Yes, we can.

[innerSpaceman]

And frankly, since - as scaeagles rightly alludes to - every entity from oil companies to your local dentist passes on their tax burden to their customers, I say more than just the tax breaks should end for certain industries. I'm ashamed to be an end user consumer who can't pass on my taxes to the next lower toad on the toadempole ... and all the lowly citizens of my ilk pay the taxes of everyone above us in the American food chain.

Fine. I'll pay my barber's taxes. And I'll pay my shoe seller's taxes. All in addition to the one-third of my own income I pay in taxes ... meaning I likely pay something near a 50% tax rate in total.


And so I support anything deemed a life necessity to be NATIONALIZED and included in the 30% income tax I already pay. That means ENERGY, FOOD, and HEALTHCARE. My dentist can stuff it, and so can the oil companies. I don't care if this creates a huge government bureacracy less efficient that Exxon Mobil or my DDS. I'm tired of paying their taxes.



I'll pay Amazon's taxes, because I have a choice to shop there or not. You cold-hearted bastards who will say fixing my teeth, using electricity and eating breakfast are choices also can go fucyourself.



And thus ends my sunday morning rant.

[flippyshark]

Good rant, iSm. I don't contribute to political discussions much owing to my own ignorance, and the fact that no matter how much one reads up, there is always someone there with a contradictory fact, quote, document or theory, and it would take a year or two to get caught up enough to reply. It's all I can do to scan the daily barrage of media crap and try to decide who makes the most sense on any given day. That said, what iSm said above is very close to how I feel. (emphasis - how I feel versus what I know, which is exactly nothing.)

Carry on, y'all. This thread has been chock full of interesting tidbits.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Once again, Garrison Keillor puts things in perspective (http://www.salon.com/opinion/keillor/2008/08/06/mccain/index.html) in his own colorful and inimitable way.

And it's an amazing country where an Arizona multimillionaire can attack a Chicago South Sider as an elitist and hope to make it stick. The Chicagoan was brought up by a single mom who had big ambitions for him, and he got scholarshipped into Harvard Law and was made president of the law review, all of it on his own hook, whereas the Arizonan is the son of an admiral and was ushered into Annapolis though an indifferent student, much like the Current Occupant, both of them men who are very lucky that their fathers were born before they were. The Chicagoan, who grew up without a father, wrote a book on his own, using a computer. The Arizonan hired people to write his for him. But because the Chicagoan can say what he thinks and make sense and the Arizonan cannot do that for more than 30 seconds at a time, the old guy is hoping to portray the skinny guy as arrogant.

Good luck with that, sir.

Meanwhile, the casual revelation last month that Mr. McCain has never figured out how to use a computer and has never sent e-mail or Googled is rather startling. It's like admitting that you've never clipped your own toenails or that you didn't know that toothpaste comes out of a tube because your valet always did that for you. It's like being amazed at the sight of a supermarket scanner. What world does Mr. McCain live in? Where does he keep his sense of curiosity? My 94-year-old mother has sent e-mail. Does somebody plan to show him how it's done and will they explain to him what "LOL" means?

[scaeagles]

Elitism isn't all about money. I know many middle class elitists who simply think they are better than everyone else. Whenever you say that you are the one the world has been waiting for or that you have become the symbol of all the greatness of America's past (or however exactly it was worded), you come across as elitist.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Elitism isn't all about money. I know many middle class elitists who simply think they are better than everyone else. Whenever you say that you are the one the world has been waiting for or that you have become the symbol of all the greatness of America's past (or however exactly it was worded), you come across as elitist.

I think it is safe to say that you are reading far more into what he actually said than what was intended.

For the record, these are his words -

"this is the moment, as Nancy [Pelosi] noted, that the world is waiting for."
"It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign -- that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol. I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions"

[scaeagles]

I can find it and will. I have heard him say it and read it. Don't currently have the time....just between sets working out right now.

[scaeagles]

I was in the process of quoting that. I still think it is arrogant even with the full quote.

There are other things which involve more a feeling than a direct quote. To even presume to try to speak at the Brandenburg gate while a candidate, making a pseudo-Presidential seal to put on a podium he is speaking behind, his whole much discussed quote about people clinging to their guns and religion, numerous quotes by his wife (while that may not be fair, they are a package, and yes, Cindy McCain bugs me as well), many other things....it all adds up.

[Strangler Lewis]

What candidate doesn't do that? When Ross Perot ran on behalf of the hard working people who play by the rules, he was implying that they were better than everybody else and that their glory reflected on him. Rush Limbaugh says that red state people are better than blue state people.

Until recently, your signature line spoke of the better men and women in the military, an observation that makes no sense unless it means that we need people to do the jobs we would rather not do. In which case, people who do any number of dirty jobs are better than we are. It also means in all likelihood that we are not educating our children to be better men and women.

[scaeagles]

We have a slightly different perspective on Ross Perot, but that's besides the point.

What candidate has tried to speak at the Brandenburg gate? What candidate makes (or has a staff that makes) a seal that looks exactly like the Presidential seal and sticks it on the podium from which the candidate is speaking? You may not find these things to be arrogant, but I do.

I get why he's doing it. He needs to look Presidential because he has no (or more properly very little) experience in anything. I think he's working a bot too hard at it. And yes, I do completely understand that just as he is trying to look Presidential, his opponents wish to make him look presumptuous and arrogant.

[Alex]

I know it has been said before, but I want my president to be an elitist who thinks s/he is the best things since sliced bread.

If he says he doesn't and is running for president then he is either lying or admitting to a lack of qualification.

[scaeagles]

You do indeed have to think mighty highly of yourself to run for President. However, I think there is a difference between confidence and arrogance.

[Alex]

There may be, but I want both of them in a president.

Plus, as Asimov said, "it's not arrogance if you do it." So I'll wait and see how he does as president before deciding if it was a bad kind of arrogance.

[wendybeth]

I can't help but think that if McCain did everything that Scaeagles finds irritating about Obama, he'd think it was brilliant. Especially if it was Rovian in origin.;)

[scaeagles]

Not in the least. I don't like McCain and have made that clear. But I don't like McCain for different reasons than I don't like Obama.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

All presidents are arrogant, run on arrogance, and win on arrogance. That's what being President is. THE number one guy. Once again, just because Obama is honest about it, he gets flack.

Just one example: Tell me that "Read my lips, no new taxes" isn't arrogant. Even if he had stuck to it, even though I totally agreed with it at the time, if you think about it, he's saying "I won't let your congress raise taxes." All politicians run on "I am going to win, I am likable, I am going to fix this country, I know exactly what we need to do, I will do it, myself." It's all arrogance, it's all a shiny veneer, and it doesn't matter how they say it.

As for Obama making himself look presidential - sounds good to me. They always say, if you want a promotion, dress the part, act the part, no matter how lowly your current station, and people will believe you can do it. This is what he's doing. IMHO, those pundits that call him arrogant are unhappy that he's not following the usual route of even more pretense that oh, he's just a regular guy, he's just like you and me. (Yes I know he mixes that in - he has to - but I admire that that's not his entire appeal, like W's was.)

[innerSpaceman]

Apparently I must spread some mojo around, CP.

[Fab]

Elitism isn't all about money. I know many middle class elitists who simply think they are better than everyone else. Whenever you say that you are the one the world has been waiting for or that you have become the symbol of all the greatness of America's past (or however exactly it was worded), you come across as elitist.

Owning nine houses and dumping your wife and kids for a zillionaire blonde?

[scaeagles]

OH! Let me add that to my list of why I don't like McCain.

[Tenigma]

Owning nine houses and dumping your wife and kids for a zillionaire blonde?
McCain's own Wikipedia page kind of glosses it over, but reading the main page for his ex-wife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_McCain) sure is enlightening.

In the years that McCain was a POW, his wife had a catastrophic car accident that left her broken in many places (and interestingly enough, her hospital bills were paid for by Ross Perot, who I think some folks know has done a lot to help POWs and releasing captives). She was faithful to McCain all the years he was in captivity, sending him letters and packages (a few of which actually made it through), and she actually kept the accident information and all of her own suffering hidden from him so as to not add to his stress.

She came out of it shorter (she'd broken her legs in places) and gained some weight.

He came home and found out his wife was dumpy lumpy (even his first marriage was to a trophy wife--she was a swimsuit model), he apparently couldn't handle such homeliness. He started having affairs pretty much right away.

The guy is just an asshole (oops, can I say that here?).

It tells me a lot when a man keeps trying to marry trophy wives. It tells me he is superficial, cares more about looks, and doesn't believe that his marriage is a true partnership. No, it's more a showcase to show other people what a catch he got. When his first catch got a defective, he cast her aside.

Disgusting.

How can conservatives want to vote for him? Obama has a wife whom it seems to me is more a partner than a trophy, and they have two kids in an intact home.

[JWBear]

McCain's own Wikipedia page kind of glosses it over, but reading the main page for his ex-wife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_McCain) sure is enlightening.

In the years that McCain was a POW, his wife had a catastrophic car accident that left her broken in many places (and interestingly enough, her hospital bills were paid for by Ross Perot, who I think some folks know has done a lot to help POWs and releasing captives). She was faithful to McCain all the years he was in captivity, sending him letters and packages (a few of which actually made it through), and she actually kept the accident information and all of her own suffering hidden from him so as to not add to his stress.

She came out of it shorter (she'd broken her legs in places) and gained some weight.

He came home and found out his wife was dumpy lumpy (even his first marriage was to a trophy wife--she was a swimsuit model), he apparently couldn't handle such homeliness. He started having affairs pretty much right away.

The guy is just an asshole (oops, can I say that here?).

It tells me a lot when a man keeps trying to marry trophy wives. It tells me he is superficial, cares more about looks, and doesn't believe that his marriage is a true partnership. No, it's more a showcase to show other people what a catch he got. When his first catch got a defective, he cast her aside.

Disgusting.

