fruit flies, are intended to decode the neurons and mechanisms of brain function which might help unravel the causes of neurological problems, including autism. They are different studies with different objectives and different funding mechanisms.

The study she referenced, by the way, is the one in France for the California olive growers. Because this study does not benefit all of humanity, just California olive growers, it's difficult of me to understand why this project should be funded by the US taxpayers instead of the intended audience - the California olive growers. That's why the project is classified a pork - because it's value to the taxpayers is negligible. The UNC Chapel Hill project, by the way, is not considered pork because it could potentially benefit all of humankind.

Oh - I did a quick google search and learned this. I also went to the Citizens Against Government Waste web site to verify my research as that site lists political pork. I'm quite sure Sarah did her research before mentioning the study. I wonder, however, whether those who have attacked her as a intellectual lightweight and used her mention of this study as case in point did theirs.

Peggy, you just brought tears to my eyes. What a great post!

I didn't know you'd gone back to school. Way to go, girl! Kudos :tu:

ETA:

I just got another McCain robocall. This time it was Hank Williams, the country singer.

I thought Lincoln was a very educated (though , self taught mostly) lawyer, senator and statesman from Illinois who warned about the dangers of corporate power in government..

1864: "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Source: Book, "Assault on Reason", In a chapter entitled "The Politics of Wealth," by Al Gore


Hmm..who does that remind me of? :hmm:

I thought Lincoln was a very educated (though , self taught mostly) lawyer, senator and statesman from Illinois who warned about the dangers of corporate power in government..

Hmm..who does that remind me of? :hmm:

Lincoln was widely derided in his time because he attended law school at night and was considered an intellectual lightweight by the establishment.

Washington, though from a wealthy family, was also considered an intellectual lightweight as he never attended school in Europe, as was the norm then for established, upper-class statesmen.

It's not just the intellectual lightweight some of the others have mentioned. Palin, in my opinion, lacks the curiosity factor and that's more damning to me than anything else. It seems to me that she's comfortable in her skin, and in espousing absolutes without really questioning whether this or that qualifies as an absolute. I tend not to trust people like that. It was one of the major gripes I had with George Bush eight years ago. It's one I also have for John McCain this in this campaign. For someone who's spent that many years in Washington and never bothered to learn how the economy works, for example, is frankly incredible.

I was once charged by the CEO and Board of the corporation I worked for to find two dozen of the "best and brightest" to staff a new business opportunity. I wouldn't have hired the three I've talked about here, primarily because they all have an appalling lack of intellectual curiosity, the desire to learn about difficult subjects. When people reach a point where they think they already know it all, and stop trying to better themselves, they're not really of much use to anyone else, are they?

What is wrong with her being comfortable in her skin? Isn't that a good thing?

It's not just the intellectual lightweight some of the others have mentioned. Palin, in my opinion, lacks the curiosity factor and that's more damning to me than anything else.

Again, on what do you base that? Reportedly she a voracious reader with varied interests so I'm not sure where this comes from.

It seems to me that she's comfortable in her skin, and in espousing absolutes without really questioning whether this or that qualifies as an absolute. I tend not to trust people like that.

I tend to agree that she's comfortable in her own skin. She clearly knows who she is and where she came from and isn't ashamed or embarrassed to just be herself. I tend to look on that in a positive light.

I'm not sure which absolutes she's espoused without questioning, other than her steadfast belief and faith in God. That's also something I tend to look at in a positive light.

It's one I also have for John McCain this in this campaign. For someone who's spent that many years in Washington and never bothered to learn how the economy works, for example, is frankly incredible.

Even Alan Greenspan admitted last week that he wasn't an expert on every aspect of the economy - he did miss the housing bubble after all. I'm not sure any of us would be comfortable claiming that Greenspan lacked intellectual curiosity regarding the economy.

I was once charged by the CEO and Board of the corporation I worked for to find two dozen of the "best and brightest" to staff a new business opportunity. I wouldn't have hired the three I've talked about here, primarily because they all have an appalling lack of intellectual curiosity, the desire to learn about difficult subjects. When people reach a point where they think they already know it all, and stop trying to better themselves, they're not really of much use to anyone else, are they?

When have John or Sarah ever said that they know it all and don't need to better themselves?

I personally think Palin has been unfairly lambasted for her so called "lack of intelligence". Elaine Lafferty, former editor in chief of Ms. Magazine posted a story on Palins intelligence yesterday.
Palin is more than a “quick study”; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she isSarah Palin is a Brainiac (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-27/sarah-palins-a-brainiac/1/)

Take it as you will, but it is interesting to hear an account of her from someone who has actually met her.

The way she is normally treated by the media actually really makes me angry so I'll stop here.

Mom, I'm not gonna debate this ***-for-tat. My personal take on John McCain is that he's a shallow man with a passing familiarity with a number of topics, but master of none.

His Senate record is undistinguished. He has a rotten temper, is a gambling addict, and tends to be quite reckless in the choices he makes. Those are all warning signs from my perspective.

Sarah Palin inspires even less confidence in me.

Neither has the experience they claim, at least not insofar as their ability to turn this country around, and that's the non-negotiable with me.

ETA:

Dear me... Sarah Palin has said she is interested in leading a Republican ticket in 2012?

jMwv74rIGDU

Virginia

I live in California. No one is calling me. :no:

Ok I have to ask this now: do you live in "the communist part"?

I'm in California and I don't get calls either.

I'm making a prediction for after the election:

Palin v Ron Paul smack-down.
Unprincipled beauty vs libertarian brain

CNN speculates on Palin's future too.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/29/palin.gop/index.html

per Olbermann, the last time a major sporting event game was delayed for a political event was the Stanley Cup and the RNC Convention, in 2008. That would be 2 months ago.

I remember during a documentary of George W. Bush, one lady who worked with him in Texas and in his first administration then returned home, was asked "What don't people know about GWB?" and she said "He's a good manager." I keep thinking about that.

One election at a time, please!

Speculations about the post election GOP is not the topic here.

What is wrong with her being comfortable in her skin? Isn't that a good thing?Yes and no, imo. Yes it's good that she's comfortable in her skin because that shows she has confidence in herself and all that. "No", because, imo, she would come across as not being willing to change or consider new ideas and innovations or either come across as arrogant or even stubborn to compromise anything she doesn't agree with. Of course, there's no way of knowing this, but there is that possibility that she could be viewed in that way.

VirginiaI live in Virginia too, and I've never received a robo-call to vote for Obama, not that they don't exist, but maybe they're rare. I've only gotten scary McCain ones. The only calls I get where democrats are concerned are actual live people trying to encourage us to go out and vote or either people polling, asking who I'm going to vote for for the President and the Senate. It's starting to drive me mad, though, I hate to admit, since I do plan on voting regardless. I vote as a way to show respect to both women and blacks who fought for me to have that right.

From an outsider's perspective I can honestly say Palin isn't taken at all seriously here. In fact over the past couple of weeks more than once I've had people to say to me "gee you could run for VP" when I've done something stupid (most recently backing out of my driveway without opening the gate). The media here is covering the election pretty evenly most of the time but whenever they rule out the Republicans it's almost always because of Sarah Palin.

I wonder if McCain is regretting his choice (I genuinely do wonder that, no sarcasm intended) because from what I can tell, people in the US aren't taking to her all that well either. Would the polls tell a different story if McCain had chosen someone else?

I almost got frozen out on another site when I related something stupid I'd done & called it "Palin-esque". Where are you from Hysteria ?

"The Palin's of the world hold back scientific progress?" Huh? How - because she believes all life is sacred, even life that's different, like her son? Because she believes in God?

No. Because she's a young-Earth Creationist. It is a philosophy which, in my humble estimation, is Medieval and anti-science.

"{The Palin's of the world} use their extreme ideology to justify wars" ? Huh? Which wars?

How about Iraq which she describes as "God's work".

Perhaps during the crusades they did, but the crusaders at that time were the "intelligentsia"

The Crusaders were anything but intellectual. The closest Europe had to that class were the monastic orders, not the warrior monks and nobles. The heart of scientific and culture of the time (intellectualism, if you will) was the Middle East where, unfettered by the strictures of Medieval Christian dogma, Muslim scholars built on the learning of ancient Greece.


The study she referenced, by the way, is the one in France for the California olive growers. Because this study does not benefit all of humanity, just California olive growers, it's difficult of me to understand why this project should be funded by the US taxpayers instead of the intended audience - the California olive growers.

Last time I looked, Californian olive producers were citizens and tax-payers and improving their profits is good for the US. Certainly of more use than the endless military boondoggles.

No. Because she's a young-Earth Creationist. It is a philosophy which, in my humble estimation, is Medieval and anti-science.

All because she personally believes in God and a "divine spark" that created the heavens and the earth? Of course that answers nothing as to Ali's claim that "ideologically extreme" people of her ilk have stalled scientific achievement. She has authority over Alaska public schools as Governor and yet, despite her "ideologically extreme" views, she hasn't pushed creationism into the schools there. So while you may believe her personal views are "medieval and anti-science" what has she done in her political career which indicates that she'd pursue an agenda which would stall scientific achievement?

How about Iraq which she describes as "God's work".

How about accurately characterizing her quote, in context? Here's the full quote, "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God.“

She doesn't say that the war in Iraq is Gods work (as the press has so widely misquoted her), no, she expresses her hope and prayer that the war is just, fair, and within the will of God.

Last time I looked, Californian olive producers were citizens and tax-payers and improving their profits is good for the US.

Sure they are. But why should I, who don't even like olives, have to fund studies into better ways for California olive growers to combat invasive species? Isn't that something the olive growers could fund and then pass that cost on to the consumers of their products rather than forcing all taxpayers, whether they're consumers or not, to fund? Is funding research which benefits a commercial enterprise really the legitimate purpose of government? Isn't the role of government to fund projects and programs which benefit all of us, rather than just one subset of the population represented by a powerful lobby?

Ok I have to ask this now: do you live in "the communist part"?

On the edge of it. We battle the communists to the south all the time. They tried to create an unelected, unapproved by voters "regional transportation authority" a year or so back that was authorized to tax the residents of the area counties, including my county, to pay for transportation projects in the "communist" counties. The state supreme court struck that down, but not before the authority had implemented it's tax and "raised" funds.

General notes: let's ease off on the sarcasm towards Palin and communist Virginia :)

And just when I thought the media couldn't get any more biased, they've glossed over yet another huge supporter switching from Obama to McCain in the last few days of the election. And this one isn't just an angry Hillary supporter, it's a major endorsement. (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/election-08/october-surprise-alien-endorses-mccain/) It's one thing to be totally in the tank for Obama, but to deliberately refuse to report news of this caliber is just unconscionable. :no:

Note to Luna - where's my Onion!!!!

Nice one, Mom! :lol:

General notes: let's ease off on the sarcasm towards Palin and communist Virginia :)I know you said not to talk about "communist Virginia", but I live in Virginia, and I'm terribly curious where that description came from. Can I please question it?:whistle:

Here's a funny one that spoofs on McCain and Palin. As with the other advert, I'm not sure who wrote it, am pretty sure it was just released on the internet, but I'm guessing they suppoprt Obama.

dqlJvHOZ_as

Enjoy!

Oh - SSJ_Jup81 - the "communist part" of Virginia is a commonly used phrase to refer to Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax Counties and the cities of Falls Church and Fairfax in the northern portion of Virginia. It gained national fame this election season when a political candidate actaully used the phrase, but it's been used up here in the northern part of VA for many many years.

That's new to me. I'd never heard that before. ^^

And just when I thought the media couldn't get any more biased, they've glossed over yet another huge supporter switching from Obama to McCain in the last few days of the election. And this one isn't just an angry Hillary supporter, it's a major endorsement. (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/election-08/october-surprise-alien-endorses-mccain/) It's one thing to be totally in the tank for Obama, but to deliberately refuse to report news of this caliber is just unconscionable. :no:

Note to Luna - where's my Onion!!!!

:rotfl: Anyone else remember Bloom County - Shrimp or Wimp? Shrimp or Wimp

All because she personally believes in God and a "divine spark" that created the heavens and the earth? Of course that answers nothing as to Ali's claim that "ideologically extreme" people of her ilk have stalled scientific achievement.

A "divine spark" does not make a Creationist, young earth or other. Believing that that Earth was created 6000 years ago does. By it's very definition this is anti-science as science is the search for knowledge whereas as YEC believes that all you need to know is the Universe was made in six days, Bible says so.


How about accurately characterizing her quote, in context? Here's the full quote, "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God.“

Must be in the interpretation. But even that quote implies, to me, divine inspiration for the war.

Sure they are. But why should I, who don't even like olives, have to fund studies into better ways for California olive growers to combat invasive species? Isn't that something the olive growers could fund and then pass that cost on to the consumers of their products rather than forcing all taxpayers, whether they're consumers or not, to fund? Is funding research which benefits a commercial enterprise really the legitimate purpose of government?

Funding research for an active industry of small growers is a better spend than the billions the US sinks into other agricultural subsidies. And certainly more justified than $700b on bailing out the big end of town.

Isn't the role of government to fund projects and programs which benefit all of us

Like universal health care?

Being a Christian means you believe what the Bible says and the first book in the Bible states how the Earth and man were created. Science says differently, but what science says is just a theory as they can't prove it (and honestly, the only way to prove it is to be able to go back in time to when it happened). Let's not condemn Palin for believing in what the Bible says. Barack Obama claims to be a Christian, doesn't he (he at least went to a Christian church) so I would think he believes this, too.

I'm a Christian and the focus of my life in Christianity is the New Testament, not the old. That's why we're called Christians, isn't it?

Are you saying that Genisis is not important and that you don't believe it? The entire Bible is important. Not all of the rules and such in the OT are relevant to Christians, because of what happens in the NT, but I don't think the creation of the world has been changed due to anything in the NT.

I don't want this to become a Bible debate. That's not the purpose of this thread. The purpose of this thread is to talk about John McCain and Sarah Palin. She doesn't believe in creationism. Many people, due to religion, don't believe in creationism, and that includes many people not just in charge of our country, but other countries in this world.

I am mightily turned off by fundamentalists of any religious denomination, particularly when they're picking and choosing which "rules and such" from the Old Testament to tack onto the message of Christ as documented in the New Testament, often ending up with dogma that contradicts the very tenets of Christianity.

However, like you, I don't want to debate religion. Palin reminds me of Bush insofar as her brand of Christianity is concerned and it's role (or lack thereof, if I had my way) in government. I don't like it. I don't want anything to do with it. That video of a pastor "laying hands" on her and chasing out witches was something I never hope to see again.

Great, we agree! No religion debate in the McCain thread :D

I have no personal animus for McCain and that's why I nearly feel for him when things like this happen.

"“Joe’s with us today,” McCain said at a rally (not knowing he was stood up).

“Joe where are ya?” questioned McCain.

“Joe, I thought you were here today…,” he said, trailing off."

CSM (http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/10/30/joe-the-plumber-stiffs-mccain-pursuing-country-music-career/)

That said, if you plan a stunt like this you should be sure that the guest of honour turns up.

Note to Luna - where's my Onion!!!!

The Onion is a public site, even if it seems staffed by people who live in their mother's basements.

I have no personal animus for McCain and that's why I nearly feel for him when things like this happen.

"“Joe’s with us today,” McCain said at a rally (not knowing he was stood up).

“Joe where are ya?” questioned McCain.

“Joe, I thought you were here today…,” he said, trailing off."

CSM (http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/10/30/joe-the-plumber-stiffs-mccain-pursuing-country-music-career/)

That said, if you plan a stunt like this you should be sure that the guest of honour turns up.