And Republicans want this person running the country...

[scaeagles]

How can conservatives want to vote for him? Obama has a wife whom it seems to me is more a partner than a trophy, and they have two kids in an intact home.

This is just one of many reasons that it is not an easy vote for me. I am again thinking of sitting it out or at least not voting for either because McCain is going to win AZ in a landslide anyway.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

The guy is just an asshole (oops, can I say that here?)Yes, You Can. ;)

[JWBear]

The guy is just an asshole....

And, an asshole with a temper! Perfect man to have with his finger on our nuclear arsenal launch button. :rolleyes:

[BarTopDancer]

I am again thinking of sitting it out or at least not voting for either because McCain is going to win AZ in a landslide anyway.

If you don't vote you can't complain, regardless of any landslide potential negating your vote.

[innerSpaceman]

Is that official LoT policy:confused:

Will scaeagles be only the second person in history banned from the Daily Grind forum?!?!?

[The Original OC Adventure]

I'm voting for Alfred E. Newman.

[scaeagles]

Is that official LoT policy:confused:

Will scaeagles be only the second person in history banned from the Daily Grind forum?!?!?


Oh great....now I'm going to wonder who the first person is. Thanks, ISM!

[Alex]

It's Nephytys.

I'm not keen on the selective banning (but it ain't my board).

[katiesue]

I belive she asked to have herself basically self banned from the daily grind so as not to be tempted.

[Ghoulish Delight]

We made the decision, and so far it's worked best for all involved.

Hey, how about that Obama guy!

[BarTopDancer]

I heard he was Muslim and related to Saddam!










KIDDING!!!!!!!!

[Tenigma]

I heard he was Muslim and related to Saddam!
I was listening to nose-picker radio a few days ago and they had a story about Latinos registering to vote for this election, many of whom will be voting for the first time. One person they profiled was a farmer from (I think) Arizona, who had 7 adult children and was finally talked into getting his citizenship and voter registration from one of his sons. It turned out this son was a community activist of sorts, helping his local Latino community understand the power of politics.

Apparently everyone in this family is planning to vote Democrat this fall, except for a lone exception: One of the sisters is a Republican.

They recorded a conversation that the activist brother and Republican sister had, and this is what she said, word for word (I kid you not):

Sister: "Oh I don't know, I don't think I will vote for Obama."
Brother: "Why not?"
Sister: "Because he's Muslim."
Brother: "He's not Muslim, he's a Christian and goes to church."
Sister: "Well, I don't know. Obama. Obama. His name sounds like Osama. I don't want to vote for him."

Honest to god, there are people like this.

If you choose not to vote for someone, do so because you like your own candidate a lot, or at least figure out why you don't want the opponent... not because his mother gave him a non-Anglo name.

The sad thing is that I think there are a lot of truly ignorant people like this in our country.

[scaeagles]

Honest to god, there are people like this.

There are also those that vote on a promise of "hope" and "change" without knowing what they are hoping for nor what will change.

Stupid voters exist on all sides of the political spectrum.

[Tenigma]

There are also those that vote on a promise of "hope" and "change" without knowing what they are hoping for nor what will change.
Hey, a lot of kids buy Cracker Jacks not knowing what surprise toy is inside!!

Let's put it this way: "Hope" and "Change"--amorphous as they may be as to what their actual contents might be, are for many people a much better prospect than tried and true crap.

[scaeagles]

Hey, a lot of kids buy Cracker Jacks not knowing what surprise toy is inside!!

Yeah. Kids. :)

[Tenigma]

Yeah. Kids. :)
Let's put it this way: Back in 1999, I said to myself, "Self, let's not vote for Gore, because I can't stand Clinton. I'm not 100% sure about this Bush guy, but how bad can it get?"

[scaeagles]

Hmmm....so you're doing the same thing with Obama.....

I like your new avatar. Perhaps we need one of Obama super imposed over Hillary!

[Alex]

That doesn't even make sense.

[Alex]

There are also those that vote on a promise of "hope" and "change" without knowing what they are hoping for nor what will change.

Do you honestly not see a difference between voting for someone because they inspire you, even if it is somewhat vague an not voting for someone because of holding and absolutely demonstrably false belief about a candidate?

Voting for McCain "because he makes me feel secure in a dangerous world" isn't the same brand of idiocy as not voting for McCain because he's Chinese.

[scaeagles]

And voting for Obama because of vague promises of hope and change is indeed the same as your McCain analogy.

But to be fair, I do understand your first point. The second half of it is why I am not voting for Obama. I am not voting for McCain because he inspires me, I'll tell you certainly.

[scaeagles]

That doesn't even make sense.

It does make sense.

Unless I read it incorrectly, Lani is saying that she didn't vote for Gore because she didn't like Clinton. I gather that many people would not vote for McCain because they don't like Bush (hence Obama using Bush in the same sentence as McCain any opportunity he gets). So while it may be a bit strong to say she is voting for Obama because she can't stand Bush, she is voting for Obama at least in part because of her disillusionment of the republican party and her dislike of Bush.

Maybe I read it and earlier statements incorrectly.

[Gemini Cricket]

They recorded a conversation that the activist brother and Republican sister had, and this is what she said, word for word (I kid you not):

Sister: "Oh I don't know, I don't think I will vote for Obama."
Brother: "Why not?"
Sister: "Because he's Muslim."
Brother: "He's not Muslim, he's a Christian and goes to church."
Sister: "Well, I don't know. Obama. Obama. His name sounds like Osama. I don't want to vote for him."

Honest to god, there are people like this.

And because there are so many people who think like this in our country, I think McCain is going to win in November.
I'm a fan of Obama's, but I honestly feel like he doesn't have a chance. Sort of the same vibe I had when Kerry was running...

[scaeagles]

From some political insiders I have strong respect for (in their analysis if not their personal lives), the dems are looking at the numbers and know that at this stage in 2000 and 2004 Bush was down double digits to Gore and Kerry. This is making them quite nervous privately.

But i have to say that your statement is a bit insulting. You are implying that most people will vote for McCain instead of Obama because they think in a backwards fashion.

[Alex]

What I meant didn't make sense was the "make one with Obama and Hillary" thing. Unless somehow voting for Obama would be a continuation of Hillary Clinton's presidential legacy.

And I really don't understand how voting for Obama because he inspires is the same as not voting for McCain because he's Chinese. It is the same as voting for McCain because he has convinced you that he can be trusted in a way that is important to you. It may not be the most rigorous standard but neither is it simple idiocy.

[scaeagles]

What I meant didn't make sense was the "make one with Obama and Hillary" thing. Unless somehow voting for Obama would be a continuation of Hillary Clinton's presidential legacy.


The first part was a joke. Her avatar made me laugh, and I thought one of Obama and Hillary (who was at least co-President in the last dem adminstration) would be funny.

[Alex]

And I really think the idea that this is currently a close race is mostly a product of the hype machine in the media needing it to be interesting. Just like they refused to act on the certainty that Clinton was done for weeks before she made it official (but they didn't really offer the same boost to Huckabee because the Dem side was much more interesting).

While the overall popular vote may be close poll wise, we all know that ain't particularly important. The electoral vote paints an extremely uphill battle for McCain.

Of course, many things can change by November (maybe Obama will admit that actually he is the anti-Christ and his first act as president will be to use DoD money for slave reparations and grant succession to the Hawaii Nativist movement) but at the moment I don't feel it is particularly close. Not a Reagan in '84 landslide but all the cards have to come up just right for McCain.

[Alex]

The first part was a joke. Her avatar made me laugh, and I thought one of Obama and Hillary (who was at least co-President in the last dem adminstration) would be funny.

Ok, but it still doesn't make sense.

[scaeagles]

I really don't understand how voting for Obama because he inspires....

Perhaps this is just me. I don't look to politicians to inspire me. Reagan did inspire me, certainly, but my devotion to the man came from his policies. Clinton was a hell of a lot more inspiring in 1992 than was Perot or GHWBush, but he didn't get my vote. Likewise in 1996 with Dole.

[Alex]

Fine, but it isn't really idiocy if others do. And you quite clearly equated voting for someone because he has convinced you he'll do a good job with the very clear idiocy of not voting for Obama because he is Muslim and his name sounds similar to a bad guy.

And really, Clinton was more inspiring to you than the others? What exactly did he inspire in you?

[innerSpaceman]

Uh-oh ... this is where Leo might have to admit he's got a soul.



;)

[scaeagles]

Never, ISM.

I was quite disgusted with GHWBush. The whole "read my lips", not finishing the job in Iraq, whatever, and Clinton was new, promised tax cuts (which I can't believe I almost thought he meant), talked more smoothly....he was an opportunity for something that was different than what we were experiencing.

While it would be disingenuous to say I found him more inspiring than Dole, and i didn't like his first term, I thought of voting for him out of protest for the Republicans putting up such a flippin weak candidate because it was "his turn".

And why can't I say it's idiocy to vote for a man for the most powerful office in the world simply because he inspires you? I can think of many people who rose to power because they were inspiring even though their policies were crap (or worse).

[wendybeth]

Inspiration has seen many countries through some very difficult times- and it tends to encourage people to be more involved in whatever struggle is happening at the time. (I'm thinking of Winston Churchill as an example). I think it's beyond idiotic to vote for someone who is morally corrupt and has so many acknowledged negatives simply because one has such a curious disdain for his opponent. I say curious in that many of the reasons Scaeagles cites for disliking him are somewhat vague or seem based on a personal dislike or distrust of the man.

I am definitely up for some inspiration- it's been a very long time.

[Alex]

You can say it. I don't think it is a reasonable position, but you can certainly hold it. But it is awfully elitist of you to decide that simply because someone is inspired they are an idiot. It seems to suppose that being inspired is a meaningless thing. Despite your protestations otherwise, the speeches that have inspired people do contain content. Go ahead and dismiss that if you want.