McCain's crowd at that rally was 4,000 school children bussed to the event. They were 2/3 rds of the audience. The district bussed ALL the county children there, to be non-partisan. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/mccain-camp-busses-in-sch_n_139300.html

People are asking why McCain is spending the time where he is. He's going to counties that went for Kerry in 2004. There seems little point to that. (10/30/08 MSNBC Countdown #5)

Here's video of the gaffe Wab mentioned above:

Iucdy83OXcE

Good video on "McCain's Disgrace"

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/241253.php


And two good pieces on Khalidi:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCaOCWYpPk4)Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCaOCWYpPk4) we have the McCain campaign's execrable Michael Goldfarb slinging around accusations of anti-semitism--a favorite pastime, as we've seen this year, among Jewish neoconservatives. I've never met Rashid Khalidi, but he is (a) Palestinian and therefore (b) a semite, so the charge of anti-semitism is fatuous. Khalidi is also a respected academic, the sort of person who is involved in foundation work that John McCain, for one, was willing to support financially. I'd say that if we have a bigot here, it's Mr. Goldfarb who, if he's intent on calling people antisemitic--or any other epithet--should be required to provide chapter and verse, which he does not do on CNN. (I'd also like to know on what basis CNN's Rick Sanchez can stipulate that Khalidi is antisemitic.)

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/10/30/and-lower/

And The New McCarthyism (http://harpers.org/archive/2008/10/hbc-90003779)

McCain's current photo op.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20081030/capt.cps.obk48.301008203035.photo00.photo.default-512x355.jpg?x=400&y=277&q=85&sig=6g3xeNstJcftlGvO.KR_iA--

Palin will travel to Alaska to vote. http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/palin-will-travel-to-alaska-to-vote/

Apparently McCain/Palin Campaign didn't do what was necessary for absentee voting.

John McCain will be on SNL this Saturday.
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/30/mccain-to-return-to-snl/

YEujUh_-Xjw

Steve Benen, of The Washingon Monthly, confronts (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015449.php) McCain's shameful attack on Khalidi head-on:

I want to second my Obsidian Wings co-blogger Eric Martin's condemnation (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/10/if-you-have-a-r.html) of John McCain's attack's on Rashid Khalidi. Eric quoted Juan Cole, which led some commenters to question Cole's objectivity. I will therefore cite two other people. First, Barnett Rubin (http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/10/rubin-my-friend-neo-nazi.html):

"I actually find it demeaning, insulting, and depressing to have to defend Rashid. I could say, I know him, he has been a guest in my home in New York and in my rented house in Provence, he bears absolutely no resemblance to the image these despicable people are trying to project of him, and lot's more. I could point out that I am Jewish and have VISIBLE JEWISH ARTIFACTS IN MY HOME, which did not appear to alarm Rashid, if he even noticed them, but it is all just so ridiculous I don't know what to say.

I don't want to treat these charges with the respect of a refutation. I just want to express my disgust with those who uttered them and my solidarity with my friend, Rashid Khalidi."

Second,Scott Horton (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/10/hbc-90003779):

"In the current issue of National Review, Andrew McCarthy continues his campaign to link the Democratic nominee to various and sundry Hyde Park radicals. This time it is "PLO advisor turned University of Chicago professor Rashid Khalidi," who now heads the Middle Eastern Studies Department at Columbia University. Khalidi, we learn, makes a habit of justifying and supporting the work of terrorists and is "a former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat." And then we learn that this same Khalidi knows Obama and that his children even babysat for Obama's kids!

This doesn't sound much like the Rashid Khalidi I know. I've followed his career for many years, read his articles and books, listened to his presentations, and engaged him in discussions of politics, the arts, and history. In fact, as McCarthy's piece ran, I was midway through an advance copy of Khalidi's new book Sowing Crisis: The Cold War and American Dominance in the Middle East. (I'll be reviewing it next month -- stay tuned.) Rashid Khalidi is an American academic of extraordinary ability and sharp insights. He is also deeply committed to stemming violence in the Middle East, promoting a culture that embraces human rights as a fundamental notion, and building democratic societies. In a sense, Khalidi's formula for solving the Middle East crisis has not been radically different from George W. Bush's: both believe in American values and approaches. However, whereas Bush believes these values can be introduced in the wake of bombs and at the barrel of a gun, Khalidi disagrees. He sees education and civic activism as the path to success, and he argues that pervasive military interventionism has historically undermined the Middle East and will continue to do so. Khalidi has also been one of the most articulate critics of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority -- calling them repeatedly on their anti-democratic tendencies and their betrayals of their own principles. Khalidi is also a Palestinian American. There is no doubt in my mind that it is solely that last fact that informs McCarthy's ignorant and malicious rants.

McCarthy states that Khalidi "founded" the Arab American Action Network (AAAN). In fact, he neither founded it nor has anything to do with it. But AAAN is not, as McCarthy suggests, a political organization. It is a social-services organization, largely funded by the state of Illinois and private foundations, that provides support for English-language training, citizenship classes, after-school and summer programs for schoolchildren, women's shelters, and child care among Chicago's sizable Arab community (and for others on the city's impoverished South Side). Does McCarthy consider this sort of civic activism objectionable? Since it was advocated aggressively by President Bush -- this is "compassionate conservativism" in action -- such an objection would be interesting. Nor was Khalidi ever a spokesman for the PLO, though that was reported in an erroneous column by the New York Times's Tom Friedman in 1982. That left me curious about the final and most dramatic accusation laid at Khalidi's doorstep: that the Khalidis babysat for the Obamas. Was it true? I put the question to Khalidi. "No, it is not true," came the crisp reply. Somehow that was exactly the answer I expected. (...)

I have a suggestion for Andy McCarthy and his Hyde Park project. If he really digs down deep enough, he will come up with a Hyde Park figure who stood in constant close contact with Barack Obama and who, unlike Ayers and Khalidi, really did influence Obama's thinking about law, government, and policy. He is to my way of thinking a genuine radical. His name is Richard Posner, and he appears to be the most frequently and positively cited judge and legal academic in ... National Review."

I think McCain's attacks on Khalidi are completely dishonorable, and that comparing Rashid Khalidi to a neo-Nazi, in particular, is just beyond vile. But even without that, it just plays on anti-Arab sentiment. Does anyone think that McCain's audiences know much about Rashid Khalidi, other than his suspiciously Arab name? For that matter, does anyone think that McCain knows much about him? The fact that he repeats the charge that Khalidi was a spokesman for the PLO, a claim that Khalidi denies, and that there is independent reason to think is false -- suggests either that he doesn't know, or that he doesn't care what the truth is.

Khalidi is just a red flag to wave in front of McCain's audiences. Mentioning his name produces the effect it does because that name is Arab. McCain surely knows this.

Colin Powell was big enough to denounce this kind of appeal to bigotry. Years ago, I would have imagined that McCain would do likewise, or at least that he would not engage in it himself. I wish I had been right. And I imagine that in a few weeks, when he contemplates the shredded remains of his honor, he will too.

Apart from the McCarthyism implicit in the Khalidi attack, McCain is a bit over the edge with this [removed] ad:

NmZ3o0Di7Go

Here is a YouTube link of a soldier with a message addressed to 'Mr. Obama' (that's the title of the clip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

Here is a YouTube link of a soldier with a message addressed to 'Mr. Obama' (that's the title of the clip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

Forgive my bluntness, but I call that humanitarian imperialism wrapped in a flag and a feel good patriotic message.

Here is a YouTube link of a soldier with a message addressed to 'Mr. Obama' (that's the title of the clip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8


Thank you for sharing that video with us. I am so tired of Obama telling everyone that the war is mistake and I have said repeatedly that it is an insult to the men and women fighting for freedom in Iraq. McCain has it right. He knows he can't give a date of withdrawl because we can't withdraw until we win. The man in this video said it all very well.

Thank you for sharing that video with us. I am so tired of Obama telling everyone that the war is mistake and I have said repeatedly that it is an insult to the men and women fighting for freedom in Iraq.

How is it an insult to the people fighting the war? It's not as if the war is their fault. They're trying to make the best of a bad decision. To say that criticism of the decision and conduct of the war is an insult to them is to burden them with blame for the policy they are forced to enact.

There are two sides to this story. My heart lies with this one:

yVpYoTiL0o8

Forgive my bluntness, but I call that humanitarian imperialism wrapped in a flag and a feel good patriotic message.

I think so, too.

I agree with Wab on this one. We have family in Iraq and one of our children has also served (daughter-- Naval reserve Journalism corp.). I have been against the decision to pre-emptively attack Iraq since the beginning. I was in favor of attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan.

It's the decisions of the administration that I question. It's very American to speak out if we feel directions are in order. To be fair, I actually went to rallies in favor of the first Gulf War against Iraq after Iraq attacked our alli, Kuwait, for Bush Sr.. I also protested Clinton's decision to get involved in the Bosnian conflict.

I'm an equal opportunity disagreer :p Fact is, I look at the information then decide. It doesn't have to do with what party the President is, I make up my own mind.

My husband is a Vet, as is his whole half of the family. My father was a vet, my uncle killed in Vietnam and my husband's birth father (who received a Bronze star for bravery in battle), now deceased, also served.

I have great admiration for our troops and do not hold them responsible for their executive's decisions. They are doing exactly what they are trained to do, and do it with great courage, pride and honor.

I do feel that our president has not supported these brave souls enough, or honored vets enough upon their return home. I disagree with "how" our current president has handled our fine troops.

I don't have to agree with my President to be patriotic, nor to support and honor our troops. That's the way I feel. In fact, speaking out when we (Americans) feel something is wrong or in error, is often called patriotic and the spirit of Americans. It's part of our constitutional right we claim and part of what makes us an extraordinary people and nation.

While the surge may have helped over there, I'm one of those that doesn't think we should have attacked them in the first place. I back a withdrawl...a responsible withdrawl. I'm not alone. This is one of the reasons I am supporting Senator Obama in this election rather than McCain.

Palin will travel to Alaska to vote. http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/palin-will-travel-to-alaska-to-vote/

Apparently McCain/Palin Campaign didn't do what was necessary for absentee voting.



I haven't read the article, but what's wrong with her actually going to Alaska to vote? I think it's cool that she's not absentee voting.

How is it an insult to the people fighting the war? It's not as if the war is their fault. They're trying to make the best of a bad decision. To say that criticism of the decision and conduct of the war is an insult to them is to burden them with blame for the policy they are forced to enact.

Basically, you're (not you, Wab, the general you) saying they aren't doing a good job over there and we need to give up now.

Don't put words in your fellow members' mouths.

Anyway, as this started with a complaint about Obama and we are in the McCain thread now, the whole question is off topic.

Back to McCain, please.

I haven't read the article, but what's wrong with her actually going to Alaska to vote? I think it's cool that she's not absentee voting.

It means a couple of things:

1. It is a long flight, so it is time she will not be doing media or being in a swing state, particularly on election day.

2. It means she will not be with Sen. McCain in AZ for the end of election party.

3. This means that they do not anticipate a victory speech, when you would want a photo op of the ticket together. (Biden will vote early in Delaware & be with Obama at night - I bet you anything).

4. It means that on the day of and after the election, she and McCain will be literally 3,000 miles apart (quite the buffer zone !).

5. It means she will be relatively remote from the MSM on the day after the election, and definitely "off the reservation" or "away from control of McCain camp".

I would be interested to know whose idea it was for her to "go home" for election day his, or hers ?

Interesting. It is odd now that you spell it out in those terms.

Granted, if the unthinkable happens and McCain wins, she could fly back for the next day. But, it is a bit unconventional.

It means a couple of things:

1. It is a long flight, so it is time she will not be doing media or being in a swing state, particularly on election day. She won't be doing media in a swing state, but that doesn't mean she won't be doing media. Last time I checked they have TVs, radios, newspaper, and even the internet in Alaska.

2. It means she will not be with Sen. McCain in AZ for the end of election party. Not true at all. Fly her in Monday evening, get her up to vote, do some media for Alaska, then fly her out to Arizona. Done.

3. This means that they do not anticipate a victory speech, when you would want a photo op of the ticket together. (Biden will vote early in Delaware & be with Obama at night - I bet you anything). :rolleyes: It definitely does not mean this at all! Stop thinking the worst for the McCain camp. This is getting really old.

It makes sense for her to go to Alaska for election day. It is her home state and after doing an early photo-op at the polling booth she can do a bit of campaigning in the west.

Interesting. It is odd now that you spell it out in those terms.

Granted, if the unthinkable happens and McCain wins, she could fly back for the next day. But, it is a bit unconventional.

Not entirely. Bush flew back to Texas in '00 and '04.

The Onion is a public site, even if it seems staffed by people who live in their mother's basements.

I know! I just love that the articles you find are always kind of universally funny and make me laugh and when I go to the site I never seem to be able to find anything that good. I miss your Onion posts - whenever you posted a story it was one of the highlights of my day!


***
According to a company that polls US expats living in Israel, those folks voted 76% for McCain compared with 24% for Obama. (http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2008/10/76-of-us-citizens-in-israel-voted-for.html) Nader and the other thrid party candidte didn't score any votes.

According to a company that polls US expats living in Israel, those folks voted 76% for McCain compared with 24% for Obama. (http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2008/10/76-of-us-citizens-in-israel-voted-for.html) Nader and the other thrid party candidte didn't score any votes.

So, not much of a Jews for Jesus vote ?

The Onion rocks!

The Onion totally rocks! Are we actually allowed to link it here@ I'd have thought that its rating isn't quite compatible with this site?


Anyway - I am mystified about the Palin criticism here..... God knows, I am not her greatest fan, but surely, she is the Governor of Alaska, she can hardly NOT vote in her state?

Wouldn't that look like really disrespectful behaviour towards her home state? I'd find it odd if she didn't vote in Alaska, to be honest..... even IF it means two long flights for her.

According to a company that polls US expats living in Israel, those folks voted 76% for McCain compared with 24% for Obama. (http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2008/10/76-of-us-citizens-in-israel-voted-for.html) Nader and the other thrid party candidte didn't score any votes.


It isn't surprising as their right wing party headed by the more hawkish Bibi Netanyahu is also winning in the current election polls.

Joe the Plumber dog costume. It is Halloween !
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/halloween-costumes-for-do_n_139841.html

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/547/slide_547_11729_large.jpg

Anyway - I am mystified about the Palin criticism here..... God knows, I am not her greatest fan, but surely, she is the Governor of Alaska, she can hardly NOT vote in her state?

Two words: Absentee Voting.

She could have visibly & on camera voted for the ticket via absentee ballot, which would have been good publicity for the Republican early vote effort (like Bush W did on TV).

Her flying back to Alaska to vote looks like a badly unplanned final push & like she's being sent to Siberia.

Wee doggies... Ken Duberstein, former chief of staff to Reagan, has endorsed Obama for president and fingered Palin as the straw that broke his camel's back. Listen:

g9ImySRVdO4

Eagleburger was just as complimentary.

The VP pick is usually not much of an influence on the ticket. But in this case, with McCain being 72, and a survivor of 4 cancer bouts, the VP is crucial. That's why her readiness is such an issue. Also, it says a lot about McCain that he picked her without the kind of vetting and investigation we typically see for VP picks.

I think the whole "unready" issue for Palin is, at this junction, people looking for excuses to jump on the Obama bandwagon instead of any real fear about Palin. I think people who were truly upset at the Palin pick would have left McCain within a week. Instead Palin had a great convention and great rallies and all these people were ready to support her while she was riding high. Even after the the following dubious interviews with Couric and others they were still very supportive. Especially those Republicans who are "jumping ship". My personal opinion is that these republicans are more concerned about "winning" than about supporting their party and candidates. My guess is that many of these same Republicans were not all that keen on McCain as the nominee to begin with and they are using Palin as excuse to abandon McCain. After all if they claim, now that it's McCain's policies that are causing them to switch, the fact is that they should have done so in the beginning when it was a close race. But if they blame it on Palin they look less hypocritical. In fact, with it looking like an Obama landslide, these people may be looking to gain the favor of the public and getting reelected (or getting their nominee reelected )by the Democratic Public and then reverting to Republican values once back in office.

I don't know that either Obama or McCain would be well served with these party jumpers in their adminastration. It shows a real lack of a)loyalty and b)more concern with being on the winning team than sticking to their principles. I mean, how can a president make any sort of decision without a firm grasp of where the members of his admin are coming from?