And again, I am not saying it is the best thing if simply being inspired is the only reason one has (but I also don't think there are many people for whom that is true). But it is still, and let me say it one more time so that I can be sure you'll understand me, not nearly so frakking idiotic as not voting for Obama because he is a Muslim. And you equated them.

And I can think of many uninspiring people who made it to office. So another reason McCain is thoroughly ****ed.

[scaeagles]

I say curious in that many of the reasons Scaeagles cites for disliking him are somewhat vague or seem based on a personal dislike or distrust of the man.

???? Do I need to post a laundry list?

Raising taxes, whether income or capital gains
What he would do to health care
his energy policies (or lack thereof)
his tremendous lack of experience

Do I need to go on? Would you classify those as vague?

[Alex]

Wait, you mean there are actual specific issues with which Obama is inspiring millions of people who aren't you and agree with him? Those idiots, I thought they were just going based on a beautiful smile and fancy words.

[scaeagles]

But it is awfully elitist of you to decide that simply because someone is inspired they are an idiot.

Didn't say that. I said voting for someone simply because they inspire you akin to not voting for someone because they scare you. Which is what the whole Muslim thing really is....not voting for him because they find that scary.

[Alex]

Also, apparently McCain is a bit inspired too (http://www.thenewargument.com/?p=239).

[scaeagles]

Wait, you mean there are actual specific issues with which Obama is inspiring millions of people who aren't you and agree with him? Those idiots, I thought they were just going based on a beautiful smile and fancy words.

Read my earlier post. I said earlier that there are people who will vote for Obama just because he says "hope" and "change" when they have no idea what his policies are. I don't think i said anyone here is in that category. Just like no one here said I was in the category of not voting for Obama because I think he is a Muslim.

It sure seems as if you are going to great lengths to find offense. Certainly there are stupid voters on both sides. That's all I said.

[wendybeth]

Another thing- much has been said about Obama being 'arrogant', etc. I think it's bull****, much along the lines of confident, ambitious women who get labeled 'b i t c h e s' while their male peers are referred to as 'take-charge' or 'self-assured', etc. The man is articulate, intelligent and doesn't drag his knuckles when he walks, which I know is a huge departure from our current leader. It's a nice change.

[Alex]

I'm not offended (I'm definitely in neither of the camps; and in case that was an implication that I'm standing up for my woman, neither is Lani). I just think you said something stupid and are swinging wildly to avoid admitting it.

[scaeagles]

I don't see why it is stupid to say that there are people who will vote for Obama simply because he says hope and change. Why is that stupid?

[innerSpaceman]

Because there's a difference between just swallowing brand slogans and actually being even vaguely inspired by a few sound bites of what's behind them.

Do you really think there a number of voters who listen to their master's voice and vote like pups whenever they hear the sounds "hope," "change" or "food"?



I think what's stupid is you continuing to bait Alex on this subject. He's explained his points quite eloquently and in plainly understood terms. Why do you insist on misrepresenting what he is saying?

[scaeagles]

Another thing- much has been said about Obama being 'arrogant', etc. I think it's bull****, much along the lines of confident, ambitious women who get labeled 'b i t c h e s' while their male peers are referred to as 'take-charge' or 'self-assured', etc. The man is articulate, intelligent and doesn't drag his knuckles when he walks, which I know is a huge departure from our current leader. It's a nice change.

So here we go.....criticism of Obama is seen as something akin to sexism (or racism) and can't be legitimate polciy wise.

Sorry, but anyone who claims to be the symbol of American greatness has some issues with arrogance. Some are fine with it, Alex even expects it.

Yes, he is certainly articulate and intelligent. For someone so taken aback by what you view as personal attacks against Obama, you sure hand them down to the current administration without much of a thought.

[scaeagles]

Why do you insist on misrepresenting what he is saying?

I'm not baiting him! I want to know why it is stupid to believe that there are voters who will vote for Obama without the slightest idea what the man stands for besides the two words! Why is that more ridiculous than GC saying that he thinks McCain will win because of the large contingency of voters are stupid enough to think Obama is Mulsim and therefore won't vote for him?

There are uninformed voters everywhere.

But I'll stop.

[Alex]

One more time, and please god who doesn't exist grant me the strength for it to really be the last time, it is not stupid to say that there are people who will vote for Obama simply because he inspires them. I'm sure such people exist. I'm sure there are more than 1 of them.

Now, here comes my point one more time. Here comes where I point out the stupidity you uttered and that I am objecting to (without being personally offended). I don't want to bold it again so I'll set it off in a little paragraph of its own. Hopefully Kevy will come along and quote it so that every once in a while you'll see it on the home page and have one more chance to understand it without me having to type it one more time. I encourage you to hightlight this next paragaph, type control-c, open Notepad, type control-p, then click print; take the resulting page and tape it to your bedroom ceiling so that while making sweet love to your wife she can see it up there and perhaps whisper it into your ear during that exquisite moment of orgasm when your mind is so completely blank that maybe it'll finally be clear. Here it is:

It is stupid to equate voting for Obama simply because he inspires you as being a similar stupidity as not voting for Obama because he is Muslim.

[scaeagles]

OK. Got it. Done with it. Not because I want to be or agree, but because I said I would be.

[wendybeth]

Mucho Alex mojo.

[wendybeth]

So here we go.....criticism of Obama is seen as something akin to sexism (or racism) and can't be legitimate polciy wise.

Sorry, but anyone who claims to be the symbol of American greatness has some issues with arrogance. Some are fine with it, Alex even expects it.

Yes, he is certainly articulate and intelligent. For someone so taken aback by what you view as personal attacks against Obama, you sure hand them down to the current administration without much of a thought.

I have precedent on my side. You don't.

[JWBear]

So here we go.....criticism of Obama is seen as something akin to sexism (or racism) and can't be legitimate polciy wise.


The criticism has nothing to do with Obama's policy. It is an ad hominem attack.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

VAM, VAM, VAM.

[Gemini Cricket]

VAM, VAM, VAM.
Vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza?
Vitt Ariskt Motstånd?
Vehiculos Automotores Mexicanos?
Victoria and Albert Museum?
Virtual Anesthesia Machine?
Vinyl Acetate Monomer?
Vulnerability Assessment and Management?

[DreadPirateRoberts]

VisibleAlexMojo

[innerSpaceman]

Hahahahaha, there's an acronym for Visible Alex Mojo!!!


That deserves :) :) :) :) :cool: :cool: ;)

[sleepyjeff]

While the overall popular vote may be close poll wise, we all know that ain't particularly important. The electoral vote paints an extremely uphill battle for McCain.



Uphill, yes, but I'd hardly call it extreme. Right now in state by state polls Obama leads in what amounts to 289 electoral votes....which means McCain needs to take 20 of them.

17 of those electors belong to the State of Michigan, where Obama holds a very narrow lead of about 2%. Another 5 electors can be found in Nevada where Obama also holds a very narrow 2% lead. Those two states alone swings the election back to McCain(provided he holds onto all that he already has).

How to get those two states? Simple if you ask me.......Nevada has a very large Mormon population(even their Democrat US Senator is Mormon) and Michigan once had a governor named..............Romney.

[Alex]

Yes, but that assumes that while McCain flips a couple very tight, that Obama does not do the same.

A couple sites I've looked at that do some probability math put the odds of McCain pulling off the shifts necessary at 10% or less. Now, I'm perfectly aware of the muddiness of it all and that much can change. But I think the situation is that much must change for McCain to win.

For example, here is one site (http://www.270towin.com/) that uses current polling data to calculate that if held today McCain would have a 2% chance of winning. Click on Michigan and Nevada to give them to McCain and his chances go up to 20%.

Again, I am not saying things can't change, I'm just saying that currently the situation is not nearly so close as the media would have us to believe. But they have a vested interest in making races sound closer than they really are.

[sleepyjeff]

Yes, but that assumes that while McCain flips a couple very tight, that Obama does not do the same.




Yes, I suppose that's true and to be fair I didn't include any states Obama might gain thru a VP favorite son.

[Morrigoon]

I just found this YouTube clip that kind of summarizes Barack's approach (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4) to things. It starts getting good about 20 seconds in, so just sit through the dull bit.

[flippyshark]

Surely there is some sort of long distance 3 Stooges slap I can send you psychically for that.

[BarTopDancer]

Republicans for Obama (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080812/ts_alt_afp/usvoteobamarepublicans;_ylt=Aoidd3lKzl7vpyMAsD4JYL 6s0NUE).

Come on scaeagles, take the plunge.

[scaeagles]

I'm sure there's a dems for McCain org as well, but I'm not planning on researching.

[Alex]

Here's one group (http://www.dems4mccain.info/). Though they don't seem to be so much for McCain as pissed of about Clinton losing.

[sleepyjeff]

Funny stuff. Back in the 1980's Portland had a Democrat mayor who belonged to Democrats for Reagan.....his succesor, a Republican, supported Dukakis(yeah, I live in a weird city).

[Alex]

Bud Clark was a Republican?

[Morrigoon]

flippy - c'mon, ya gotta admire the amount of work that went into editing that!

[sleepyjeff]

Bud Clark was a Republican?

He was registered one.....but yeah, all of his actions were that of a left leaning populist with a touch of dementia.

[sleepyjeff]

Now, I'm perfectly aware of the muddiness of it all and that much can change. But I think the situation is that much must change for McCain to win.



Not as much as Bush needed to change on this date 4 years ago......and he still won.



http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Aug12.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Aug12.html

[flippyshark]

flippy - c'mon, ya gotta admire the amount of work that went into editing that!

Oh, you kids and your net memes. Yes, it's certainly more than just a rickroll, but, still, it's a rickroll. (I will actually admit that back when I first saw it, I was amused by this Beaker variation (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw1Bk5QLZic), but since then, I've just heard that damn song too many times.)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Oh, you kids and your net memes. Yes, it's certainly more than just a rickroll, but, still, it's a rickroll. (I will actually admit that back when I first saw it, I was amused by this Beaker variation (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw1Bk5QLZic), but since then, I've just heard that damn song too many times.)I kinda liked this one because the lyrics make sense in the context.