Seems like Palin is being used as the fall guy than in any real, honest assessment, of her capabilities.

I think that the more people have seen Palin the less they have liked her. Not only did she have those disasterous interviews, but she didn't seem to have a filter about what would be over the line in her rallies. She didn't try to shut down or discourage some of the ugly comments. In fact, she seemed to like it and encourage it.

Her debate performance was embarrassing with all her winking and mugging. It was not what I'd want to see from any politician, especially a woman. It made her seem less serious.

Personally I don't think that being near Russia makes her a foreign policy expert. Nor does being in a oil-producing state make her an energy expert. There's nuclear, wind, geothermal, solar, and bio energy--none of which she knows anything about. And we have plenty of experts for oil and gas, what we need are experts to move us in new directions. Nor does having a Down Syndrome child (for a few months) make her an expert on autism or other disabling childhood illnesses.

I don't think she has ever read the Constitution. She thinks that the VP runs the Senate, and now she thinks that criticizing political figures, either by the public or press is against the First Amendment. Of course, it's the opposite: the public and the press are protected by the First Amendment for what they say about political figures (or anyone else). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/palin-criticism-threatens_n_139729.html

I think that the more people have seen Palin the less they have liked her. Not only did she have those disasterous interviews, but she didn't seem to have a filter about what would be over the line in her rallies. She didn't try to shut down or discourage some of the ugly comments. In fact, she seemed to like it and encourage it.

The only time she really bothered to say something was over the line was the Palin Rap thing on SNL

Her debate performance was embarrassing with all her winking and mugging. It was not what I'd want to see from any politician, especially a woman. It made her seem less serious.

I like how she's not completely serious, but the winking and mugging was definitely overboard. A politician who seems open is one that i would trust more, I view too much seriousness as a trait many would put on to hide things, but Palin is definitely overboard, she's running for vice president of the US, not a beauty pageant or something.

Personally I don't think that being near Russia makes her a foreign policy expert. Nor does being in a oil-producing state make her an energy expert. There's nuclear, wind, geothermal, solar, and bio energy--none of which she knows anything about. And we have plenty of experts for oil and gas, what we need are experts to move us in new directionss. Nor does having a Down Syndrome child (for a few months) make her an expert on autism or other disabling childhood illnesses.

:rotfl::rotfl:

I think people like Duberstein, Powell, and Eagleburger waited to see if there was more to Sarah Palin than what was available at the time of her selection. It took just a few short weeks for the obvious to materialize.

To me: Palin shows the weakness of McCain's vetting process & foresight - and he's running for a position where he would be making thousands of appointments, including to his cabinet, FEMA, the Supreme Court, Ambassadors ... Remember Bush appointed a PR guy to head FEMA then Katrina hit. I think people want competence in government. That is something Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA-R) said (he's only Indian American Governor - from India) and I think it is a theme.

Palin is reading speeches others have written for her at her rallies. So again, I blame the McCain campaign, they have totally misused her, (People like a pleasant woman), & Palin is reaping all the rebound negativity. That said, she seems not to have the political instincts to get out of it ! Also, from what she says about the role of the VP, I'm thinking she was "talked up" on the job, and believed it. So she's not the sharpest tack in the box either, a little too ready to believe her own hype.

This was on 23/6 236.com comedy site, however, I believe it is a real picture of John McCain's NH office on 10/29/08

http://a.236.com/images/photo2/6920/original/original_opt.jpg

Two words: Absentee Voting.

She could have visibly & on camera voted for the ticket via absentee ballot, which would have been good publicity for the Republican early vote effort (like Bush W did on TV).

Her flying back to Alaska to vote looks like a badly unplanned final push & like she's being sent to Siberia.
We've shown you where other candidates went home to vote, so this isn't a bad thing for Palin to do. All you've been doing for the past week is pick on Sarah Palin. We get it. You don't like her.

Let's keep the tension regarding Gov. Palin to a minimum...everyone is entitled to their own opinion of her and her pick, but try to be respectful of everyone else's opinions, too. She has been a divisive figure in this campaign - trying to deny this is probably turning a blind eye to the many stories and comments regarding her that are floating around - but we can at least try to keep things civil on our discussion of her.

To me, her importance to the race lies mostly in how independant voters - those who, unlike me, had not made up their minds prior to her selection - perceive her...and whether it makes them more or less likely to vote for her. Opinions among those of us who already made up our minds aren't going to change the overall race, after all :).

We've shown you where other candidates went home to vote, so this isn't a bad thing for Palin to do. All you've been doing for the past week is pick on Sarah Palin. We get it. You don't like her.

In Linda's defense, there's an awful lot about Palin to point out. Six of ten American voters see her as unqualified (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/10/30/203725/46) to be vice president, let alone to assume the presidency if something should happen to a President McCain. Her unfavorability numbers are the highest of any vice presidential candidate ever, or at least since polling began. She did not draw the feminist vote, nor is she capable of pulling any independents beyond those leaning hard right.

My view on having a female president or VP is that i want one who will be very capable of the job to not dishonor the feminist movement and I feel the same about a Black president as well. This doesn't have much to do with the actual elections, but my art teacher dressed up as Palin as Halloween and said "I'm not saying whether i'm supporting or mocking her" :rotfl:

I think that the more people have seen Palin the less they have liked her. Not only did she have those disasterous interviews, but she didn't seem to have a filter about what would be over the line in her rallies.

I cannot speak on behalf of the populace. That may be true (or not) of the general public but the switching of sides from some of the Senators, Congressmen and other elected officials seems to be more political posturing than any sort of reflection on Palin's capabilities. Some Republicans are finally seeing, imho, that the Dems have the advantage this year and are trying to ride the wave into the next term. If that means throwing Palin under the bus, they will. It's called expediency. And should in no way reflect on Palin.


She didn't try to shut down or discourage some of the ugly comments. In fact, she seemed to like it and encourage it.


I'd like to avoid such subjective comments if it's all the same. The rallies may be affecting some people but they are not the cause of Republicans bailing on McCain.

Her debate performance was embarrassing with all her winking and mugging. It was not what I'd want to see from any politician, especially a woman. It made her seem less serious.


If this is the worst that came out of that debate then I'd say she did a great job. Everyone expected Biden to walk all over her and she held her own. The mugging may not have appealed but she did very well against an experienced opponent.

Personally I don't think that being near Russia makes her a foreign policy expert. Nor does being in a oil-producing state make her an energy expert. There's nuclear, wind, geothermal, solar, and bio energy--none of which she knows anything about. And we have plenty of experts for oil and gas, what we need are experts to move us in new directionss. Nor does having a Down Syndrome child (for a few months) make her an expert on autism or other disabling childhood illnesses.


Not a single one of the candidate or the running mates are experts on much of anything. McCain is not even an expert in the military despite the fact that he was IN the military. However he has had relevant experience in that area and Palin has had relevant, if not extensive experience in other areas. As far as energy goes, in particular, her state has to compete with other countries as well as other states in producing their oil. It's definately not something to sneeze at. As far as her Down's baby. As any parent with a child with an illness is concerned. You make yourself an expert. Otherwise how on earth do you make decisions that could effect the life of the baby? She may not be a medical doctor but I don't remember the last time a medical doctor was elected to a position where he had direct bearing on medical laws much less a VP or President. So I really don't believe that is a salient point.

I don't think she has ever read the Constitution.

Maybe she has. Maybe she hasn't. But there is no way to prove it so I don't feel right speculating upon it.


She thinks that the VP runs the Senate,

Mom posted quite alot about this. It's worth a good read. Only I don't remember what the post number was. :(


and now she thinks that criticizing political figures, either by the public or press is against the First Amendment. Of course, it's the opposite: the public and the press are protected by the First Amendment for what they say about political figures (or anyone else).


Come now. EVERYONE is protected by the first amendment. If any campaign has stunted the media it would be Obama's campaign so this really doesn't fly with me.

To me: Palin shows the weakness of McCain's vetting process & foresight - and he's running for a position where he would be making thousands of appointments, including to his cabinet, FEMA, the Supreme Court, Ambassadors ... Remember Bush appointed a PR guy to head FEMA then Katrina hit. I think people want competence in government. That is something Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA-R) said (he's only Indian American Governor - from India) and I think it is a theme.


That's fine. Many of the public believe this. However McCain's campaign got a huge boost from bringing her aboard and stayed that way even through some of her more dismal performances. She hasn't dragged him down, imho, as much as been used as a scape goat when people refuse to hit either Obama or McCain on matters of more serious note.

Palin is reading speeches others have written for her at her rallies. So again, I blame the McCain campaign, they have totally misused her, (People like a pleasant woman), & Palin is reaping all the rebound negativity.

That may very well be. I think the campaign could have put her to much better use. Now I think because the campaign is losing she is just being tossed on the fire because the campaign is giving up. Shame on them.


That said, she seems not to have the political instincts to get out of it !


That may be true. Alaska is a big state with a small state mentality. I'm sure the political environments that she is used to dealing with on a local level are far overshadowed by the national campaign.

Also, from what she says about the role of the VP, I'm thinking she was "talked up" on the job, and believed it. So she's not the sharpest tack in the box either, a little too ready to believe her own hype.

I would be weary of using the term not the sharpest tack. She may be overwhelmed or she may just be that trusting. Some politicians are honest and trusting. Not a bad thing certainly. We want honest people in the White House, no. It was the job of the McCain campaign to help her. Not hinder her.

We've shown you where other candidates went home to vote, so this isn't a bad thing for Palin to do. All you've been doing for the past week is pick on Sarah Palin. We get it. You don't like her.


Sometimes I think it's easier to talk negatively about one candidate than wax poetic about your own.

Let's keep the tension regarding Gov. Palin to a minimum...everyone is entitled to their own opinion of her and her pick, but try to be respectful of everyone else's opinions, too. She has been a divisive figure in this campaign - trying to deny this is probably turning a blind eye to the many stories and comments regarding her that are floating around - but we can at least try to keep things civil on our discussion of her.

I do try to do this. She has been divisive. But it is irksome to see a double standard applied to not only Palin but McCain as well. It's alright to drag out stories about them but not about Obama. And with the media thread closed it makes it that much more difficult. I'm an Obama supporter but I don't like how the left has handled this campaign. It all seems hypocritical to me. And I want to Obama to win as fairly as possibly and the treatment of McCain and Palin has hardly been fair imho.


To me, her importance to the race lies mostly in how independant voters - those who, unlike me, had not made up their minds prior to her selection - perceive her...and whether it makes them more or less likely to vote for her. Opinions among those of us who already made up our minds aren't going to change the overall race, after all .


This is very true. :)

I do try to do this. She has been divisive. But it is irksome to see a double standard applied to not only Palin but McCain as well. It's alright to drag out stories about them but not about Obama. And with the media thread closed it makes it that much more difficult. I'm an Obama supporter but I don't like how the left has handled this campaign. It all seems hypocritical to me. And I want to Obama to win as fairly as possibly and the treatment of McCain and Palin has hardly been fair imho.

What do you mean by double-standard?

This was on 23/6 236.com comedy site, however, I believe it is a real picture of John McCain's NH office on 10/29/08

http://a.236.com/images/photo2/6920/original/original_opt.jpg


Well.... there seems to be a general trend there, and it's most certainly not a matter of comedy, but observation on the ground.... 538 has a whole series of such images, and the reports to go with it.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/big-empty.html

No doubt, there ARE some very active McCain offices out there - but the grassroots movement doesn't seem anywhere near as active as Obama's ground operation....

I have to say, I find that a pity, actually. And it's especially disheartening to see people turn up to volunteer and to find a closed office.....

To me: Palin shows the weakness of McCain's vetting process & foresight - and he's running for a position where he would be making thousands of appointments, including to his cabinet, FEMA, the Supreme Court, Ambassadors.

And your evidence that Palin wasn't vetted, other than wild guesses by reporters in the opinion pages of liberal publications, is what? That she doesn't fit the mold of the type of person the Democrats and the media establishment expected McCain to choose?

As to McCain's lack of foresight, I'd say her selection demonstrates exemplary foresight for several reasons. The first is that she's energized the party base like they hadn't been energized before in this campaign. The second is that she took the Democratic establishment by surprise. The third, and perhaps most important reason, is that McCain knew his pick would set the tone for the future of the GOP. That his short list included Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, Michael Steele, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin says a lot about where the GOP is likely to go in the next few years.

I think that the more people have seen Palin the less they have liked her. Not only did she have those disasterous interviews,

The only one that was "bad" was the Couric interview, and there only in selected questions. Her other interviews have been great.

but she didn't seem to have a filter about what would be over the line in her rallies. She didn't try to shut down or discourage some of the ugly comments. In fact, she seemed to like it and encourage it.

This is one of those statements that, in my opinion, should really be substantiated. What ugly comments has she encouraged? Where has she demonstrated pleasure when openly confronted with ugly statements?

Her debate performance was embarrassing with all her winking and mugging. It was not what I'd want to see from any politician, especially a woman. It made her seem less serious.

And I had no problem whatsoever with her debate performance.

Personally I don't think that being near Russia makes her a foreign policy expert.

Proximity alone doesn't qualify as foreign policy experience. But with proximity comes a certain level of involvement, two examples of which are negotiating over fishing rights and serving as Commander of the Alaska National Guard.

Fishing rights may seem like small fry to some, but those negotiations can be contentious, especially up north. Just google fishing rights, international waters and see what comes back. I was surprised by the number of international incidents related to fishing rights and the definition of international v/s national waters.

Serving as Commander of the Alaska National Guard may also seem like small fry, except that Alaska has one of the few permanently active Guard stations in the country - the 49th missile defense battalion. That unit is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system and it is always on active duty.

As Governor and Commander in Chief of that unit, Sarah was regularly briefed on issues relating to that unit and as that unit is supposed to be able to knock down missiles aimed at us or our allies, you can bet that her briefings were slightly more than tea parties.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/palin-national-guard.htm

Palin also recognizes that our future and the worlds future increasingly depends on the availability of and access to sources of energy - oil, natural gas, solar, geothermal, wind, tidal, and nuclear. Oil and natural gas are no brainers in Alaska - not only is it prevalent but we know right where it is. We just need to be able to get at it. As a polar region there are parts of Alaska which receive almost 24 hours of sunlight in the summer and the boreal tides in Alaska are among the strongest in the world. With a population strewn across a state that's about 1/3 the size of the entire continental US where permafrost and extreme weather conditions make generating and delivering power difficult (the average cost of electricity is about 10 cents per unit in the rest of the US and about 75 cents per unit in Alaska), harvesting and storing energy from the sun, tides, winds, and geothermal forces within the earths core would benefit Alaska tremendously and Alaska is on the front lines for researching effective methods of capturing and storing energy from "renewable" sources.

Nor does being in a oil-producing state make her an energy expert. There's nuclear, wind, geothermal, solar, and bio energy--none of which she knows anything about. And we have plenty of experts for oil and gas, what we need are experts to move us in new directionss.

I guess that depends on your opinion on the role of government. I view the government making use of taxpayers backing to fund research into alternative energy sources, not to identify the energy sources we should exploit. Which is why, in my opinion, you need someone who understands the need for and difficulties involved in energy exploration. See above for why Sarah fits that bill exceptionally well.

Nor does having a Down Syndrome child (for a few months) make her an expert on autism or other disabling childhood illnesses.

Mu niece is autistic. Having a special needs child in the family doesn't make me an expert on autism, but it sure does give me a uniquely intimate perspective on why services for special needs children and adults is vitally important. Sarah has that same uniquely intimate perspective.

I don't think she has ever read the Constitution. She thinks that the VP runs the Senate,

She's correct. per Article 1, section 3 of the Constitition. (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec3)

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

and now she thinks that criticizing political figures, either by the public or press is against the First Amendment.

You're confusing her with Barack Obama. He's the one supports the Fairness Doctrine but only wants it applied to talk radio, who sent cease and desist letters to cable and news stations to prevent adverts questioning his positions from airing (http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/ObamaLetterNRAAd.pdf), who kicks reporters from newspapers that have endorsed McCain off his plane (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashopp.htm), and calls on his supporters to harass and prevent reporters (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2070026/posts) who have dared look into his past associations from reporting their findings.

BTW - I listen to Chris Plante in the morning. Palin was discussing the media's characterizations of her comments about Obama's past associations as "negative campaigning" and what those characterizations might mean in terms of the willingness of others to ask questions of Obama. We've all seen the studies where American's say that they dislike negative campaigning. By characterizing Palin's questions as "negative campaigning" the media has established the idea that the questions shes asked aren't valid.

But are her questions valid? To me, they are. To others who support Obama they aren't. Is it the media's job to decide whether the questions one candidate asks are or are not valid? From my perspective the media's job is to report the news free from bias - bias which is presented when they characterize her questions about Obama's past associations as negative.

Her comments are part of a larger concern with what will happen to dissent in an Obama administration. The stories linked above are all actions the Obama campaign has taken in recent weeks to punish reporters who dare ask difficult questions. People who work for newspapers that endorse McCain are thrown off the Obama plane. Reporters who ask Obama or Biden difficult questions find themselves out of jobs, their backgrounds probed and character assaulted, or find their stations frozen out of interviews. Innocent citizens who happen to ask Obama tough questions and get an honest answer find their backgrounds in government databases examined and the results released to the public.

Palin commented that the media allowing it's bias to taint it's reporting might make others less likely to ask tough questions of Obama. The Obama campaign throws reporters from dissenting newspapers off his plane, freezes out news stations whose reporters ask tough questions, besmirches the character of reporters who dare to ask Obama or Biden tough questions, and Democratic operatives examine the backgrounds of ordinary citizens who ask tough questions and release private information contained in government databases to the public. Yet somehow it's Palin who doesn't understand the first amendment? :no: Sounds to me like Palin gets the first amendment and the Obama campaign is abusing it.

Mom, I don't think "the vice president shall act as president of the Senate, but shall have no vote" validates Palin's claim that the vice president "runs the U.S. Senate."

The veep does not run the U.S. Senate, or at least not in any managerial manner, or in terms of accountability. The U.S. Senate elects its own officers.

Dick Cheney has exercised his tie-breakers' role once to my knowledge, and the Senate got along just fine without him.

What do you mean by double-standard?


Well, let's begin with the whole health matter. Obama released what medical records he deemed necessary in his own time. But Palin wasn't right out there with her medical records and the left was banging down the door. Setting aside the Trig stories the fact that she has a Down's baby is highly personal considering that women over thirty have a significantly higher risk of having a Down's Baby and that it is a genetic disease. Some forms of Down Syndrome are inherited. I can't imagine wanting her medical records out there for everyone to see as soon as she walked onto the platform.

Then there is the whole experience factor and how much influence your experience is likely to have given your position. As VP she would have considerable influence to be sure but it must be far less than the President. But because she MIGHT be President IF McCain dies her record deserves more scrutiny than McCains? Her experience qualifications are all based on supposition of what might happen to McCain, but the same harsh look at Obama's experience where he will have more direct influence apparently doesn't merit the same scrutiny? That's a double standard if ever there was one.

Then there is the whole "expert" thing. That one's life experience doesn't qualify them on certain issues. Does the fact that Obama has school age daughters qualify him to make policy on educational issues? I don't think so. But he constantly references his daughters on this issue. But when Palin brings up children with disabilities and references her own child as to why she would work hard on these policies she's not an "expert" so she's not qualified. Or McCain's military experience. That somehow it's better to have no military experience when enacting military policy is beyond me. If the intent is to point out that Palin or McCain lack signicant legislation in these areas, fine say that, but don't accuse them of something when your own party is saying the same things.

Then there is this constant harp on Palin in comparison with Obama. Even I just did it. It's hard not to do. But the campaign is between Obama and McCain. All this focus on Palin is more of a distractionary tactic than actual campaign differences.

Those are just a couple of the double standards I see. You may not agree but it all seems hypocritical to me.

Well, let's begin with the whole health matter. Obama released what medical records he deemed necessary in his own time. But Palin wasn't right out there with her medical records and the left was banging down the door. Setting aside the Trig stories the fact that she has a Down's baby is highly personal considering that women over thirty have a significantly higher risk of having a Down's Baby and that it is a genetic disease. Some forms of Down Syndrome are inherited. I can't imagine wanting her medical records out there for everyone to see as soon as she walked onto the platform.
I must have missed this story. I hang around in Democratic circles, but nobody I know personally had any interest in the baby issue other than because we knew so little about Palin to begin with. Obviously Obama didn't make it an issue, so I'm not sure which left you're referring to--neither the Democratic campaign nor nobody I knew was banging down any doors over this.

Then there is the whole experience factor and how much influence your experience is likely to have given your position. As VP she would have considerable influence to be sure but it must be far less than the President. But because she MIGHT be President IF McCain dies her record deserves more scrutiny than McCains? Her experience qualifications are all based on supposition of what might happen to McCain, but the same harsh look at Obama's experience where he will have more direct influence apparently doesn't merit the same scrutiny? That's a double standard if ever there was one.
I don't think this issue hinges upon experience. To me it's a matter of apparent critical thinking skills, which Obama, Biden, and McCain all exhibit regularly. Palin has yet to convince me that she even knows what she's saying, let alone what impact it has on national policy. I realize that this might not be a popular thing to say, but I'm a pretty smart guy, and I can generally tell the difference between a thinker and an empty suit. And I'm not even a Democrat!

Then there is the whole "expert" thing. That one's life experience doesn't qualify them on certain issues. Does the fact that Obama has school age daughters qualify him to make policy on educational issues? I don't think so. But he constantly references his daughters on this issue. But when Palin brings up children with disabilities and references her own child as to why she would work hard on these policies she's not an "expert" so she's not qualified. Or McCain's military experience. That somehow it's better to have no military experience when enacting military policy is beyond me. If the intent is to point out that Palin or McCain lack signicant legislation in these areas, fine say that, but don't accuse them of something when your own party is saying the same things.
No, no, no. You see, if Obama references his children as an example of his commitment to educational issues. And that's fine. When Palin or someone on her behalf talks about her children as an example of her personal knowledge of disability issues, that's fine too. But what you've overlooked is that McCain mentioned Palin's family in response to a question about whether she's qualified to be the president. Is that really all he could come up with? There's no equivalence between the two things you've mentioned, because they came in response to questions with entirely different scopes. It isn't a double standard, there were two completely different standards at the outset. Nobody is questioning Palin's ability to deal with issues of concern to people and families with disabilities, but it has nothing to do with her ability to make important decisions about the future of the United States. Unless by some method you can convince me that the way she formulated her opinion on disabilities is indicative of a broader range of analytical talents we haven't discovered yet?

Then there is this constant harp on Palin in comparison with Obama. Even I just did it. It's hard not to do. But the campaign is between Obama and McCain. All this focus on Palin is more of a distractionary tactic than actual campaign differences.

Those are just a couple of the double standards I see. You may not agree but it all seems hypocritical to me.
I don't compare Palin with Obama, I compare Palin with Biden. I think politically it's very relevant, that McCain's whole plan appeared to be calling Obama inexperienced, but then he chose the least experienced possible running mate. Nobody voted for Palin in a primary, in contrast to Obama, that's why the issue of her mere presence on the ticket is highly relevant whether or not you think either of them is qualified.

Proximity alone doesn't qualify as foreign policy experience. But with proximity comes a certain level of involvement, two examples of which are negotiating over fishing rights and serving as Commander of the Alaska National Guard.

Fishing rights may seem like small fry to some, but those negotiations can be contentious, especially up north. Just google fishing rights, international waters and see what comes back. I was surprised by the number of international incidents related to fishing rights and the definition of international v/s national waters.


Oh come on. I saw the segment on the Katie Couric interview. Katie asked her to clarify her foreign policy experience and all she did was repeat exactly the same thing she said two minutes earlier. You do realise that the area of Russia she would be dealing with is nowhere near Moscow right? I can name ten people I know off the bat who all got oodles more foreign policy experience than Sarah Palin. These people work for large multinationals and have a LOT of experience travelling to foreign countries and negotiating with clients in those countries(key terms here!). If I think a little harder I can name ten more people. Hell, even I've got more foreign policy experience than her. Courtesy of having lived in three continents and straddling different cultures. This woman, Palin, did not even own a passport until last year. Her statements on US foreign policy range from silly to dangerous, like the moment when she assured that the USA would do whatever in it's power to protect Eastern Europe from the Russian Bear! I don't have the *priviledge* of being able to see Russia from my house but I do know that Moscow is only a two hour flight from my country. The Western European leaders have no intention of helping Russia's neighbouring countries because Putin has his hands firmly on the oil and gas taps. I don't really care if the vast majority of Americans has never been abroad either. I don't understand this idea that the leader of the most powerful country in the world has to be average and intelligence coupled with a good education is somehow a bad thing.

Hey guys, you're welcome to talk about Palin's foreign policy experience or lack thereof but at least pretend to be polite while you're doing so.

On a non-mod note I've never really cared about her not having foreign policy experience. I think being a governor brings something different to the table. And McCain has enough foreign policy experience that for me it's a non-issue.

I must have missed this story. I hang around in Democratic circles, but nobody I know personally had any interest in the baby issue other than because we knew so little about Palin to begin with. Obviously Obama didn't make it an issue, so I'm not sure which left you're referring to--neither the Democratic campaign nor nobody I knew was banging down any doors over this.

Must've.

Here's one where Alan Colmes questions her "judgement" (http://townhall.com/blog/g/9b3375c7-6a27-4b5e-9204-b267282a1ce1) about the delivery of the baby.

Or here where not only are her medical records (http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/10/21/palins-medical-records-questions-of-judgment-persist/)questioned but a myriad of other subjective issues.

Still more courtesy of the ABC News (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/still-no-medica.html). The Atlantic Online (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/still-no-palin.html). Even Brian Williams (http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=bf84c384-977f-4491-9b27-65c44b1c7eb3&fg=rss)

Need I say more?






I don't think this issue hinges upon experience. To me it's a matter of apparent critical thinking skills, which Obama, Biden, and McCain all exhibit regularly. Palin has yet to convince me that she even knows what she's saying, let alone what impact it has on national policy. I realize that this might not be a popular thing to say, but I'm a pretty smart guy, and I can generally tell the difference between a thinker and an empty suit. And I'm not even a Democrat!


Then say that you think her critical skills aren't up to par. Fine. But to somehow compare her experience to Obama and come up short is a matter of subjective perspective (hey that rhymes :) ) And is hardly a denouncement of her experience in total. You may think about critical thinking skills but it is being presented by the left as a de facto arguement.

No, no, no. You see, if Obama references his children as an example of his commitment to educational issues. And that's fine. When Palin or someone on her behalf talks about her children as an example of her personal knowledge of disability issues, that's fine too.

I agree here.


But what you've overlooked is that McCain mentioned Palin's family in response to a question about whether she's qualified to be the president. Is that really all he could come up with? There's no equivalence between the two things you've mentioned, because they came in response to questions with entirely different scopes.


Which again falls under the whole IF she may someday become president thing. And when your sitting with the interviewer what ends up happening is a short time to get alot of answers in and what you wind up with is alot of sound bites.

It isn't a double standard, there were two completely different standards at the outset. Nobody is questioning Palin's ability to deal with issues of concern to people and families with disabilities, but it has nothing to do with her ability to make important decisions about the future of the United States.

Of course one aspect of her life does not qualify her to deal with ALL the issues of the U.S. Thank heavens there's more to her than just that! And thank goodness that McCain is president not her! ;)


I don't compare Palin with Obama, I compare Palin with Biden.

Good on you. :)




I think politically it's very relevant, that McCain's whole plan appeared to be calling Obama inexperienced, but then he chose the least experienced possible running mate.

I thought you weren't comparing? :lol: The fact is the double standard is here. Both campaigns have a mix of experience and relative inexperience. Obama is less experienced than Biden so Obama uses Biden to shore up where he is weak. McCain has the experience. Palin shouldn't need it. Her role was to bridge the young and old for McCain. That was where McCain was weak. So both campaigns have young/old, experience/inexperience. It isn't about who is more inexperienced Obama or Palin. It is about whose inexperience could effect America sooner rather than maybe later. the answer here is clearly Obama but it is better to ride Palin on her inexperience and make people think McCain is going to pass away than point that out. It's a double standard.

Hey guys, you're welcome to talk about Palin's foreign policy experience or lack thereof but at least pretend to be polite while you're doing so.

On a non-mod note I've never really cared about her not having foreign policy experience. I think being a governor brings something different to the table. And McCain has enough foreign policy experience that for me it's a non-issue.

I agree. We've had a handful of governors become president lately. How much foreign experience have they had before they were elected?

I don't think we can compare George W. Bush and Bill Clinton when it comes to foreign policy smarts. George H.W. Bush was another matter altogether, and he imparted some gravitas to Reagan on the subject.

Frankly, I don't have much use for McCain's foreign policy creds. I don't care about his 26 years in Washington or his claim of being involved in "every foreign policy issue" to come up over that period of time. I see McCain as a shallow man who isn't interested a whole lot in gaining in-depth knowledge of very much of anything. He cannot pivot from boilerplate talking points to substance. He just can't do it - and neither can Palin. That says a lot of negative stuff to me.

Must've.

Here's one where Alan Colmes questions her "judgement" about the delivery of the baby.

Or here where not only are her medical records questioned but a myriad of other subjective issues.

Still more courtesy of the ABC News. The Atlantic Online. Even Brian Williams

Need I say more?

Releasing medical records, or some statement of health during a campaign is common. It can be anything from a full range of records to a statement by a doctor. At one point she said she wouldn't release them until after the race, and the press gets suspicious when people won't tell them things. So, they wonder what she has to hide, especially given that she is a young and apparently fit woman. They aren't looking for the scandal, no one is, but it isn't holding her to a higher standard to expect from her what we have from everyone else (although some would say the unusual precautions surrounding McCain's release of medical records also leaves something to be desired).

I thought you weren't comparing? The fact is the double standard is here. Both campaigns have a mix of experience and relative inexperience. Obama is less experienced than Biden so Obama uses Biden to shore up where he is weak. McCain has the experience. Palin shouldn't need it. Her role was to bridge the young and old for McCain. That was where McCain was weak. So both campaigns have young/old, experience/inexperience. It isn't about who is more inexperienced Obama or Palin. It is about whose inexperience could effect America sooner rather than maybe later. the answer here is clearly Obama but it is better to ride Palin on her inexperience and make people think McCain is going to pass away than point that out. It's a double standard.
I wouldn't say it is a double standard, it seemed canis was pointing out that it was a bad move politically. And if he wasn't then I am. McCain took away his main political strategy when he selected Palin. She tried to maintain it at the Convention by comparing her record to Obama's and her phrase that has been given a lot of air time about- how a small town mayor is sort of like a community organizer except it has power or...is in charge or something of that nature. Since then the argument has pretty much died. You hear it in political advertisements, but not in any place where someone can argue back. It isn't worth it for the McCain camp to have to answer questions about Palin's experience every time they mention Obama's. It's not that they are comparing the two positions, but when you select a Vice President, you are selecting someone you believe is ready to be president should the worst happen. If McCain believes that to be true of Palin it makes it a lot more difficult to say he doesn't believe Obama is experienced enough. Plus, her experiences issues are just a much bigger deal to the public, and that isn't anyone's fault, and to be honest, going from small town mayor to governor is even a bit of a larger leap than I probably would have been ok voting for.

I agree. We've had a handful of governors become president lately. How much foreign experience have they had before they were elected?
Depends on the governor. I know my governor was floated as a possible VP pick for McCain and while not much more experienced than Palin, he did go on a trade mission to Europe earlier this year trying to find ways to bring money into our economy, or something of the sort. And as I'm sure you can see from watching the news, some governors are out there more, are larger players on the national stage than others.