Now I think he should rickroll a crowd by getting up and saying the chorus as if it were a speech :D

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I guess this (http://www.thoseshirts.com/mic.html) is supposed to be an insult...

[Moonliner]

I guess this (http://www.thoseshirts.com/mic.html) is supposed to be an insult...

I don't get it. It must be racist.

[Tenigma]

I don't get it. It must be racist.
Hmmmm.... when you say something is "Micky Mouse" in a noncomplimentary way, it's referring to something being stupid or dumb, or too simple.

[scaeagles]

I think there was some sarcasm behind what Moonliner was saying, but don't want to speak for him.

[Moonliner]

Some days I do feel I need a translator....

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Tenigma is still learning the ways of the LoT ;)

[scaeagles]

I was waiting for this theory to come out....I didn't expect the source would be Russia, though.

Russians were told over breakfast yesterday what really happened in Georgia: the conflict in South Ossetia was part of a plot by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, to stop Barak Obama being elected president of the United States.

Link to the whole story (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4535173.ece)

[sleepyjeff]

I was waiting for this theory to come out....I didn't expect the source would be Russia, though.



Link to the whole story (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4535173.ece)

What they won't say is that the real reason they attacked Georgia was to distract their population away from the Olympics....it wasn't so long ago when the question wasn't if they would finish 1st in the medal count but by how much.....now they are struggling to finish in 4th;)

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't see that as much more of a fiction than, say, telling the Iraqi citizenry that we were there to liberate them and protect them from the terrorist threats that are trying to turn their country into a hive of evil.

Anyone (or government) that is willing to make the decision to begin a war is fully capable of lying. Once you've decided that you're so right that you give the thumbs up to action that is going to kill people who are not currently threatening your life to achieve your goal, lying is hardly going to keep you up at night. It's the reason that I automatically take credibility points away from anyone who advocates unprovoked acts of military aggression.

[scaeagles]

I suppose the definition of provocation varies from individual to individual, case by case. But to put credibility in this being plot by Dick Cheney to provoke to Russians is....well, unwarranted. Theories always abound, evidence is often lacking. This is spoken as someone who has his share of conspiracy theories, though.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't lend it credibility, no more so than I lend credibility to the flimsy propaganda stories our government wove to justify our presence in Iraq.

Unless you expect me to be shocked that a military aggressor is resorting to propaganda?

[scaeagles]

Yeah....which is why I said provocation is defined differently.

[Tom]

I guess this (http://www.thoseshirts.com/mic.html) is supposed to be an insult...

I took it to mean that Obama will make America the happiest place on earth.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yeah....which is am why I said provocation is defined differently.
Fine, I'll remove the "aggressor" part of it.

Our government has lied to the Iraqi people about their motivation for being there, about the nature of external threats to their country, and about future intentions for military presence in their county. Anyone waging war is making the decision that their purposes are righteous enough to kill soldiers and innocent people for. Lies are nothing after that.

[Tenigma]

Tenigma is still learning the ways of the LoT ;)

Mmm yesh, I am but a grasshoppah.

Wax in, wax out.

[Tenigma]

Oh hey by the way, Obama's now http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/external_organizing/gG5F3T]gone mobile!

While having a WAP-enabled section of your Web site isn't necessarily revolutionary, I believe it *is* for a presidential candidate.

The easiest way to connect is to text 62262 with the word SITE in the message. You get an automated response with the URL.

Otherwise, both http://m.barackobama.com and http://obamamobile.mobi/ will both get you there.

Also, you can download free wallpapers for your phone, and sign up to be one of the first to find out when he announces his veep selection.

[Psst: By the way, those wallpapers? Perfect size for an avatar!]

[Moonliner]

Mmm yesh, I am but a grasshoppah.

Wax in, wax out.

I believe the quote is "Wax on, wax off" unless you are talking about something else altogether.

[Tenigma]

I believe the quote is "Wax on, wax off" unless you are talking about something else altogether.
D'oh! I've been pwned.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Repair for Tenigma's link (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/external_organizing/gG5F3T).

[Cadaverous Pallor]

D'oh! I've been pwned.And here I thought you were being sarcastic, purposely getting the quote wrong...

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Ok, can't help but post this.

http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/

http://hillaryismomjeans.com/

Hit refresh, refresh, refresh. Endlessly entertaining.

[BarTopDancer]

Ok, can't help but post this.

http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/

http://hillaryismomjeans.com/

Hit refresh, refresh, refresh. Endlessly entertaining.

Aw3som3!

[scaeagles]

Obama really has stood up to Hillary well. Wonder how this (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/08/14/2008-08-14_barack_obama_blinks_in_hillary_faceoff.html) equates to how he'll stand up to world leaders when necessary.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Obama really has stood up to Hillary well. Wonder how this (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/08/14/2008-08-14_barack_obama_blinks_in_hillary_faceoff.html) equates to how he'll stand up to world leaders when necessary.
Unless this is a sign that she'll be the running mate.

[Alex]

"Conservative columnists finds flaw in Obama's political gamesmanship!"

Film at 11.

Ignoring the question of the wisdom of how he's handling the convention, it really does seem silly to seriously suggest that how Obama pursues party unity is a good indicator of future foreign policy. Kind of like saying that recent experience suggests that if McCain is faced with a charismatic opponent on the global stage he'll respond by giving poorly attended speeches at supermarkets.

[sleepyjeff]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Aug15.html

Nevada, Colorado; latest poll has them going for McCain now.

This is looking more and more like August of 2004, where Kerry had a huge lead over Bush entering the month only to see it completely vanish by labor day.

[scaeagles]

Unless this is a sign that she'll be the running mate.

I just don't see that happening, but who knows? If I'm President I don't want Hillary as my VP. I already think LBJ was behind/involved with JFK's assassination.

And Alex, while what you said is certainly valie, this assumes that Hillary Clinton is an ally. Hillary Clinton is an adversary who is interested in herself, not party unity.

[Alex]

Where did I make any assumption of Hillary Clinton being an ally?

[scaeagles]

I drew that conclusion. For Obama to be interested in party unity and extend a rather large olive branch to Hillary, that would seem say that Obama believes that Hillary is interested in party unity. While offering an olive branch to enemies is fine, you don't give up so much to one that isn't interested in peace. Either that or he's giving away a lot in hope that she doesn't stab him in the back. I think that's not a wise thing to do with the Clintons.

[innerSpaceman]

Um, he's offereing the Olive Branch to Hillary's substantial army of supporters, whom he NEEDS to have a remote hope of winning the election.

[Tenigma]

I hate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That is all. Move along.

[sleepyjeff]

I just don't see that happening, but who knows? If I'm President I don't want Hillary as my VP. I already think LBJ was behind/involved with JFK's assassination.




It's gotta make one wonder if the latest friend of Bill to die(Democratic Party Chairman of Arkansas was murdered a couple of days ago) was somehow, someway, in Hillary's path:D

[scaeagles]

Um, he's offereing the Olive Branch to Hillary's substantial army of supporters, whom he NEEDS to have a remote hope of winning the election.

Agreed. But in doing so he gave Hillary basically what she wanted. And this in no way means she's going to play nice and throw real support behind him. Her supporters will certainly recognize (and I believe have) the lack of genuineness in her support.

[Gn2Dlnd]

I hate Hillary Rodham Clinton.


Oh, that's just because you don't want to see women succeed!

*ducks*

[innerSpaceman]

Actually, Hillary has already raised half a million dollars for Obama, per a mutual pledge to do that for each other. And he has so far reneged on his part of that deal.

[lashbear]

isn't this election over yet ?? *sheesh*

you usa'ns shore do hayav lawng erect elections....

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Agreed. But in doing so he gave Hillary basically what she wanted. And this in no way means she's going to play nice and throw real support behind him. Her supporters will certainly recognize (and I believe have) the lack of genuineness in her support.So you're saying that instead of being the bigger person and being nice to her in an attempt to bring the Clinton supporters home, he should give her and her supporters the cold shoulder? How is that supposed to help?

Oh wait, that's Republican foreign policy. I see your "logic". :p

isn't this election over yet ?? *sheesh*

you usa'ns shore do hayav lawng erect elections....Technically, the election hasn't begun yet. The conventions kick it off, and that's not until late August. The "season" started ridiculously early this time around.

Actually, Hillary has already raised half a million dollars for Obama, per a mutual pledge to do that for each other. And he has so far reneged on his part of that deal.Link? I hadn't heard this.

[scaeagles]

So you're saying that instead of being the bigger person and being nice to her in an attempt to bring the Clinton supporters home, he should give her and her supporters the cold shoulder? How is that supposed to help?

Oh wait, that's Republican foreign policy. I see your "logic". :p




Big, big difference between being nice and capitulating to demands in the interests of getting along.

And I feel like I need to take a shower. You quoted me and attributed it to ISM.

[Tenigma]

Actually, Hillary has already raised half a million dollars for Obama, per a mutual pledge to do that for each other. And he has so far reneged on his part of that deal.
You know, people were really complaining about this well before Hillary conceded--people I know who have been actively donating and fundraising for Obama's campaign has zero interest in helping Clinton pay off her debts.

I mean, if you had a neighbor who kept leaving bags of burning dog poo at your door, trying to splash acid on your car, played loud music at all hours of the night on speakers faced at your bedroom...

and then one day, your neighbor accidentally burnt down her house because she was trying to put together a row of molotov cocktails to throw at your garage when she tripped and lit up her own house, I mean, do you REALLY want to help her pay for her home repairs?