I thought you weren't comparing? :lol: The fact is the double standard is here. Both campaigns have a mix of experience and relative inexperience. Obama is less experienced than Biden so Obama uses Biden to shore up where he is weak. McCain has the experience. Palin shouldn't need it. Her role was to bridge the young and old for McCain. That was where McCain was weak. So both campaigns have young/old, experience/inexperience. It isn't about who is more inexperienced Obama or Palin. It is about whose inexperience could effect America sooner rather than maybe later. the answer here is clearly Obama but it is better to ride Palin on her inexperience and make people think McCain is going to pass away than point that out. It's a double standard.
I said it's politically relevant. The question is one of McCain's political judgment, not a comparison of Obama and Palin. I don't think many people agree on whether Palin has been a boon to McCain's campaign or not, but personally I thought when he chose her that it wasn't a very good idea. If you're going to try to use experience against your opponent, you don't just give that away. That's what I'm saying, what I'm talking about has nothing to do with the comparison of the relative experiences, it has to do with McCain's judgment. If McCain doesn't think it matters who the vice presidential candidate is after the election is over, I submit that Dick Cheney has forever changed the luxury of such indifference. I don't think it bodes well.

I mean it. I'd have voted for McCain in years past, and if we had a different candidate on the other side I'd consider it now. I agree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, and I like him as a person, but I am forced to consider that the way he has conducted himself and his campaign these last few months is not portentous of a well-run administration. If there is a double standard that people are unfair to the McCain campaign, I agree. It happens. But it happens on the other side too, and it's been happening for decades, or centuries, or millennia. But that's not proof that there's nothing to criticize about either campaign, or that we don't sometimes honestly evaluate one or the other without being partisan. I'm not a partisan, and I don't care about either party whatsoever--they could both evaporate tomorrow and I wouldn't lament them. But I still think comparing each of the four principles to each other is perfectly reasonable.

Palin unwittingly accepted a prank call (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27489929/) from a Canadian comedian posing as French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who told her she would make a good president someday.

Here is a transcript of the call from ABC's Jake Tapper (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/palin-punkd-the.html). The official recording is set to air Monday on a Quebec radio station.

Following is the transcript of the relevant part with a few notes.

GOV. SARAH PALIN: This is Sarah.

MASKED AVENGERS: Ah, yeah, Gov. Palin.

GOV. PALIN: Helloooo!

MASKED AVENGERS: Just hold on for President Sarkozy, one moment.

GOV. PALIN: Oh, it's not him yet, they're saying. I always do that!

MASKED AVENGERS: Yes, hello, Gov. Palin...

GOV. PALIN: Hello, this is Sarah, how are you?

MASKED AVENGERS: Fine, and you? This is Nicolas Sarkozy speaking, how are you?

[Note: Sarkozy does not speak fluent English.]

GOV. PALIN: Oh, so good, it's so good to hear you. Thank you for calling us.

MASKED AVENGERS: Oh, it's a pleasure.

GOV. PALIN: Thank you sir, we have such great respect for you, John McCain and I. We love you and thank you for taking a few minutes to talk to me.

MASKED AVENGERS: I follow your campaigns closely with my special American adviser Johnny Hallyday, you know?

[Note: Hallyday is a French singer and actor.]

GOV. PALIN: Yes, good.

MASKED AVENGERS: Excellent. Are you confident?

GOV. PALIN: Very confident and we're thankful that polls are showing that the race is tightening and --

MASKED AVENGERS: Well I know very well that the campaign can be exhausting. How do you feel right now, my dear?

GOV. PALIN: I feel so good. I feel like we're in a marathon and at the very end of the marathon you get your second wind and you plow to the finish.

MASKED AVENGERS: You see, I got elected in France because I'm real and you seem to be someone who's real, as well.

GOV. PALIN: Yes, yeah. Nicolas, we so appreciate this opportunity.

MASKED AVENGERS: You know I see you as a president one day, you too.

GOV. PALIN: (laughing) Maybe in eight years.

MASKED AVENGERS: Well, I hope for you. You know, we have a lot in common because personally one of my favorite activities is to hunt, too.

GOV. PALIN: Oh, very good. We should go hunting together.

MASKED AVENGERS: Exactly, we could go try hunting by helicopter like you did. I never did that. Like we say in French, on pourrait tuer des bebe phoques, aussi.

[Translation: We could also kill some baby seals.]

GOV. PALIN: Well, I think we could have a lot of fun together as we're getting work done. We can kill two birds with one stone that way.

MASKED AVENGERS: I just love killing those animals. Mmm, mmm, take away life, that is so fun. I'd really love to go, as long as we don't bring along Vice-President Cheney. (Laughs.)

GOV. PALIN: No, I'll be a careful shot, yes.

MASKED AVENGERS: Yes, you know we have a lot in common also, because except from my house I can see Belgium. That's kind of less interesting than you.

GOV. PALIN: Well, see, we're right next door to different countries that we all need to be working with, yes.

MASKED AVENGERS: Some people said in the last days and I thought that was mean that you weren't experienced enough in foreign relations and you know that's completely false. That's the thing that I said to my great friend, the prime minister of Canada Stef Carse.

[Note: That is not the name of the prime minister of Canada. The prime minster of Canada, since January 2006, is Stephen Harper. THIS is Stef Carse.]

GOV. PALIN: Well, he's doin' fine, too, and yeah, when you come into a position underestimated it gives you an opportunity to prove the pundits and the critics wrong. You work that much harder --

MASKED AVENGERS: I was wondering because you are so next to him, one of my good friends, the prime minister of Quebec, Mr. Richard Z. Sirois, have you met him recently? Did he come to one of your rallies?

[Note: There is no prime minister of Quebec, though there is a premier. His name is Jean Charest. Sirois is a Canadian humorist.]

GOV. PALIN: I haven't seen him at one of the rallies but it's been great working with the Canadian officials. I know as governor we have a great co-operative effort there as we work on all of our resource development projects. You know, I look forward to working with you and getting to meet you personally and your beautiful wife. Oh my goodness, you've added a lot of energy to your country with um, with that beautiful family of yours.

MASKED AVENGERS: Thank you very much. You know my wife Carla would love to meet you, you know, even though you know she was a bit jealous that I was supposed to speak to you today. (Laughs.)

GOV. PALIN: Well, give her a big hug for me.

MASKED AVENGERS: You know my wife is a popular singer and a former top model and she's so hot in bed. She even wrote a song for you.

GOV. PALIN: Oh my goodness, I didn't know that.

MASKED AVENGERS: Yes, in French it's called de rouge a levre sur un cochon, or if you prefer in English, Joe the Plumber...(singing) it's his life, Joe the Plumber.

[Translation: Lipstick for a pig.]

GOV. PALIN: Maybe she understands some of the unfair criticism but I bet you she is such a hard worker, too, and she realizes you just plow through that criticism.

MASKED AVENGERS: I just want to be sure. That phenomenon Joe the Plumber. That's not your husband, right?

GOV. PALIN: That's not my husband but he's a normal American who just works hard and doesn't want government to take his money.

MASKED AVENGERS: Yes, yes, I understand we have the equivalent of the Joe the Plumber in France. It's called Marcel, the guy with bread under his armpit, oui.

GOV. PALIN: Right, that's what it's all about, the middle class and government needing to work for them. You're a very good example for us here.

MASKED AVENGERS: I see a bit about NBC, even Fox News wasn't an ally, an ally, sorry as much as usual.

GOV. PALIN: Yeah, that's what we're up against.

MASKED AVENGERS: Gov. Palin, I love the documentary they made on your life. You know Hustler's Nailin' Paylin?

[Note: Nailin' Paylin is a pornographic movie.]

GOV. PALIN: Ohh, good, thank you, yes.

MASKED AVENGERS: That was really edgy.

GOV. PALIN: Well, good.

MASKED AVENGERS: I really loved you and I must say something also, so governor, you've been pranked by the Masked Avengers. We are two comedians from Montreal.

GOV. PALIN: Ohhh, have we been pranked? And what radio station is this?

MASKED AVENGERS: This is for CKOI in Montreal.

GOV. PALIN: In Montreal? Tell me the radio station call letters.

MASKED AVENGERS: CK...hello?...

-- Jake Tapper and Arnab Datta

As a footnote, ABC News asked Bob Gibbs, senior adviser to Senator Obama, if he'd heard the recording. Gibbs said he'd heard parts of it.

His response?

"I'm glad we check out our calls before we hand the phone to Barack Obama."

ETA:

The call has already hit YouTube. I'm enclosing it because it starts on its own.

QbEwKcs-7Hc

Releasing medical records, or some statement of health during a campaign is common. It can be anything from a full range of records to a statement by a doctor. At one point she said she wouldn't release them until after the race, and the press gets suspicious when people won't tell them things. So, they wonder what she has to hide, especially given that she is a young and apparently fit woman. They aren't looking for the scandal, no one is, but it isn't holding her to a higher standard to expect from her what we have from everyone else (although some would say the unusual precautions surrounding McCain's release of medical records also leaves something to be desired).

Obama released a one page statement on his medical records in May last I checked. End of story. No further review necessary. McCain has released his medical records in his own time, was blasted for taking so long, and when the records indicated his was in good health continued to be questioned. Palin has had her maternity and the judgement of her birthing conditions questioned. Totally irrelevant issues that set her at a higher standard. No wonder that she is not keen on releasing her medical records. She's already been blindsided by such things and so no that she wary the left can run her into the ground for not producing. Win Win for the left so that must be lose lose for Palin. It is a double standard and totally hypocritcal.

She tried to maintain it at the Convention by comparing her record to Obama's and her phrase that has been given a lot of air time about- how a small town mayor is sort of like a community organizer except it has power or...is in charge or something of that nature. Since then the argument has pretty much died.

And she goes on to say that if she can make an arguement for herself against Obama that by comparison McCain has more than both of them put together. During the convention she always brang it back to McCain versus Obama. She knows she's not running against Obama. In my opinion it didn't die. The point was made then and continues to be made in ads that she has enough experience to be vice president if Obama has enough to be president. And by comparison McCain is better than both.

It's not that they are comparing the two positions, but when you select a Vice President, you are selecting someone you believe is ready to be president should the worst happen.


So what if something happens to Obama? Would we like to put in charge Biden who has had his share of bad medical history and could pass away under the stress of a sudden shift to the Presidency? The point is if we went by Ifs and Maybes a point can be made for either side. It's a double standard and on this issue downright hypocritical imho.

If McCain believes that to be true of Palin it makes it a lot more difficult to say he doesn't believe Obama is experienced enough.

It's not about Obama being inexperienced for the Presidency so much as it is Obama's experience is not comparable to McCain's. If Palin and Obama have comparable experience all things considered then Obama should be fit for the VP slot---not the Presidency. McCain simply has more experience and is therefore better prepared for the Presidency. Or, if you prefer, since Palin and Obama are even perhaps she is fit for the Presidency instead of the Vice Presidency?

Plus, her experiences issues are just a much bigger deal to the public, and that isn't anyone's fault, and to be honest, going from small town mayor to governor is even a bit of a larger leap than I probably would have been ok voting for.

This is more reasonable to me than the other arguements and perfectly fair reasoning. But it is unreasonable to me to say that McCain's judgement was bad in choosing Palin. There were many good reasons to choose Palin but I don't think the McCain campaign took advantage of them. I also think that the McCain campaign let the Obama campaign set the tone instead of taking the reigns themselves. A poorly run campaign? Sure. But not enough there to hang Palin out to dry as McCain's "poor choice".


That's what I'm saying, what I'm talking about has nothing to do with the comparison of the relative experiences, it has to do with McCain's judgment.

See my above as to McCain's judgement. But that is not how the left has spun Palin's experience. It has been spun that McCain is likely to die and that her inexperience as president will doom us all. As I said above. Whose inexperience will hurt us quicker? Palin's or Obama's. Since McCain would be in the Oval office next year (assuming he won) then if Obama won it would be his inexperience at the forefront.

I am forced to consider that the way he has conducted himself and his campaign these last few months is not portentous of a well-run administration.

Unfortunately for McCain he ran at the worst possible time. When the economy was tanking and Bush was at a record low. As the self-proclaimed Maverick he was going to have a hard time by virtue of his shakey ground within his own party. Couple that with the bad economy and it just wasn't good for McCain. I agree that it was a poorly run campaign, but I think it was inherent, not intentional if that makes any sense.

If there is a double standard that people are unfair to the McCain campaign, I agree. It happens. But it happens on the other side too, and it's been happening for decades, or centuries, or millennia. But that's not proof that there's nothing to criticize about either campaign, or that we don't sometimes honestly evaluate one or the other without being partisan.

Supposing that the things said and questioned of McCain were true, it implies that the same amount of honest ought to be applied to your own side. Only then can the meatier things like policy and legislation be compared without extraneous noise, imho.

But I still think comparing each of the four principles to each other is perfectly reasonable.


Of course. If it were fair. But the Trig momma story really shows how unfair the left have become. And since Obama is running a "clean" campaign it doesn't bode well.

I don't think we can compare George W. Bush and Bill Clinton when it comes to foreign policy smarts. George H.W. Bush was another matter altogether, and he imparted some gravitas to Reagan on the subject.



I think they are very worthy of comparison. Why don't you want to use them for comparison? I'm sure there were other governors besides the Bushes, Reagan, and Clinton. I'm sure they didn't have as much foreign experience as one would like. I'm sure they did fine as president or vice president as Sarah Palin will be if elected. It's all relevent for comparison.

I can't wait to hear the McCain campaign's response to Sarah Palin's telephone call with the prank Sarkozy. Has anyone heard anything from them? They gave themselves away so many times a seasoned, knowledgeable person would have caught on a whole lot earlier than she did.

From the serious to the silly:

:rotfl: at the SNL opening :rotfl:

Back to serious topics :lol:. Those on the west coast who haven't seen it yet, enjoy!!

I haven't seen SNL yet - but they are ALSO on on Monday doing another political show !
I know !

I can't wait to hear the McCain campaign's response to Sarah Palin's telephone call with the prank Sarkozy. Has anyone heard anything from them? They gave themselves away so many times a seasoned, knowledgeable person would have caught on a whole lot earlier than she did.

Meh, lots of people have been pranked good in these sort of things. I won't blame her for falling for it. Besides, she laughed it off herself, if I recall correctly. It shows she has a sense of humor :).

Meh, lots of people have been pranked good in these sort of things. I won't blame her for falling for it. Besides, she laughed it off herself, if I recall correctly. It shows she has a sense of humor :).

I agree with you there. It's largely why I didn't poke a little fun at her for falling for it. On the other hand, Bob Gibbs was right about screening incoming calls to the candidates.

Meh, lots of people have been pranked good in these sort of things. I won't blame her for falling for it. Besides, she laughed it off herself, if I recall correctly. It shows she has a sense of humor :).

To be honest, though I'm an outsider in the election process, not being American, I heard the call- and I can't say I think any less of her.

As far as I'm concerned, the parts I heard had her being quite ill at ease in relation to what this "Sarkozy" was saying. He wasn't realistic at all and she seemed unable to formulate answers to the silly things he was saying. If she had come up with genuinely intriguing answers, I would ahve been somewhat worried. I applaud her for her ability to hold onto the conversation even in light of the French President appearing to have lost his mind.

And she laughed it off- fair dues! :)

Though I never supported McCain or Palin, I have to say that she actually won some kudos from me- even if only for being a good sport. There has been criticism on Sky News that she seemed unable to translate the French phrases spoken by the presenter. I felt that was a bit... mean. How can she be expected to understand a foreign language when he was using colloquialisms and making internal jokes about her? I learned French for 12 years, and he spoke too fast and swapped languages too fast for me to even hear him- so I can't very well lay any blame on her! :lol:!

I just don't think it took from her, to be honest, so I agree (as an outsider) with chparadise here- she kept her dignity as others might not have.