[wendybeth]

Thank you, Tenigma, for so clearly and humorously illustrating my thoughts on the matter. Obama owes Hillary zip- she's a snake who will turn around and act true to nature whenever possible, and the thought of her having any part of an Obama Administration makes me a bit ill. I wish I could like her more, but she keeps doing sneaky, destructive things that lead me to believe that she will not be a graceful loser and will continue to divide the party in the coming months. I don't know how Obama can achieve unity with her behaving like she has- it really is up to her to step up to the plate.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, so it's ok for him to just break his word, because he now feels she's undeserving? And how it it any less duplicitious and snakelike of him to go back on a pledge for such illegitimate reasons as HE dedided he no longer owes the money he promised to raise in return for the money SHE promised to raise and already DID for him?


That's not even good enough for my ex-boyfriend, much less the next president of the United States.


Pfft.

[scaeagles]

When you make deals with snakes you should expect to get bitten. not a snake example, but the whole fable of the scorpion and the frog comes to mind.

I can't speak to or of his motivations, but I think it clearly demonstrates something about him in how he will deal with opposition to the US. I'm sure there will be cries that this is a ridiculous example, but I don't think it is. He is dealing with someone who has been an opponent and has demonstrated little integrity. In the interests of unity and her support, he gives away something he probably shouldn't have, and now has to deal with the ramifications. And I would suppose that she isn't going to be giving him the kind of support and cheerleading he is expecting.

[Alex]

It's not a ridiculous example, it is a ridiculous analogy.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, maybe she won't give him the king of support he's expecting, but she DID give him the $500,000 in fund-raising she promised. How is it remotely ok for him to break his part of that deal?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Big, big difference between being nice and capitulating to demands in the interests of getting along.

And I feel like I need to take a shower. You quoted me and attributed it to ISM.I think I was going to quote him, and the tags got jumbled - sorry! :)

Allowing the Clintons to speak at the Democratic National Convention is expected, not "capitulating to demands". I'd be very dismayed if they did not have a voice in the convention. That would be seriously rude.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Well, maybe she won't give him the king of support he's expecting, but she DID give him the $500,000 in fund-raising she promised. How is it remotely ok for him to break his part of that deal?A deal is a deal. I know nothing about this deal (still no links) but if they made a deal, both need to stick to it.

[Alex]

Well, maybe she won't give him the king of support he's expecting, but she DID give him the $500,000 in fund-raising she promised. How is it remotely ok for him to break his part of that deal?

I'm not able to find anything on the amount of fundraising he promised her. Would you be able to point me to anything discussing it?

I believe the point is that if nobody wants to donate to Clinton there isn't exactly much he can do about it short of taking money out of his campaign and giving it to her.

And you have to admit that it must be a hard sell: Please give money to this person you didn't support in the first place, money that won't go to anything advancing your political agenda, so that she can pay back the people who worked for her.

But I have no idea what was promised and what efforts, if any, he made to generate money for her.

[scaeagles]

I have read theories as to that was what was promised to her by Obama, at her request, but that nothing (of course) was in writing as to their arrangement. It is only theory and I don't think anyone knows for certain.

[scaeagles]

Off the wall prediction....

Obama will choose Colin Powell as his running mate. If he does, he wins easily. It has been rumoed Powell will b endorsing Obama, but it hasn't happened yet, and I believe this may be why.

Completely from left field, but I could see it happening. Guess we'll find out today.

[scaeagles]

I admit to not seeing it, but the general consensus seems to be that Obama got his butt kicked at the question and answer session a few day ago at wherever it was. So much so that there were accusations of cheating form the Obama. (Looking for a crybaby smilie but can't find one...hehehe)

And considering how Obama said he'd debate Mccain "anywhere, anytime", he sure has avoided the "town hall"meetings McCain has been asking for.

Obama has a lot of work to do before the official debates start.

[Alex]

There was only one question asked at Saddlebrook (or Saddlecreek or Saddlestream or Saddlesore or whatever the heck it is called) that the audience really cared about and it was stacked against Obama since the audience wasn't going to accept any other answer than that life begins and attains full human rights at conception.

All of the other questions asked were just fluff so far as the audience for that event was concerned.

[scaeagles]

Really? From what I've read there were questions regarding national defense and what is "evil", some character questions (like the hardest decision you've ever had to make).....I don't think it was all fluff for that audience in the least, but indeed I agree that the most pointed question was the abortion issue. But Obama's answer on that was a complete sell out. "Above my pay grade"???? C'mon dude - the POTUS is the top of the food chain (and yes, I realize that the President doesn't decide this issue, it is decided in the courts, but there is nothing above the "pay grade" of the POTUS). Have the balls to say what you believe.

[Alex]

Yes, fluff. They may be interested in what he has to say on that other stuff, but the only way for those other questions to impact their choice for president (for most in that audience) is by answering that question "correctly." Since he didn't, his answers to everything else were irrelevant.

And you're right that his answer was a bit of a sell out but in the opposite way you say. His "pay grade" comment was a desperate shout out to god in a feeble attempt to construct his "wrong" answer in a way that might get a handful of people in that audience to swallow it.

[scaeagles]

That's exactly how I meant it. He was afraid to answer it honestly.

And I don't understand the concept of answering the question for those in that specific audience. As if every question and answer wasn't going to be known outside that audience that was in the auditorium?

[Strangler Lewis]

That's exactly how I meant it. He was afraid to answer it honestly.

And I don't understand the concept of answering the question for those in that specific audience. As if every question and answer wasn't going to be known outside that audience that was in the auditorium?

I thought his answer was fine. He said he supports Roe[,/I] which with its trimester approach, pretty well sums up how a lot of people feel about abortion, i.e., they can support it without reservation in the early stages of a pregnancy, but the "ick" factor increases as time passes. (This, of course, is one reason why [I]Roe looks more like sensible legislation than constitutional interpretation.) He then said he supported a ban on late term abortions with an exception for the health of the mother.

McCain said "life begins at conception," but lots of pro-choice people believe this, and it really doesn't resolve the constitutional questions.

[scaeagles]

On the Constitutional question, it's interesting that Scalia doesn't think that the writers of the Constitution ever meant for it to cover the unborn. He just thinks Roe is unconstitutional.

[Strangler Lewis]

Then let's, quick, amend the Constitution to include an explicit--but nonetheless vaguely contoured--right to privacy and see if he holds to it. He might.

[Tom]

I will find it interesting to see how McCain squares his unequivocal stance that life begins at conception with his support of embryonic stem cell research.

And the accounts I read of the forum said that both candidates did very well, though they gave the edge to McCain. I got no sense of a butt-kicking.

[Ghoulish Delight]

From the clips I saw, I thought Obama did an excellent job of addressing that audience (and by that audience I mean the wider religious audience that would have been paying attention to the event, not just those in the auditorium). He seemed pretty adept at both referencing the biblical precedent for certain moralities while presenting stances that didn't require buying into biblical truth to agree with. And there was at least one instance where he said what sounded like a fairly striaght forward sentence that illicited an enthusiastic response from the audience, which I figued must mean it was one of those coded phrases that the republicans have been so adept at slipping into their rhetoric. I don't particularly like the tactic, but as long as his positions remain secularly defensible, if pandering a bit to the fundies wins the election I can't be too upset about it.

[Strangler Lewis]

What's the secular defense in your mind for "Marriage is between a man and a woman?"

[Ghoulish Delight]

What's the secular defense in your mind for "Marriage is between a man and a woman?"Yeah, he's not perfect. I've said from the beginning I'm not in 100% alignment with him. I'm barely in 100% alignment with myself though, so it's a bit unreasonable to expect to find a candidate that I agree with absolutely everything on.

[Morrigoon]

Just to clarify, Alex: Saddleback Church

I watched some of the interviews on MSNBC (I think that's who was showing them). Interesting stuff. I took the "pay grade" comment to mean that he's not a scientist who is able to study the progress of a fetus, nor a religious scholar. But it did come off very badly.

I'm also a little peeved at his response to the question about marriage. Not that I'm really surprised, because almost all high-ranking Democrats take the coward's road when it comes to gay marriage. (eg: marriage betw. man & woman but supports civil unions)

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

Savage Dragon endorses Barack Obama
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=17760


As reported in the New York Times, a former presidential candidate will give his endorsement for this years' race in SAVAGE DRAGON #137, as the titular character supports Democratic nominee, Barack Obama!

"Four years ago the Dragon was a reluctant presidential candidate," SAVAGE DRAGON creator Erik Larsen said. "Fans have asked if he'll be running again, but given the importance of the upcoming election it seemed appropriate that he would back Barack Obama, the candidate whose politics most reflect his own. Savage Dragon will be giving Barack Obama his full support."

Savage Dragon made his initial play for the presidential election in the 2004 campaign, but rescinded once the man claiming to be his running mate turned out to be Dreadknight, a supervillain bent on world domination. SAVAGE DRAGON #137 will sport a special 1:5 variant cover featuring Dragon formally endorsing the one candidate he is confident is not a potential nemesis, Barack Obama.


Cover image here > http://www.comicbookresources.com/prev_img.php?disp=img&pid=1219159644

[Sub la Goon]

^ Now we know he can't lose.

He may not have the God of the Christian Right in his corner, but Obama has Savage Dragon!

(now to find out who/what the heck Savage Dragon is)

[BarTopDancer]

Toby Keith is a registered Democrat (http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/08/wtf-toby-keith.html) and likes Obama, not McCain.

[scaeagles]

How can a racist (see other Toby Keith lynching thread) like Obama???? I'm shocked, and certainly hope there is an immediate distancing by Obama.

Shocked.

[Strangler Lewis]

Well, from what I've found, he supported and contributed to Bush and to the RNC. Maybe he's one of those Dennis Prager/Joe Lieberman Democrats who likes to use it as a rhetorical device. I don't know how he could be for Obama unless he's decided that the Iraq war, er, ass-kicking, was a mistake. I suppose he could be one of those Frank Sinatra types who goes for the glamor--first the Kennedys, then the Reagans.

And none of it makes the debated song any less icky.

[katiesue]

Well according to his My Space (http://www.myspace.com/tobykeith) he does not support the war in Iraq rather the troops and the song was in support of invading Afganastan.

Sean Penn was accepting a humanatarian award from a freedom of speech organization recently and said Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Toby Keith should be held accountable now that the war in Iraq has gone astray. He's lumping me in with these guys when my song clearly, word for word, indicated my support for the invastion of Afghanistan.

Now the difference between me and Sean Penn is that I've talked to 50 generals. I doubt he's even talked to one. I didn't support the war in Iraq and still don't, but I'm sure I know more about it than he does.

[BarTopDancer]

The Angry America (Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue) was released prior to our [2nd] invasion of Iraq. It was a song released in response to 9/11. We debated that song back on the Pad.

[Strangler Lewis]

I know the other song was about Afghanistan. I was talking about the lynching song.

If he didn't support the war in Iraq, good for him. Has he taken as public a stand on this as he has on global warming? Further, it's not readily apparent how one can hold that position and support Bush's reelection. It's all very well to say "I support our troops." However, in this sound byte world, unless you say "Support our troops. Bring 'em home," expressions of support for the troops are going to be interpreted--by his audience--as support for the president and the war.

And the lifelong (northern) Democrats I grew up around don't drive tough trucks.

[BarTopDancer]

Obviously you've never heard of Southern Democrats. I didn't bring it up again to start debating Beer for my Horses. Nor do I think anyone is going to change their opinion or their vote based upon a celebrities endorsement or disdain.

We're an intelligent group. But the absolutes of what's right and what's wrong with no shades of gray are becoming more and more. Deviation from what the groupthink is is frowned upon, and when someone makes a statement that deviates from the norm the person is pounced on; even when that statement is agreeing with what someone else said.

[Strangler Lewis]

When you embrace Southern Democrats, do you mean liberals who live in the south and drive trucks or southerners who are the opposite of Lincoln-like Republicans, i.e., they opposed civil rights legislation (Ervin, Fulbright, Wallace, etc.)

[BarTopDancer]

Democrats who live in the south and drive trucks. Or Democrats who drive trucks, period. I know several.

Just because you don't know any Democrats who drive trucks doesn't mean they don't exist.

One can't expect to agree with every single issue their particular party supports [anymore]. One has to pick the party that works best for them.

While I am way more liberal leaning then it may appear with my love of southern guys, and country music, the closed mindedness that is glaring through on LoT (more than normal) to anything that isn't all Democrat or all liberal all the time is frustrating and annoying. Varying opinions used to be welcomed and debated. Now they are attacked. It seems that we've lost our sense of community, and sense of humor. Attack, attack, jump, attack is what political and anything that isn't fluff have become. It's sad too.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm a democrat and I sometimes drive a truck.


Apparently I must spread some more mojo before giving some to BarTopDancer again, but she is right on the money. Let's lighten up and allow more free freedom of expression and opinion. It's good for all of us.



(I'm probably as guilty as any of getting too high-handed)

[sleepyjeff]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Aug20.html

Anyone still think Obama has this thing locked up?

Check out the "on this day in 2004 button" at the link if you do:)

[Alex]

Yes, I do (though not "locked up" just in a position of significant advantage). And I think the "on this day" page bolsters my case.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, let's pay attention to McCain's VP choice. Because if he wins and the Oval Office continues to age its occupants at the alarming rate it has during my entire lifetime, John will be dead long before his first term ends.

[sleepyjeff]

Yes, I do (though not "locked up" just in a position of significant advantage). And I think the "on this day" page bolsters my case.

How so?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

And the lifelong (northern) Democrats I grew up around don't drive tough trucks.Wow. Nice of you to shut the door in the face of some people maybe trying a new vote on for size. What a prejudiced inference - that people driving "tough trucks" can't agree with you on anything. Embracing divisiveness isn't going to fix any problems.

I don't agree with a lot of what the party stands for, but I'm giving them my vote. I know you probably won't appreciate my support either.

Visible BTD mojo for defending the purple.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Aug20.html

Anyone still think Obama has this thing locked up?

Check out the "on this day in 2004 button" at the link if you do:)Reagan and Carter were running neck and neck until the end, when Reagan won in a landslide. One pundit's mention of this: (http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/07/23/obama-mccain-reagan-carter/)
...but the fact is that this election resembles nothing so much as the 1980 race between Carter and Reagan — with Obama as Reagan. By the summer of that year, voters were so down on Carter and the Democrats that they desperately wanted to send them packing, but weren’t sure they could afford to do so.

Carter actually led in most polls through the summer and into the early fall because voters didn’t know if they could actually vote for Reagan, who’d been framed by his opponents as a bomb-throwing lunatic who might plunge us into war if he ever got near the button. By fall, however, as the results of the debates and the opportunity to take Reagan’s measure had settled in, voters finally got comfortable with the idea of him in the Oval Office. When that happened, the bottom fell out, Carter was gone and a lot of Democratic senators and congressmen got sent packing along with him.

This year is shaping up the same way, only this time it’s the Republicans voters want to fire. And this time, it’s the Democratic nominee they are not quite sure they can put in the Oval Office.

I would maintain that Obama has a higher mountain to scale than did Reagan, but the challenge is the same. If at any point between now and Election Day voters decide they can actually trust him as president, they’ll give him the job and the close race today’s polls seem to be predicting will turn into a Democratic landslide.

Yes, just punditry, no claims to prescience from me. We'll see how it goes...

[scaeagles]

Interesting take. Couple issues with that....first, it's a month old, when Obama regularly had a 6-7 point lead on McCain. Zogby today a 5 pt lead for McCain, with others 1-2 pts either way. Also, Carter was the incumbant, and try as they might, I don't think Obama has been that successful at linking McCain to Bush, which is what the above theory must rely on.

1980 also had a huge impact of John Anderson. His support was pretty high for a thrid party candidate until late, when he ended up only pulling 5%, and all those who had supported him went to Reagan (well, virutally). The exodus didn't happen until late October. That factor isn't there in this race.

[Strangler Lewis]

Wow. Nice of you to shut the door in the face of some people maybe trying a new vote on for size. What a prejudiced inference - that people driving "tough trucks" can't agree with you on anything. Embracing divisiveness isn't going to fix any problems.

I don't agree with a lot of what the party stands for, but I'm giving them my vote. I know you probably won't appreciate my support either.

Visible BTD mojo for defending the purple.

I bet I've done more industrial, day labor jobs than either of y'all.

When there was need, I have rented many a truck. Even some 22-footers. I do think the actual owning of a gas-eating truck when there is not need is a macho affectation akin to displaying yourself in a Ferrari as you crawl through L.A. freeways. In Europe, most of the vehicles on the road are small, yet the home improvement stores still seem to flourish.

But that aside, my comment on trucks was:
1) a joke, and
2) an observation in support of my view that, his protestations to the contary notwithstanding, all the public signals that Toby Keith gives off scream Republican hardass.

[sleepyjeff]

Reagan and Carter were running neck and neck until the end, when Reagan won in a landslide. One pundit's mention of this: (http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/07/23/obama-mccain-reagan-carter/)


Yes, just punditry, no claims to prescience from me. We'll see how it goes...

Well, isn't that my point? I am not saying Obama's going to lose I am saying there is no way, judging by current polls, Obama has this locked up....far from it in my opinioin.

Edit to add:

I find it interesting that this pundit uses the Reagan Carter contest as a device to prove his point but needs to assign Obama the spot of the Republican in order to carry this off.......when the fact is, Democrats tend to peak in July polls then slide downwards from there(Obama is a Democrat, not a Republican).

~Kerry; ahead by 7% in July lost by 3% in November

~Gore; ahead by 2% in July lost by 0% in November

~Clinton; behind by 7% in July but did win in November by 5%(guess he's the exception to the rule)

~Dukakis; ahead by 6% in July lost by 8% in November

~Carter; down only by 3% in July but lost by 10% in November

~Carter; up by 33% in July and only won by 3% in November

~Humphrey; up by 5% in JUly and lost by 1% in November

~Kennedy; up by 6% in July but only won by 1/5 of 1% in November

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I find it interesting that this pundit uses the Reagan Carter contest as a device to prove his point but needs to assign Obama the spot of the Republican in order to carry this off.......when the fact is, Democrats tend to peak in July polls then slide downwards from there(Obama is a Democrat, not a Republican).Really? A Democrat? Thank goodness for your parenthetical.

You did read the quote, right? I'm not sure because your statement isn't addressing it. Should I restate it in parenthesis?

[sleepyjeff]

Really? A Democrat? Thank goodness for your parenthetical.

You did read the quote, right? I'm not sure because your statement isn't addressing it. Should I restate it in parenthesis?

I read the quote...but will admit that I have a new word to look up now;)

[Alex]

Keep in mind it is parenthetical, not parentethical. The latter usually involves whether it is ok to spank.

[sleepyjeff]

Keep in mind it is parenthetical, not parentethical. The latter usually involves whether it is ok to spank.

I am surrounded by wordsmiths.

[Alex]

Was that a fat joke?

[sleepyjeff]

Was that a fat joke?

No. Did it come off as one?

[Alex]

~Kerry; ahead by 7% in July lost by 3% in November
~Gore; ahead by 2% in July lost by 0% in November
.....

How's that using historical trends working for you in predicting the course of the current election (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?p=110744)?

As for your earlier question to me, I really don't want to end up typing a 10-page analysis that just gets tossed with a "phhht" so I'll just say to look at the key difference between the current polling and the Kerry polling from 4 years ago.

Back in 2004 Kerry did have a big lead if you assumed every state polling in his favor would be won by him. However, almost 60% of those electoral votes were in the "weakly Dem" category meaning they were within the margin of error and that a very small general shift could move them over to Bush. Which, for the most part did happen. Comparatively Bush had only 26% in a similar at risk position.