:agree:.

I think she didn't catch on for a bit too long. Sometime around the point at which the non-Sarkozy said: "I love the documentary they made on your life - you know, Hustler's "Nailin' Paylin"?", I think it was pretty clear to me that she'd caught on. That said, though, I do think she should have known the name of the Prime Minister of Canada.

John McCain's opening QVC bit on SNL was hilarious tonight!
McCain Fine gold
Sarah Palin's Ayers freshener.
A true Maverick...a republican with no money.
good stuff :lol:

Obama released a one page statement on his medical records in May last I checked. End of story. No further review necessary. McCain has released his medical records in his own time, was blasted for taking so long, and when the records indicated his was in good health continued to be questioned. Palin has had her maternity and the judgement of her birthing conditions questioned. Totally irrelevant issues that set her at a higher standard. No wonder that she is not keen on releasing her medical records. She's already been blindsided by such things and so no that she wary the left can run her into the ground for not producing. Win Win for the left so that must be lose lose for Palin. It is a double standard and totally hypocritcal.
The one page statement from Obama was a political decision. Palin being young and in presumably good health could have done the same days ago and it wouldn't have been an issue. Her maternity isn't currently being questioned. There were rumors on blogs like two months ago about it, which the mainstream media didn't pick up, we weren't allowed to discuss here, and which has basically become a non-issue since the announcement of Bristol's pregnancy. Are there occasional comments about it? Sure, but it isn't by the Obama campaign or anyone with any true political credibility. People questioned it because it was an odd set of circumstances- that doesn't make it a double standard.


So what if something happens to Obama? Would we like to put in charge Biden who has had his share of bad medical history and could pass away under the stress of a sudden shift to the Presidency? The point is if we went by Ifs and Maybes a point can be made for either side. It's a double standard and on this issue downright hypocritical imho.
From what I understand Biden has released his medical records, and Obama is much younger and healthier than McCain, it's an unfortunate reality. We don't hear much about the concerns over the possibility of Obama dying in public conversation because it brings up something too horrible to discuss: assassination. So, no, you won't hear the mainstream media discuss it. And if something were to happen to Obama, whether it be natural causes or otherwise, then yes, Biden would assume the presidency. And there are people who consider that when they consider who to vote for, even if it isn't a sexy news story. There is no reason to assume Biden would die at the pressure of being president, he seems fine to campaign and be a Senator, but if both of them were to die, that is what the order of succession is for. The vice president would be followed by the Speaker of the House, then the President pro-tempore of the Senate, then the members of the cabinet in the order in which their position was created. This would go for a McCain/Palin administration as well.

It's not about Obama being inexperienced for the Presidency so much as it is Obama's experience is not comparable to McCain's. If Palin and Obama have comparable experience all things considered then Obama should be fit for the VP slot---not the Presidency. McCain simply has more experience and is therefore better prepared for the Presidency. Or, if you prefer, since Palin and Obama are even perhaps she is fit for the Presidency instead of the Vice Presidency?
The electorate will decide their own reasons for selecting candidates and Presidents. Sufficed to say that experience is not the only factor. There are policy issues, there are countless things that could make someone vote one way or the other. I was talking about political strategy. Obama's political strategy does not revolve around experience. He's not claiming to have a longer public service record than McCain, instead he is saying he will bring about change and providing people with his positions and policies he would enact and illustrating how they would be different than both the current administration and a possible McCain administration. If McCain's experience is something that you believe would make him a better president than Obama, then you should vote for him. But you can't say no one can vote for Obama just because he hasn't been in the Senate for 26 years.

Depends on the governor. I know my governor was floated as a possible VP pick for McCain and while not much more experienced than Palin, he did go on a trade mission to Europe earlier this year trying to find ways to bring money into our economy, or something of the sort. And as I'm sure you can see from watching the news, some governors are out there more, are larger players on the national stage than others.That's true. Tim Kaine of VA was considered as well for Obama's VP pick, but even though I have respect for the guy and all that, I honestly didn't want him to be vetted and picked, since I felt that there were others who had more foreign policy experience and such that would probably be better suited and would balance Obama out. I honestly was hoping for Hilary to be picked.

Palin unwittingly accepted a prank call (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27489929/) from a Canadian comedian posing as French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who told her she would make a good president someday.

Here is a transcript of the call from ABC's Jake Tapper (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/palin-punkd-the.html). The official recording is set to air Monday on a Quebec radio station.

Following is the transcript of the relevant part with a few notes.

GOV. SARAH PALIN: This is Sarah.

MASKED AVENGERS: Ah, yeah, Gov. Palin.

GOV. PALIN: Helloooo!

MASKED AVENGERS: Just hold on for President Sarkozy, one moment.

GOV. PALIN: Oh, it's not him yet, they're saying. I always do that!

MASKED AVENGERS: Yes, hello, Gov. Palin...

GOV. PALIN: Hello, this is Sarah, how are you?

MASKED AVENGERS: Fine, and you? This is Nicolas Sarkozy speaking, how are you?

[Note: Sarkozy does not speak fluent English.]

GOV. PALIN: Oh, so good, it's so good to hear you. Thank you for calling us.

MASKED AVENGERS: Oh, it's a pleasure.

GOV. PALIN: Thank you sir, we have such great respect for you, John McCain and I. We love you and thank you for taking a few minutes to talk to me.

MASKED AVENGERS: I follow your campaigns closely with my special American adviser Johnny Hallyday, you know?

[Note: Hallyday is a French singer and actor.]

GOV. PALIN: Yes, good.

MASKED AVENGERS: Excellent. Are you confident?

GOV. PALIN: Very confident and we're thankful that polls are showing that the race is tightening and --

MASKED AVENGERS: Well I know very well that the campaign can be exhausting. How do you feel right now, my dear?

GOV. PALIN: I feel so good. I feel like we're in a marathon and at the very end of the marathon you get your second wind and you plow to the finish.

MASKED AVENGERS: You see, I got elected in France because I'm real and you seem to be someone who's real, as well.

GOV. PALIN: Yes, yeah. Nicolas, we so appreciate this opportunity.

MASKED AVENGERS: You know I see you as a president one day, you too.

GOV. PALIN: (laughing) Maybe in eight years.

MASKED AVENGERS: Well, I hope for you. You know, we have a lot in common because personally one of my favorite activities is to hunt, too.

GOV. PALIN: Oh, very good. We should go hunting together.

MASKED AVENGERS: Exactly, we could go try hunting by helicopter like you did. I never did that. Like we say in French, on pourrait tuer des bebe phoques, aussi.

[Translation: We could also kill some baby seals.]

GOV. PALIN: Well, I think we could have a lot of fun together as we're getting work done. We can kill two birds with one stone that way.

MASKED AVENGERS: I just love killing those animals. Mmm, mmm, take away life, that is so fun. I'd really love to go, as long as we don't bring along Vice-President Cheney. (Laughs.)

GOV. PALIN: No, I'll be a careful shot, yes.

MASKED AVENGERS: Yes, you know we have a lot in common also, because except from my house I can see Belgium. That's kind of less interesting than you.

GOV. PALIN: Well, see, we're right next door to different countries that we all need to be working with, yes.

MASKED AVENGERS: Some people said in the last days and I thought that was mean that you weren't experienced enough in foreign relations and you know that's completely false. That's the thing that I said to my great friend, the prime minister of Canada Stef Carse.

[Note: That is not the name of the prime minister of Canada. The prime minster of Canada, since January 2006, is Stephen Harper. THIS is Stef Carse.]

GOV. PALIN: Well, he's doin' fine, too, and yeah, when you come into a position underestimated it gives you an opportunity to prove the pundits and the critics wrong. You work that much harder --

MASKED AVENGERS: I was wondering because you are so next to him, one of my good friends, the prime minister of Quebec, Mr. Richard Z. Sirois, have you met him recently? Did he come to one of your rallies?

[Note: There is no prime minister of Quebec, though there is a premier. His name is Jean Charest. Sirois is a Canadian humorist.]

GOV. PALIN: I haven't seen him at one of the rallies but it's been great working with the Canadian officials. I know as governor we have a great co-operative effort there as we work on all of our resource development projects. You know, I look forward to working with you and getting to meet you personally and your beautiful wife. Oh my goodness, you've added a lot of energy to your country with um, with that beautiful family of yours.

MASKED AVENGERS: Thank you very much. You know my wife Carla would love to meet you, you know, even though you know she was a bit jealous that I was supposed to speak to you today. (Laughs.)

GOV. PALIN: Well, give her a big hug for me.

MASKED AVENGERS: You know my wife is a popular singer and a former top model and she's so hot in bed. She even wrote a song for you.

GOV. PALIN: Oh my goodness, I didn't know that.

MASKED AVENGERS: Yes, in French it's called de rouge a levre sur un cochon, or if you prefer in English, Joe the Plumber...(singing) it's his life, Joe the Plumber.

[Translation: Lipstick for a pig.]

GOV. PALIN: Maybe she understands some of the unfair criticism but I bet you she is such a hard worker, too, and she realizes you just plow through that criticism.

MASKED AVENGERS: I just want to be sure. That phenomenon Joe the Plumber. That's not your husband, right?

GOV. PALIN: That's not my husband but he's a normal American who just works hard and doesn't want government to take his money.

MASKED AVENGERS: Yes, yes, I understand we have the equivalent of the Joe the Plumber in France. It's called Marcel, the guy with bread under his armpit, oui.

GOV. PALIN: Right, that's what it's all about, the middle class and government needing to work for them. You're a very good example for us here.

MASKED AVENGERS: I see a bit about NBC, even Fox News wasn't an ally, an ally, sorry as much as usual.

GOV. PALIN: Yeah, that's what we're up against.

MASKED AVENGERS: Gov. Palin, I love the documentary they made on your life. You know Hustler's Nailin' Paylin?

[Note: Nailin' Paylin is a pornographic movie.]

GOV. PALIN: Ohh, good, thank you, yes.

MASKED AVENGERS: That was really edgy.

GOV. PALIN: Well, good.

MASKED AVENGERS: I really loved you and I must say something also, so governor, you've been pranked by the Masked Avengers. We are two comedians from Montreal.

GOV. PALIN: Ohhh, have we been pranked? And what radio station is this?

MASKED AVENGERS: This is for CKOI in Montreal.

GOV. PALIN: In Montreal? Tell me the radio station call letters.

MASKED AVENGERS: CK...hello?...

-- Jake Tapper and Arnab Datta

As a footnote, ABC News asked Bob Gibbs, senior adviser to Senator Obama, if he'd heard the recording. Gibbs said he'd heard parts of it.

His response?

"I'm glad we check out our calls before we hand the phone to Barack Obama."

ETA:

The call has already hit YouTube. I'm enclosing it because it starts on its own.

QbEwKcs-7HcThat's very sad if she's judged for the prank. I feel incredibly sorry for her. I really do for those who do. :( I'm really worried that if Obama does win, that the Republican party, or whatever, will put the blame on Palin for the loss.

That aside, as long as she's cool with it, not much one can say. It just shows how good-natured she is.

Some Republicans are finally seeing, imho, that the Dems have the advantage this year and are trying to ride the wave into the next term. If that means throwing Palin under the bus, they will. It's called expediency. And should in no way reflect on Palin.
Neither Ken Duberstein nor Colin Powell nor Chris Buckley, and many more were trying to shift with the political winds. Then there are the pundits who didn't say how they would vote who have been very critical of her like George Will and David Brooks. Even Larry Eagleburger was very uncomplimentary before he was pressured to recant the next day.

I think there are plenty of competent qualified women in politics and I think we do them injustice when we cry unfair and sexism when Palin is critiqued. I am measuring her in the exact same way I would a man in her position.

I succeeded in a man's field where I was often the only woman on staff. I know very well what it is like to face ridiculous sexism. But I did succeed based on my own knowledge and competence. That's the only measure that needs to be applied to anyone (male or female).

The SNL skit ! OMG !! McCain & Palin go on QVC because they can't afford the network infomercial.
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mccain-qvc-open/805381/

Is it me, or did McCain throw Palin under the bus ? :err: (uhhh.... good luck on 2012)

The View spoof was also excellent :lol: (Palin / Hasslebeck connection)

Will discuss Olbermann sketch on Obama thread :rotfl:

He gets high credit from me for doing that skit. Not enough to vote for him, of course, but he was a really good sport. I nearly lost it when Cindy showed up. And it was a hilarious skit.

See my above as to McCain's judgement. But that is not how the left has spun Palin's experience. It has been spun that McCain is likely to die and that her inexperience as president will doom us all. As I said above. Whose inexperience will hurt us quicker? Palin's or Obama's. Since McCain would be in the Oval office next year (assuming he won) then if Obama won it would be his inexperience at the forefront.
I don't think that's the point at all. If the criterion for one's choice for vice president is someone who will be a capable replacement, then McCain has utterly failed the test. God willing John McCain will live to be much older than his mother is now, but he still seems to have chosen a running mate in order to win a campaign (although it seems they couldn't figure out how to use her), and not because she's qualified to do his job, should the need arise. Obama made a much better choice. How experienced Obama is doesn't matter when the question is who made a better choice of running mates. You may of course question Obama's experience, but it's not what I'm talking about.

Unfortunately for McCain he ran at the worst possible time. When the economy was tanking and Bush was at a record low. As the self-proclaimed Maverick he was going to have a hard time by virtue of his shakey ground within his own party. Couple that with the bad economy and it just wasn't good for McCain. I agree that it was a poorly run campaign, but I think it was inherent, not intentional if that makes any sense.
I'm talking about the tactics McCain and his campaign have used, not the poll numbers. His campaign has been run badly, and he's got the worst luck in the world, but that doesn't excuse some of the things I've seen on TV and heard coming out of the mouth of his running mate.

Supposing that the things said and questioned of McCain were true, it implies that the same amount of honest ought to be applied to your own side. Only then can the meatier things like policy and legislation be compared without extraneous noise, imho.
I have applied quite a bit of critical analysis to the Obama campaign. I didn't support it until roughly the day he won the nomination. I still have some questions. But at his best I think Obama is every bit as capable as John McCain is, and that is saying something. Where the difference lies is in his ability to lead in unanticipated situations--McCain's handling of his campaign in light of the unfortunate economic problems has been a telling sign that he isn't really as good at thinking on his feet as they would like us to believe.

Of course. If it were fair. But the Trig momma story really shows how unfair the left have become. And since Obama is running a "clean" campaign it doesn't bode well.
Maybe we watch different media, and I see you've posted some links, but I honestly don't remember a single story about Trig (I'm not sure who that is). Furthermore, I'm curious who this "the left" is. The media I consume contain a wide range of viewpoints, from Rush Limbaugh to Keith Olbermann and everything in between. Conservative pundits have been every bit as hard on McCain as they have been on Obama, and plenty of more liberal outfits have been really laying into Obama for failing to "close the deal", etc., so we ought not to go blaming a whole abstract half of all Americans for whatever you may have seen coming from a select few in the media. An honest and exhaustive survey of what the media are saying has not indicated any particular bias to me. I sometimes wish they'd be a little nicer to Obama, in fact.

You see, saying that the McCain campaign is in trouble, predicting an Obama victory, and pouncing on a possible news story are just things the media do, because they make political sense and they sell the network brand. It just so happens that there's a lot more (problems) to talk about on the McCain side of things. Are members of the media biased? Sure, but overall I think the liberal media excuse is wearing thin. A media bias didn't cause John McCain's campaign problems. Liberal conspiracy didn't make Sarah Palin forget all the supreme court cases she once knew or all the newspapers she reads. I'm weary of hearing about the conduct of the media because I just don't see it. Maybe some individuals are biased, not the entire industry.

McCain was also funny on Weekend Update, but the QVC skit was funnier. He was a good sport.