This year the situation is reversed. Of Obama's 264 electoral votes on that map, only 5% are in the extremely at risk camp. There are really only two states currently polling for Obama that could shift to McCain with just a small change. Conversely, more than 30% of McCain's votes are extremely at risk. McCain really only has one easy significant easy state to take from Obama (Minnesota, plus another small one) while Obama has four available (plus another three small ones): Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado.

McCain has to hold everything he has, even the stuff currently in his camp only because of statistical noise plus win Minnesota (which I really don't see giong to him).

So, despite the apparent closeness, I really don't think it is all that close at the moment. Yes, it might change. There just isn't reason beyond the gambler's fallacy to assume it will.


Damn, ended up blathering on anyway. I have no brake.

[sleepyjeff]

McCain has to hold everything he has, even the stuff currently in his camp only because of statistical noise plus win Minnesota (which I really don't see giong to him).

So, despite the apparent closeness, I really don't think it is all that close at the moment. Yes, it might change. There just isn't reason beyond the gambler's fallacy to assume it will.





Fair enough, and speaking of gambler's the current line does have Obama with a 60% chance of winning to McCains 38%....so your point is well taken.

[sleepyjeff]

^Correction, as of this morning Obama is listed at 58% chance of winning...oddly enough though, McCains chances did not increase with Obamas decrease.

[scaeagles]

Really? A Democrat? Thank goodness for your parenthetical.

You did read the quote, right? I'm not sure because your statement isn't addressing it. Should I restate it in parenthesis?

Why so snarky?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Why so snarky?Nothing irks me more than a "response" that doesn't address the post it's responding to...AND insults my intelligence at the same time. All's forgiven, sleepyj, no worries.

And this is why I don't post in political threads every day. Gotta watch my blood pressure. :)

[sleepyjeff]

Nothing irks me more than a "response" that doesn't address the post it's responding to...AND insults my intelligence at the same time. All's forgiven, sleepyj, no worries.



Nah, it's I who probably owes you an apology......I came into this thread with the intention of posting that before I even entered the room; instead of posting it by itself I decided it kinda fit as a response to your post; I suppose it didn't and for that I am sorry.

As for the insulting ( ), that was really aimed at the pundit you were quoting not you.....I don't think I am capable of insulting anyones intelligence here since I often find myself intimidated and in awe of how smart just about everyone here is and would never consider any of you my intellectual inferior.

[Strangler Lewis]

"A successful dump!’ Biden proclaimed when asked if he had anything to report. ... ‘I got a second load. Anybody that wants to help me and load, let me know.’”

Undignified? Perhaps. But perhaps also just part of the senator’s regular-guy demeanor.


Yes, he was talking about a trip to drop off dead wood, but I want my Veep to be more self-aware of unintended double entendres.

[scaeagles]

If that's Obama's Veep, just wait until the quotes from early in the campaign start flying....Biden slammed on Obama worse than and republican. I don't see it being Biden for just that reason.

[innerSpaceman]

I don't see it being Biden because he's the one I like of the three apparent finalists.

[Tom]

Yes, he was talking about a trip to drop off dead wood, but I want my Veep to be more self-aware of unintended double entendres.

I didn't think it was unintended at all.

[scaeagles]

So Obama says yesterday -

"Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business, you're starting to think, 'Beijing looks like a pretty good option.'"



Is he serious? Beijing is among, if not itself, the most polluted city in the world. They built this infrastructure specifically for the Olympics and for the image it would portray. The slums get no play. He has completely bought into the propaganda coming from the Olympics. This does not even mention how they built this infrastructure, with the displacement of thousands of people (if not hundreds of thousands) and ignoring devastating infrastructure issues that exist in other areas, such as the earthquake zone. Something tells me Obama wouldn't be keen on building up one American city at the expense of the much of the rest of the country getting nothing.

Also, just as one insane example in that quote, wasn't it just in December that over 500,000 people were stranded for weeks because the train system broke down?

And this is not to be critical of Obama, but it has come out the Hillary was never even investigated as a VP candidate. While I can't imagine that he would have ever considered her, I think it was a huge mistake not to make it appear as if he had. That's gonna be a huge slap in the face of the already disgruntled Hillary supporters.

[sleepyjeff]

Intrade.com has Biden at 60.1. That's 5 times greater than any single other VP hopeful.

Drop down $600 and make a cool $400 over night if you think he's a sure thing;)

[Alex]

Is he serious? Beijing is among, if not itself, the most polluted city in the world. They built this infrastructure specifically for the Olympics and for the image it would portray. The slums get no play. He has completely bought into the propaganda coming from the Olympics. This does not even mention how they built this infrastructure, with the displacement of thousands of people (if not hundreds of thousands) and ignoring devastating infrastructure issues that exist in other areas, such as the earthquake zone. Something tells me Obama wouldn't be keen on building up one American city at the expense of the much of the rest of the country getting nothing.

Can you point to the source of the quote so I can see the context? Because your rebuttal doesn't seem to directly have anything to do with what he said in quoted portion. He didn't say that the development of Beijing is something to be emulated he said it is something drawing the attention of business. Which is undeniably true.

But maybe there was something in the surrounding statement that gives it a different tone.

That's gonna be a huge slap in the face of the already disgruntled Hillary supporters.

But wouldn't coddling her with a symbolic vetting not have been another indicator that he'd roll over at the first sign of Russian aggression?

The Obama camp response is that they spent 18 months vetting her so they could campaign against her and already know about her. Can't say how it'll play in terms of political wisdom but I don't imagine that anybody who refuses to vote for Obama because he didn't check her out will be mollified any by the knowledge that he had and then STILL didn't choose her.

On another topic, I caught part of MSNBC political coverage the other night and Chris Dodd (or Chuck Dodd or Larry Todd, anyway the readheaded goateed guy) was saying that about 80% of the people still labeling themselves as undecided in these polls are Hillary Clinton supporters.

Unless the only reason they were supporting Clinton is that she was a woman and that overruled their more conservative leanings, regardless of hurt feelings I don't really see them breaking for McCain in a large way.

[Kevy Baby]

I haven't been following this thread, so if this was mentioned earlier, I apologize.

There is an email circulating with some erroneous information about how taxes will skyrocket under Obama. The requisite Snopes link (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp).

[scaeagles]

My point with Obama and his praise of Beijing is that, well, he's praising Beijing. As far as context, you are correct in that he's saying why businesses would want to locate there, and of course it is deniable. The pollution is undeniable....how long do you think they will keep their factories shut down and the cars off the roads? Obama is suggesting that we need to look at the example of China and how they've invested in Beijing and do the same in our cities. What he doesn't either acknowledge or realize is the cost paid in Beijing and other areas in China to build stadiums and put more trains on the tracks.

I suppose we could also look to the Three Gorges Dam as an example of the superiority of China (he did use the term vastly superior), but that displaced well over 1 million people. Should the US do similar things? Mind you, I was pissed that imminent domain was used to evict a lady that had lived in her house in downtown Phoenix for 5 decades to build a freakin' baseball stadium.

Obama has taken the image of what has been shown on the Olympics and is touting it as what it is really like there. Honestly, I don't know why a business would look to what he's listed, note what he is ignoring, and decide to locate there.

Just my opinion.

[Ghoulish Delight]

He didn't say it was done ethically or without great cost (he started by pointing out how much they spent). All he's saying is that China has used the Olympic spotlight to make themselves VERY attractive to businesses, which is something we need to be aware of. He didn't say we should emulate it, he was just pointing it out because it's something that should be taken into account going forward.

[scaeagles]

I didn't take it like that at all.....uh, I suppose that's obvious, but in using words "vastly superior", it would seem like he is saying that we should emulate it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Should we emulate trying to improve our infrastructure? Absolutely. Do you seriously think he means we should do so by exploiting workers and displacing entire cities? That's not even an option in America, it would seem pretty self evident that it's not an option and I wouldn't expect any candidate to have to explicitly say, "We need to improve our infrastructure, but let's try to do it without being evil."

All he says in that quote is China improved their infrastructure and made themselves attractive to business in a world market. We need to react to that.

[scaeagles]

I don't think he needs to say "without being evil".

However, I think that he has bought into the propaganda. Perhaps it might have been prudent to acknowledge that it isn't the entire picture and we need to be aware of that as well.

[Tenigma]

However, I think that he has bought into the propaganda.

I am *shocked* that you feel this way. I mean, you, coming to your own conclusions about what he might be meaning? Shocked!

Reading the quote, I'm with GD on this one. "We need to stay competitive because we have countries like China that are working hard to try to make themselves as attractive as possible to businesses. Look at what they've done with the Beijing Olympics. We need to stay on our toes" is how I read it. He's basically stating the obvious... China set out to showcase itself with propaganda emanating from the Olympics. He's just pointing it out.

[scaeagles]

I'm not surprised that supporters of Obama come to differing conclusions (shocked!) than those who oppose him.

[Strangler Lewis]

I haven't read the remarks in their entirety, and I guess he was talking about infrastructure, but I'm surprised that someone urging this country to take steps to remain competitive with China isn't the nominee of the Republican party.

[Morrigoon]

The brilliance of Obama's Veep-announcement-by-text has just struck me. Forget all the other plebeians subscribing to the announcement, the real benefit comes from the threat of the average Joe "scooping" the media, therefore forcing the media to also subscribe to his updates, giving him several days of feeding his appearance dates directly to the necessary parties to ensure coverage (not that he needed *that* much help, but it's still smart as all heck).

[scaeagles]

Yeah....I'd guess the media already suscribes to his updates.

And it looks like it might be out already....apparently there's a KC printing company printing Obama/Bayh literature (according to the Drudge report). Of course, that might be a red herring.

[sleepyjeff]

Yeah....I'd guess the media already suscribes to his updates.

And it looks like it might be out already....apparently there's a KC printing company printing Obama/Bayh literature (according to the Drudge report). Of course, that might be a red herring.

That explains Bayhs surge at Intrade.com...he was at 12 bucks this morning and now is trading at over 30 dollars.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Yeah....I'd guess the media already suscribes to his updates.