Dick Cheney endorsed McCain in Wyoming, I think today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3Y8n9FWz4E

I don't think that's the point at all. If the criterion for one's choice for vice president is someone who will be a capable replacement, then McCain has utterly failed the test. God willing John McCain will live to be much older than his mother is now, but he still seems to have chosen a running mate in order to win a campaign (although it seems they couldn't figure out how to use her), and not because she's qualified to do his job, should the need arise. Obama made a much better choice.

McCain seems to assume that if he (McCain) doesn't anticipate he will die (because he appears to be in good health) then he won't.

It totally leaves out events such as illness, accident & assassination, which are not unrealistic possibilities.

I'm glad McCain feels well, but for his VP choice, he took into account what he WISHED was true, not all real possibilities. It wasn't a good decision-making style. And it's a gamble with the White House.

Ohhh... that prank all is cringeworthy.... and I am not saying so for the obvious reason.

I don't think any serious candidate should be subjected to this. I don't know, I don't know many people who could, in Palin's situation, deal with a call like this without producing any answer that wouldn't be funny on some level.

I think she caught on rather quickly!



I have to say, I don't like Palin a little bit (for political reasons), but I think people are very unwise to underestimate her intelligence, ambition and political instincts. It's not the traditional political instinct, perhaps, but I am in no doubt that she's got that instinct.

I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't just quietly return to Alaska to get on with her life after this. Even if they lose, I'd think we haven't seen the last of Sarah Palin. It makes me feel uneasy (for political reasons) - but I think it would be a mistake to just write her off for various condescending reasons.

Somehow, I have the feeling that G.W. Bush in 2000 had some problems very similar to those Palin is accused of (I remember his foreign policy gaffes, for example) - I'd say, actually, she comes across as more competent, in some ways, than Bush did then - but it seems that it's easier to sell this sort of political persona if you are a man.

but I think people are very unwise to underestimate her intelligence, ambition and political instincts. It's not the traditional political instinct, perhaps, but I am in no doubt that she's got that instinct. I think she has political instincts and ambition, but I haven't been impressed with her intellect or the extent of her knowledge.

I think she has political instincts and ambition, but I haven't been impressed with her intellect or the extent of her knowledge.

Let me make this clear, I'd think that having Palin anywhere near the US presidency would be a disaster .... but I think one has to attack her for the right reasons, on a basis of political argument.

From her performance so far, I get the impression (and it's just an impression) that her knowledge is limited, and I am also highly unimpressed with her apparent lack of curiosity about the world at large, or even aspects of life in the US which are different from her own. But G.W. Bush in 2000 (an election I also followed very closely) didn't come across any better - although you'd think that being the son of a President, and the governor of a huge state in the thick of things might just give you a huge advantage, but there wasn't much evidence of that! Of course people in the opposing camp made fun of him, but that didn't help their cause - essentially, to use a great Bushism, most people misunderestimated him and that actually made things much worse.

Palin hasn't had a lot of time to prepare, and how many people could perform well under that sort of pressure at such short notice? It's different if, like Biden, you have been in DC for so long, but she comes from a state with a small population: it's not easy to run such a place, either (and my impression from her record there is that she has a very sharp understanding of power politics), but the political dynamics must be very different, and the media landscape is just a tad smaller and easier to keep track of, I'd imagine. It can't be easy to cope with the US as a whole within two months, and within the full glare of intensive media attention.

I think anyone who doesn't want her anywhere near the White House should stop patronising and (mis-)underestimating the woman: if she's got four years to prepare, learn the ropes and gain some information and experience, she could be formidable. I, for one, don't want to see that. IMHO, it's not her ignorance which is dangerous - it's her political ideas, at least for the world at large (Americans are obviously free to have their own country governed as they see fit, so I don't want to comment on internal policy matters here) - I am concerned about the impact an US president has on the world, and I shudder to think of the sort of things Palin might do.

From he performence so far, I get the impression (and it's just an impression) that her knowledge is limited, and I am also highly unimpressed with her apparent lack of curiosity about the world at large, or even aspects of life in the US which are different from her own. But G.W. Bush in 2000 (an election I also followed very closely) didn't come across any better - although you'd think that being the son of a President, and the governor of a huge state in the thick of things might just give you a huge advantage, but there wasn't much evidence of that! Of coruse people make fun of him, but that doesn't do anything - essentially, to use a great Bushism, most people misunderestimated him and that actualy made things much worse.Well she does remind me of Bush which is why I dislike her. She has a gut-level certainty for topics she minimal information about. And because of her "certainty" she seems unlikely to seek out the requisite knowledge. That's what makes her the most like Bush, and it's what causes me the greatest disquiet.

And yes, all of the above is my own opinion.

I think she caught on rather quickly!

After they told her?

I don't think that's the point at all. If the criterion for one's choice for vice president is someone who will be a capable replacement, then McCain has utterly failed the test.

Because he picked as his VP a candidate with approximately the same level of experience as Barack Obama?

God willing John McCain will live to be much older than his mother is now, but he still seems to have chosen a running mate in order to win a campaign (although it seems they couldn't figure out how to use her), and not because she's qualified to do his job, should the need arise.

VP's have been selected for a myriad of reasons - to secure the party base, attract another segment of the population, bring a swing state into the fold, even because of their influence and connections on the Hill. Experience in international affairs has never been a vital qualification as the President is the one who is expected to lead in that regard. In this election the VP's credentials have been discussed only because Barack Obama has so experience.

Obama made a much better choice. How experienced Obama is doesn't matter when the question is who made a better choice of running mates. You may of course question Obama's experience, but it's not what I'm talking about.

I do question Obama experience because he is the Presidential candidate. What has Joe Biden added to the ticket? Biden's foreign policy "expertise" had him wrong on voting against the first gulf war, wrong on voting for the second, wrong on opposing the surge, and wrong on proposing a three state solution to Iraq. How does selecting a VP who is so often wrong on issues of international affairs beef up Obama's foreign policy credentials? If Biden is supposed to be Obama's foreign policy guide then all Obama did when he selected Biden was increase the probability that he'll make the wrong decision.

I'm talking about the tactics McCain and his campaign have used, not the poll numbers. His campaign has been run badly, and he's got the worst luck in the world, but that doesn't excuse some of the things I've seen on TV and heard coming out of the mouth of his running mate.

Here we go again! For the umteenth time, please tell us what things inexcusable things have come out of his running mates mouth?

The one page statement from Obama was a political decision. Palin being young and in presumably good health could have done the same days ago and it wouldn't have been an issue. Her maternity isn't currently being questioned. There were rumors on blogs like two months ago about it, which the mainstream media didn't pick up, we weren't allowed to discuss here, and which has basically become a non-issue since the announcement of Bristol's pregnancy. Are there occasional comments about it? Sure, but it isn't by the Obama campaign or anyone with any true political credibility. People questioned it because it was an odd set of circumstances- that doesn't make it a double standard.

So she should shrug off all the intensely personal stuff that stuff that happened months ago? The questioning of the manner of giving birth to her baby? That's nice. For all we know there may be things in her medical related to her children that she might not want bandid about for their sake not her own. So again win/win for the left--make her wary enough to be unsure when to release the records and then slam her when she doesn't come forth on their schedule. Meanwhile Obama gets a one page medical history (which btw was not released in a timely manner either) and it's all on the up and up? And then people aren't questioning Obama's drug use and what lasting effects those drugs may have on him? Odd set of circumstances does not mean sinister. Again you may want to point the finger at a poorly run campaign but to imply that Palin or the McCain campaign are hiding something for political gain while not admitting the opposite party has a history of doing such is a double standard.




From what I understand Biden has released his medical records, and Obama is much younger and healthier than McCain, it's an unfortunate reality. We don't hear much about the concerns over the possibility of Obama dying in public conversation because it brings up something too horrible to discuss: assassination. So, no, you won't hear the mainstream media discuss it. And if something were to happen to Obama, whether it be natural causes or otherwise, then yes, Biden would assume the presidency. And there are people who consider that when they consider who to vote for, even if it isn't a sexy news story. There is no reason to assume Biden would die at the pressure of being president, he seems fine to campaign and be a Senator, but if both of them were to die, that is what the order of succession is for.

A million other things could happen to Obama other than assassination so I mean really the media doesn't have to mention the assassination thing to point out that Biden has had a questionable line of health. If something should happen to Obama by whatever ever nature will Biden's health stand up? Who can say? Could we stand to lose two Presidents? If it's so important to make sure Palin is "healthy" enough to president should something happen to McCain because of his age or otherwise shouldn't the left at least acknowledge that Biden's health could be a negative factor/ But there's the double standard in play.

The vice president would be followed by the Speaker of the House, then the President pro-tempore of the Senate, then the members of the cabinet in the order in which their position was created. This would go for a McCain/Palin administration as well.

Then this should be applied evenly but it's not. Both McCain and Palin have been drilled about there medical records even when they have come forth as McCain has. If you can imply that Obama/Biden have an order of succession then the same should apply to McCain/Palin without it being some over the top issue. It's totally hypocritical.

The electorate will decide their own reasons for selecting candidates and Presidents. Sufficed to say that experience is not the only factor. There are policy issues, there are countless things that could make someone vote one way or the other. I was talking about political strategy. Obama's political strategy does not revolve around experience. He's not claiming to have a longer public service record than McCain, instead he is saying he will bring about change and providing people with his positions and policies he would enact and illustrating how they would be different than both the current administration and a possible McCain administration. If McCain's experience is something that you believe would make him a better president than Obama, then you should vote for him. But you can't say no one can vote for Obama just because he hasn't been in the Senate for 26 years.


If Obama wants to run Palin into the ground on her lack experience then he needs to take the hits for his own. It's quite simple. If he wants to run on change then maybe he ought not be encouraging this lack of experience on Palin? Compared to McCain he is soft in the experience department. Hence the need to deflect and run on supposition of McCain's early demise. Which is really just poor taste imho.

Neither Ken Duberstein nor Colin Powell nor Chris Buckley, and many more were trying to shift with the political winds. Then there are the pundits who didn't say how they would vote who have been very critical of her like George Will and David Brooks. Even Larry Eagleburger was very uncomplimentary before he was pressured to recant the next day.

I have the utmost respect for Powell but I can't agree with you here. If the Republicans wanted to switch sides they should have done it immediately after Palin was chosen.
(She was on the list of possible candidates) Instead she got a huge wave of support from them. The conventions and the rallies were great and they all signed on. Her debate with Biden was really good too. They were even supportive after her disastrous Couric interview. Only now, with days until the election do they choose to ride the winning wave. I think that reflects badly on them, not Palin.

I have the utmost respect for Powell but I can't agree with you here. If the Republicans wanted to switch sides they should have done it immediately after Palin was chosen. (She was on the list of possible candidates) Instead she got a huge wave of support from them. The conventions and the rallies were great and they all signed on. Her debate with Biden was really good too. They were even supportive after her disastrous Couric interview. Only now, with days until the election do they choose to ride the winning wave. I think that reflects badly on them, not Palin.They had no reason to remove their support when she was first nominated because she hadn't been vetted and they didn't know enough about her to disapprove of her as a VP. Also, McCain hadn't behaved so erratically about the economy yet. And I'm sure the disasterous interviews started their discomfort about her.The debates did a lot to solidify Obama in a lot of minds. Besides, I think it took awhile for them to decide to endorse a Democrat. It wouldn't have been an easy move. Powell laid out his decision in a very reasoned, well thought out manner. I think he waited until after the debates to make up his mind.

I don't see any political gain for Duberstein or Powell in endorsing Obama. And it got Buckley ejected from the magazine his father founded. I see these endorsements as acts of conscience. Whether they should have committed sooner is just a matter for conjecture.

They had no reason to remove their support when she was first nominated because she hadn't been vetted and they didn't know enough about her to disapprove of her as a VP.

I don't know where this thing of hadn't been vetted comes from. There is no way to prove this other than by critiquing her performancesb which is subjective at best. All the mention of her husband and Troopergate came out very early on when she was still recieving endorsements from other Republicans so these type of reasons simply don't fly with me.

Also, McCain hadn't behaved so erratically about the economy yet.

What has that to do with Palin? The correlation being drawn is that she is the main reason that Republicans are leaving for Obama. At least that is what they are saying. They have to because McCain hasn't really changed his position on anything except the Economy but, imho, that is no different than Obama changing his views on the Iraq surge. The Republicans want to use Palin as a scapegoat cuz that can't justify leaving McCain any other way.


Whether they should have committed sooner is just a matter for conjecture.

Conjecture? If one waits to make a commitment of that nature how can one not ask when their motives oare of concience or political gain? Not much has changed since the parties first got their respective nominees. It makes me question their motives and I don't think that bodes well for whomever the next President may be.

I do question Obama experience because he is the Presidential candidate. What has Joe Biden added to the ticket? Biden's foreign policy "expertise" had him wrong on voting against the first gulf war, wrong on voting for the second, wrong on opposing the surge, and wrong on proposing a three state solution to Iraq. How does selecting a VP who is so often wrong on issues of international affairs beef up Obama's foreign policy credentials? If Biden is supposed to be Obama's foreign policy guide then all Obama did when he selected Biden was increase the probability that he'll make the wrong decision.

Here we go again! For the umteenth time, please tell us what things inexcusable things have come out of his running mates mouth?

Funny thing about both of these points...I think judgements (on BOTH sides) of whether someone's positions were "right or wrong" or "inexcusable / excusable" are entirely in the eyes of the beholder. We're seeing this with things that all four candidates say repeatedly. What fires up one side horrifies the other, and vice versa. Not every statement is subject to such treatment, but enough of them are that it leads to a rather tense race. So, someone may think that Palin's positions on abortion or other issues is "inexcusable"...yet someone else may go "finally, someone on the presidential ticket who thinks like I do!".

On these forums...we have a place for both people. And for other viewpoints, too. Please keep that in mind over these last few days and beyond!

The concerns about Palin are directly related to concerns about McCain. He was the one who chose her. It was his judgment. And his age factors into concerns about Palin since she is not ready to be VP, and at his age it is far more likely she might have to assume the Presidency. Her vetting should have included whether she had suffcient policy knowledge to be VP. She isn't being scapegoated, and she is a drag on the ticket (based on numerous polls). The Republicans who endorsed Obama took many factors into consideration. Palin was one of them, but not the only one.

I don't feel sorry for her, and I don't think she's been assessed unfairly.

I just saw an anti Rev Wright ad on MSNBC (national). It is not over yet.
SNL will do a Monday night Special Show.

Of course people in the opposing camp made fun of him, but that didn't help their cause - essentially, to use a great Bushism, most people misunderestimated him and that actually made things much worse.
And part of the problem is when you make fun of someone, the only people you get through to are the people who's support you already had.
He gets high credit from me for doing that skit. Not enough to vote for him, of course, but he was a really good sport. I nearly lost it when Cindy showed up. And it was a hilarious skit.

I was listening to Seth Meyers(?) the lead writer for SNL on NPR last week, and he was saying that Republicans tend to be better sports about these things. Fewer rules, less input required to go on, etc. The reason he provided being that Democrats are afraid that Republicans will use it against them and Republicans know Democrats won't.

That being said, I stopped watching SNL a few years ago. I've been watching the Tina Fey clips online, but I could't sit through a full episode if I tried.
So she should shrug off all the intensely personal stuff that stuff that happened months ago? The questioning of the manner of giving birth to her baby? That's nice. For all we know there may be things in her medical related to her children that she might not want bandid about for their sake not her own. So again win/win for the left--make her wary enough to be unsure when to release the records and then slam her when she doesn't come forth on their schedule. Meanwhile Obama gets a one page medical history (which btw was not released in a timely manner either) and it's all on the up and up? And then people aren't questioning Obama's drug use and what lasting effects those drugs may have on him? Odd set of circumstances does not mean sinister. Again you may want to point the finger at a poorly run campaign but to imply that Palin or the McCain campaign are hiding something for political gain while not admitting the opposite party has a history of doing such is a double standard.
Once again it isn't a double standard. Everyone else has released information. I have no problem with her releasing a one page history in the same way Obama did. His was a political choice to show a comparison between between the massive records released (even if only for four hours to a few people without the ability to make photocopies) by McCain. As I said, Palin is young enough that she could do the same. A general bill of health will suffice. This is a non-issue. The campaign is being poorly run if it's letting things like this become an issue. Release the information and move on. It's a couple of days before the election. This isn't going to change anyone's mind, but it keeps the McCain camp in the press in a negative way. Things in politics don't always have an easy solution, this does: release the records. In fact, she could have released records when the initial rumors were going on. I haven't said it was sinister, I haven't said that Trig isn't hers, that too is a non-issue. People didn't know anything about her and it's not often one gets on a plane while in the beginning stages of labor, hence the questions about it. And once again, these weren't things that were deemed credible enough to be picked up by the mainstream media or to be asked of her, and yes, she needs to get over it because that's how politics works- you have to let things roll of your back. You put yourself out there for judging by millions of people, it's not all going to be positive some of it is going to be downright ugly. I'm not saying I like it, but that's the way it is, and you're not going to get anywhere if every comment on some fringe blog is going to wound you mortally. As an aside, I've been trained enough to be able to see the political argument outside of my political preference as much as that is possible. One shouldn't mistake critique for bias.

A million other things could happen to Obama other than assassination so I mean really the media doesn't have to mention the assassination thing to point out that Biden has had a questionable line of health. If something should happen to Obama by whatever ever nature will Biden's health stand up? Who can say? Could we stand to lose two Presidents? If it's so important to make sure Palin is "healthy" enough to president should something happen to McCain because of his age or otherwise shouldn't the left at least acknowledge that Biden's health could be a negative factor/ But there's the double standard in play.
A lot of things could happen, but a president drives in a motorcade surrounded by armed Secret Service agents, it's unlikely he will get in a fatal car crash. Either way, there is a large portion of the population, particularly people who were alive in the 1960s, particularly in the Black community for whom mention of him dying brings up immediate imagery of assassination. Politically, this isn't something the McCain camp can talk about because that is how it will appear whether he means assassination or not. And considering the recent plots to do just that, this is a very sensitive subject. I can't explain it further, it's something you are either sensitive to or not. Either way, people know Biden's health, he's had what 4 heart attacks? It's not much publicized because no one really cares about the Vice President's health. Like I said, it won't change anyone's mind no matter what Palin's records say, if a Vice President dies in office, they just appoint a new one. Her not releasing them is a bigger story than what they will be once released. Release them, and get back to focusing on campaigning.

Then this should be applied evenly but it's not. Both McCain and Palin have been drilled about there medical records even when they have come forth as McCain has. If you can imply that Obama/Biden have an order of succession then the same should apply to McCain/Palin without it being some over the top issue. It's totally hypocritical.
I said that the order of succession will apply to the McCain/Palin camp as well, and good luck comforting Republicans with the knowledge that Nancy Pelosi would become president should McCain and Palin die. Like I said, this is an easy political fix, so they should do it and move on.

That being said, I stopped watching SNL a few years ago. I've been watching the Tina Fey clips online, but I could't sit through a full episode if I tried.The show has been wretched. Watching has been excruciating. I've only watched for the recent political skits. And even those are hit and miss. Tiny Fey has been hilarious.

Hard to know where to post this, so I'm alternating my more "general" news between Obama & McCain threads.

The Gross National Product of the U.S. declined in the third quarter -0.3%
In contrast, the second quarter was 2.1 % growth. So definite shrinkage going on.
The fourth quarter results will be interesting. Personally, I feel like things are stabilizing.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Hard to know where to post this, so I'm alternating my more "general" news between Obama & McCain threads.

Unless you want to suggest that either of the candidates has caused it, the proper thread is here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=118157).

McCain seems to assume that if he (McCain) doesn't anticipate he will die (because he appears to be in good health) then he won't.

It totally leaves out events such as illness, accident & assassination, which are not unrealistic possibilities. (bold mine) Which every person, including BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN should be cautious of, too. You can't single John McCain out for this.

(bold mine) Which every person, including BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN should be cautious of, too. You can't single John McCain out for this.It's not being ruled out, and I don't know about you, but seems lots of people have been "cautious" where Obama's been concerned because of race issues and possible "assassination". As unfortunate as it might be, if something happened to him, there's Biden to take over. Seems not too many people have a problem with Biden, aside from his mouth, and there aren't many doubts being raised as to how he'll run the country if he had to step up. I don't think you can say the same for Palin.

I can say the same for Palin. Most people I have talked to on this issue are not afraid of Palin running the country. Only one person has said they are afraid of Biden running the country, but then, I haven't really discussed that with many people.

The newest IBD polls, which are generally quite highly respected, show a 2 point race - 46.7 to 44.6.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series13.aspx?src=POLLTOPN

I can say the same for Palin. Most people I have talked to on this issue are not afraid of Palin running the country. Only one person has said they are afraid of Biden running the country, but then, I haven't really discussed that with many people.
I have discussed it with a great many people. Granted I'm in the bluer part of Ohio, but I haven't met anyone yet who had a favorable opinion of Governor Palin. It all depends on where you are I suppose, it's why the election seems closer in some places than it does in others. From my point of view, for a long time, it seemed shocking to me that Ohio would go for a Republican candidate, because I live in a veritable Democratic stronghold. But I've learned to look beyond my immediate surroundings, and when I do that in this case, I think people are probably split down the middle on Palin. But I suppose the popular vote doesn't really matter, either, so we'll see if her presence on the ticket helps, and if it does, whether it helps in the right places.

I'm not willing to accept, unchallenged, the idea that McCain is more qualified to be the president of the United States than Obama. Indeed, having watched the two of them over the past four years, I would posit that McCain is less qualified than Obama.

Republicans have traditionally nominated the next guy in line, the guy whose turn has come, who has paid his dues and thus earned the nomination. Winning the Democratic nomination has always been something of a crapshoot, a process of far less discipline than their opponents employ. McCain's turn was stolen from him by the man whose presidency we are now sweating out the final 74 more days of. McCain would have made a good president, I think, in 2000. What we see today is little more than a shell of the man he was back then.

It's hard to make a case that people aren't complaining about Palin and the possibility of her assuming the presidency. Six out of 10 Americans deem her unqualified for either the vice presidency or the presidency. That's an amazingly high percentage. Not even Dan Quayle reached such a number.

I think it's very hard to make a case that Obama is more qualified than McCain. What has Obama done that makes him more qualified or gives him more experience? Please, I would love for you to find me something.

That's very sad if she's judged for the prank. I feel incredibly sorry for her. I really do for those who do. :( I'm really worried that if Obama does win, that the Republican party, or whatever, will put the blame on Palin for the loss.

I can't really express my contempt for ambush humour. It's the low-road and unfair to the victim.


Here we go again! For the umteenth time, please tell us what things inexcusable things have come out of his running mates mouth?

Besides her policies? Nothing specific but I just can't relate to her world-view.


(She was on the list of possible candidates) Instead she got a huge wave of support from them. The conventions and the rallies were great and they all signed on. Her debate with Biden was really good too. They were even supportive after her disastrous Couric interview. Only now, with days until the election do they choose to ride the winning wave. I think that reflects badly on them, not Palin.

It was prudent for them to give the impression of thinking about the issue. Had they dismissed her immediately after the convention they would have been accused of misogyny.

I think it's very hard to make a case that Obama is more qualified than McCain. What has Obama done that makes him more qualified or gives him more experience? Please, I would love for you to find me something.

There is no real job description as each president deals with the issues as he sees fit, so experience and qualifications aren't really relevant criteria. It all comes down to who you think will do a better job. Despite my reservations about Obama being the best Dem for the job, I'd rather him than the alternative.

I think it's very hard to make a case that Obama is more qualified than McCain. What has Obama done that makes him more qualified or gives him more experience? Please, I would love for you to find me something.

As part of the requirements, the qualification for the Office of the Presidency, executive experience is a moot point.

Indeed if such is confined to time served in the executive branch of government and absolutely nothing else, Sarah Palin is more qualified than Biden, McCain and Obama, and Eisenhower, Kennedy and President Abraham Lincoln, among others. This exhibits a rather large intellectual flaw with that line of reasoning.

There are only 2 actual qualifications necessary to hold the office. You have to be 35 years old, and a Natural born citizen. Beyond those two things it's up each individual who votes to determine what they believe are additional important factors, these traits however, are not 'qualifiers' they're simply attributes to help the voters decide.

Personally I look for intelligence, a cool, logical thought process, the ability to remain calm and thoughtful in intense situations but with the resolve to act when circumstances require it. I also look for someone who surrounds themself with people who have similar composure and intelligence with whom to consult on areas in which the candidate may not be an expert. Using my criteria, McCain from 4 years ago would be a great candidate, [staff edit]

I think it's very hard to make a case that Obama is more qualified than McCain. What has Obama done that makes him more qualified or gives him more experience? Please, I would love for you to find me something.

What Wab and Midnight said. ^

I don't see Barack as the lesser of two evils, though. He brings unique gifts to the office of the presidency, things we haven't since FDR, JFK, and to a lesser extent, Reagan.

I find it fascinating that so many people in here know so many other people who are afraid of a McCain presidency and who don't like Sarah Palin.

I live in Georgia, which is a traditionally Republican state, though there has (apparently) been a rising chance for it to turn Swing in this election (which I doubt will happen). The funny thing is, if you mention "Sarah" down here, a lot of the women get a goofy smile on their face. They're infatuated with this woman, and they want McCain to win because of her. Just one difference, I suppose. She's not hurting him everywhere, that's for sure.

She's bolstered up the base. But the base isn't where elections are won. I'm also disturbed by people who want their politicians to be an average Joe or Jane. I don't want Joe sixpack or Jane soccer/hockey mom to be President or VP. I want someone who is uncommon, not common. I want someone who is exceptional, not average. We've just had Joe Sixpack for President and look where that has gotten us.

She's bolstered up the base. But the base isn't where elections are won. I'm also disturbed by people who want their politicians to be an average Joe or Jane. I don't want Joe Sixpack or Jane soccer/hockey mom to be President or VP. I want someone who is uncommon, not common. I want someone who is exceptional, not average. We've just had Joe Sixpack for President and look where that has gotten us.

I agree - this anti-elitism is an attitude that generally mystifies me, I have to say. People saying that they don't want 'elitist' politicians. But why?

Is there any more of an elite job than the US Presidency? it's an elite job, with elite responsibilities, so you surely want someone special to get that job, not someone ordinary. And you'd want them to be special for the right reasons.

The important thing, IMHO, is that elite has to be defined by intelligence, poltical instinct, a comprehensive understanding of the country and the world, courage and an ability to inspire people.

Wealth shouldn't matter but, looking at how things are, obviously does - which is a pity, because really, you'd want a democracy, not a plutocracy. At least this time round, three of the candidates didn't grow up wealthy, which seems a good change.

Anyway - the first thing I'd like in a politician is for him/her to outsmart everyone else. I don't understand why so many people feel that it is a problem if a politician appears smarter than they are. I think of myself as reasonably intelligent, but I believe that it's an absolute must that a leading politician should be a lot smarter than I am. If there is one person you *want* to feel patronized by it is surely the person who leads your country?

I don't think that it's so much that people don't want their President to be amazingly smart as it is that people want a President to appear more "average Joe" because then they can feel that the President might be able to better understand where they, as citizens, are coming from. They want someone who they believe will be able to identify the biggest obstacles that they face, someone who will understand their personal concerns about where the nation is headed and whether or not they still have a job when they hit the sack at the end of a long day. They want the President to remind them of.....themselves.

it's still weird, though. Because an US president, by definition, cannot be - indeed must not be - an average Joe.

And it's even weirder, because some of the 'average Joes' that were elected in recent years most definitely hadn't ever been close to 'normal people's lives' - and it seems that 'posing as average Joe' actually convinces exactly the people who think they want an 'average Joe' as president. I mean, whoever could possibly have believed (on the basis of his CV or family background) that Bush fits that picture?

The problem is that someone who ever makes it to the top of the heap of any nomination can't really *share* the experiences of the many who haven't been so successful. Surely, one would want to look for someone who can empathise with a wide range of problems, rather than looking for someone who happens to have had a similar experience to one's own. That would seem a much more rational way of going about things. And I am really speaking in general terms here, because I think both candidates this time round do have a good deal of that, without being 'ordinary Joes' in any sensible sense of the word (thankfully).

I can see, however, that Sarah Palin, on the basis of her background, reasonably fits the picture of 'average woman' - what's the right Christian name to use there? - and she clearly does have a fairly 'normal' life behind her. And one has to give her that - she is nevertheless clearly not an ordinary woman. Whether she's extraordinary in all the ways you'd like to see in a president is another question....

I want my president to be competent, intelligent, and intellectually curious. Obama has the latter two traits at least.

McCain, not so sure about any of those three. I believe he could be potentially more competent, because he has actually accomplished some things instead of merely talking about it.

It's nice if there's an "Average Joe" that possesses all three traits, but that'll be close to impossible to find. Bill Clinton was one such person, however his personal foibles severely limited him as a president.

Anyway, people want their politicians to genuinely care about them, and mistakenly believe that an "Average Joe" president will more likely do that. IMO, the president of the last 8 years is the biggest evidence against that theory. And just because someone doesn't look like Joe, doesn't mean that they don't care about the people.

I don't know how to read either one of the current candidates in that light. I think McCain at one time did for sure. His compromising of his principles to ingratiate himself to the right-wing base baffles me, and makes me think not so much anymore. Obama is seemingly too good to be true, and with his questionable record and associations, I don't know if I should trust that smile and his flowery talk.

Therefore, I think I'll go with someone would should have his own thread. Rob Barr. Don't care for his laissez-faire economics, but at least I can trust what he says.

I find it fascinating that so many people in here know so many other people who are afraid of a McCain presidency and who don't like Sarah Palin.

I live in Georgia, which is a traditionally Republican state, though there has (apparently) been a rising chance for it to turn Swing in this election (which I doubt will happen). The funny thing is, if you mention "Sarah" down here, a lot of the women get a goofy smile on their face. They're infatuated with this woman, and they want McCain to win because of her. Just one difference, I suppose. She's not hurting him everywhere, that's for sure.

You want me to be honest? I seriously doubt there is this much "hate" of Sarah Palin out there.

What Wab and Midnight said. ^

I don't see Barack as the lesser of two evils, though. He brings unique gifts to the office of the presidency, things we haven't since FDR, JFK, and to a lesser extent, Reagan.

I don't see Barack as the lesser of the two evils, either. :p There are no evils. Just one guy I support, McCain, and one guy I don't think is qualified for the job, Obama.

I don't see Barack as the lesser of the two evils, either. :p There are no evils. Just one guy I support, McCain, and one guy I don't think is qualified for the job, Obama.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, Leah.

She's bolstered up the base. But the base isn't where elections are won. I'm also disturbed by people who want their politicians to be an average Joe or Jane. I don't want Joe sixpack or Jane soccer/hockey mom to be President or VP. I want someone who is uncommon, not common. I want someone who is exceptional, not average. We've just had Joe Sixpack for President and look where that has gotten us.

Well, I hope by average joe or jane they mean average in terms of wealth or heritage rather than brains. I would not like to have any of the people at our school with a negative IQ grow up to become President of a major country.

Anyway, people want their politicians to genuinely care about them, and mistakenly believe that an "Average Joe" president will more likely do that. IMO, the president of the last 8 years is the biggest evidence against that theory. And just because someone doesn't look like Joe, doesn't mean that they don't care about the people.

I agree with this. Everyone is different and these kind of stereotypes are making people very biased. I still don't like McCain but the reason I would vote for Obama if legal is not that he grew up in middle class surroundings. Growing up in middle class might just as well mean that the person thirsts for power or something. Not saying that Obama does, but people should be a bit less biased.

Therefore, I think I'll go with someone would should have his own thread. Rob Barr. Don't care for his laissez-faire economics, but at least I can trust what he says.

Um....isn't it Bob Barr? You could ask the staff for one if you really want one.