And it looks like it might be out already....apparently there's a KC printing company printing Obama/Bayh literature (according to the Drudge report). Of course, that might be a red herring.No text yet.

[Tenigma]

And it looks like it might be out already....apparently there's a KC printing company printing Obama/Bayh literature (according to the Drudge report). Of course, that might be a red herring.

But then again, somewhere out there was a printing company who made a lot of New England Patriots SuperBowl Winners 2008 shirts, too. :D

[Tenigma]

The brilliance of Obama's Veep-announcement-by-text has just struck me. Forget all the other plebeians subscribing to the announcement, the real benefit comes from the threat of the average Joe "scooping" the media, therefore forcing the media to also subscribe to his updates, giving him several days of feeding his appearance dates directly to the necessary parties to ensure coverage (not that he needed *that* much help, but it's still smart as all heck).Mmm that, and also that this gave him a huge jump in subscribers. The thing is, these are people's cell phones, and most people don't give up their cell phone numbers easily. Now his campaign has millions (presumably; if not hundreds of thousands) of interested potential voters. By geographical location based on area code. He can send out directed text messages rolling up to and on election day to remind people to vote, and to get the word out to tell their friends to vote.

The way the campaign has embraced technology has been terrific. The other day, I got a text message (after I'd subscribed for his VP announcement) letting me know that the Obama Web site is now fully mobile compatible, and the text included a link. I was able to just select it and have my phone go to his mobile site, where for no charge, I was able to download a wallpaper for my phone. Now it has a little Obama logo as its wallpaper.

How cool is that?

[JWBear]

All the while, McCain is still trying to get used to those newfangled touch tone telephones. Those typewriters-with-TVs just confuse the heck out of him!

[scaeagles]

MSNBC has reported that Bayh and Kaine were told it isn't them. Interesting.

[sleepyjeff]

MSNBC has reported that Bayh and Kaine were told it isn't them. Interesting.

Yeah, Intrade had him over $30 earlier today; now he's down to under $2

Biden is up to $78+....looks like everyone is betting it's going to be him.

[sleepyjeff]

Biden is now at $88.

[Alex]

I wondered if, as it started to get close, I'd find myself caring about his selection despite myself.

Nope. It is still about #143 on the priority list of things I care about. Since McCain is so old, it moves up to #141 on his list. I care so little I haven't even bothered to look up who most of the people being mentioned as short list people are.

I'd care more about him announcing who his Secretary of HHS will be.

[Tom]

ABC news is reporting that a Secret Service detail has been sent to protect Joe Biden.

[innerSpaceman]

Uh-oh. i've always liked joe biden. could this mean actually voting for someone i like, instead of just for obama??

[scaeagles]

I actually think the secret service needs protection from Biden.

[Alex]

So, for the Obama camp, what will be the united response to the reminder of Joe Biden's embarrassments in '88 that killed his presidential bid that year? Or that, he may have been a worse student that Bush (C average, bottom decile in his law school class).

Not that there particularly significant, but considering the glee taken in bashing Bush with the same insignificancies, I'm sure it'll come up.

You can't argue he lacks political experience. You can argue that he lacks any other kind of experience. He finished his education in 1969, was elected to his first political office in 1970, staged a bit of an upset in a surprise senate run in 1973 and has held that office ever since.

Can't say I'm personally much familiar with him. Most of my awareness of him is from the Alito and Roberts hearings where he came off as the most pompous ass of a large group of pompous asses.

Biden is also currently running for re-election to his Senate seat. I assume he'll give that up (but he's not required to, is he?), but that would give Deleware only a couple months to rally behind a replacement Dem.

[BDBopper]

A very interesting choice by Obama. A candidate running on political change chooses a longtime Washington politician (even longer than McCain) as his running mate. I wonder how this will all turn out...

[sleepyjeff]

Biden is at $97.00 now.....so if you want to make a quick $300, just plunk down $9,700 on Biden to be the Dem VP; of course, if somehow it turns out Biden is not the guy.....:evil:

[JWBear]

CNN is reporting that he has been picked. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/23/biden.democrat.vp.candidate/)

[sleepyjeff]

Not too late to bet on Wesley Clark. Fifty cents(that means if you invest $1,000 now on Clark to be the next Dem VP nominee you could cash out for $200,000....now that's nothing to sneaze at;) )

[wendybeth]

A very interesting choice by Obama. A candidate running on political change chooses a longtime Washington politician (even longer than McCain) as his running mate. I wonder how this will all turn out...

If he chose Biden, that shows his intent to repair our badly damaged foreign relations. I would think that a very smart move. I was hoping for Richardson, but Biden is good as well.

[BDBopper]

I've also heard that Obama's choice was partly based upon someone who could win the VP debate and aggressively make the case for him. At this point I can safely assume that Biden will do a much better job than Edwards and Lieberman did in that same role. There is now only one person that McCain can choose that could outdo Biden in that role. Though I am not sure McCain is so bold.

[BDBopper]

If he chose Biden, that shows his intent to repair our badly damaged foreign relations. I would think that a very smart move. I was hoping for Richardson, but Biden is good as well.

I suppose so. I do think Richardson would have been better to fill that kind of role. Obama could have had his cake and eat it to. Richardson has foreign policy experience and he is not a Washington-as-usual politician. Also I think that Governor Richardson is more qualified to take over Obama's job if needed because he has actually run a government. Most Senators don't have that type of experience on their resume.

[scaeagles]

Being that I agree with Alex's assessment of Biden being the most pompous ass there is (well, Alex said that in relation to one set of hearings), I don't understand how that repairs anything. Who wants to deal with a pompous ass?

I had to add this - it's one I hadn't heard from Biden but just read.

"I've had a great relationship [with Indian Americans]," Biden said. "In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."



Wow!

Honestly, I realize you don't run against a VP candidate, but this guy does have a lot of baggage and many simmilar quotes and gaffes from plagarism to other racist remarks.

[Strangler Lewis]

The only good thing about the pick is that it's a person of some stature that the country is, or should be, familiar with. Beyond that, I don't see how they get around what Biden said about Obama's qualifications and cleanliness.

[scaeagles]

I seem to recall that he also said the that he loves McCain and he'd even consider being McCain's running mate because the country would benefit from McCain....but I haven't researched it. It's just a slight recollection.

Edited to add:
I was thinking about why Obama would pick Biden. Yes, there is certainly some experience there. Biden, however, is a bitterly partisan individual and known to attack brutally. If Obama truly wants an "above the fray" type campaign, he picked the wrong guy. However, if he wants someone to be vicious so he can maintain his image, he picked the right guy.

[BDBopper]

There is a very interesting contrast in the Veepstakes. Even though she was not chosen, Clinton is being catered to. The Florida and Michigan delegates are being seated, Both Bill and Hillary will be speaking at Convention (I think Hillary got the Keynote address), and her name is being put up for nomination to be voted on by the delegates.

Meanwhile the candidate who finsihed 2nd in the GOP is being almost completely ignored, only being given a speaking slot on Day 2 which may, or may not be in Prime Time (after being passed up by Rudy Guilianni for the Keynote slot). I'm not sure what McCain is thinking but he sure seems to be taking me, and a lot more people for granted. We are very passionate about the candidate we supported and we are being forced to swallow bitter pills (with a possible even more bitter horsepill to come this week).

[scaeagles]

Personally, I will be disappointed with anyone except Romney (whom I voted for in the primary). But this is the Obama thread.

[BDBopper]

Personally, I will be disappointed with anyone except Romney (whom I voted for in the primary). But this is the Obama thread.

Very true. That is the very bitter horsepill I was referring to. LOL

My hijacking of this thread is now over.

[Not Afraid]

What a disappointing choice.

[innerSpaceman]

Biden, however, is a bitterly partisan individual and known to attack brutally. If Obama truly wants an "above the fray" type campaign, he picked the wrong guy. However, if he wants someone to be vicious so he can maintain his image ...

Perfect, then. While all Americans of intellect and maturity should deplore and reject the lowball, frankly juevnile tactics employed by McCain of late ... they have, of course, worked. Obama has lost his lead and the race is, at this moment, a statistical tie in many polls. I think the lessons of Kerry's Swiftboating remain clear, and Obama has got to go on the counterattack.

If you need a VP to deal with that kind of campaign, Biden's indeed a good choice. I hope he savages McCain on a daily basis, and makes such interesting (and typically offensive) comments as will make news often.


It's a shame the VP choice has to come down to who can be the election attack dog rather than who should be a heartbeat from the presidency, but McCain took us down this well-trodden road ... and damn him for that.

[scaeagles]

I really don't think Obama has been on the high road either, but that's a matter of opinion, I suppose. And honestly, beyond the Obama as celebrity like Brittney and Paris, I'm not sure what's been considered even a little dirty. I suppose the main thing will be supposedly questioning his patriotism, but McCain hasn't done that, has he? As McCain has put it, he's questioning his judgement. Have other republicans been attacking? Certainly. As other dems have been attacking McCain.

[scaeagles]

And the Biden ads are already coming out....

McCain ad with Biden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8&e)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Didn't know anything about Biden so I wikipedia-d him.

He introduced the RAVE act, along with Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, and oh yeah, all other Dems. If it had passed, it could have meant that any concert featuring glowsticks and bottled water could get promoters arrested. Now I'm remembering why I'm still not a Dem.

He voted for the war.

All else seems inoffensive to me, but not particularly strong. Kind of a bummer. It's obviously to appease those who want a Washington player involved, blah blah blah. Lame in my book. I just hope it works to pull in the block of Dem women who can't let go of Clinton.

[mousepod]

I like Biden. I registered as a Democrat this year in order to vote for Richardson in the Primary, but he pulled out before the California vote. He would have been my first choice. As far as politicians go, Biden is someone I generally respect. I've been griping lately about "having to" vote for Obama in November - now I'm feeling better about voting Democrat in the General Election. So I guess in this very limited household poll of one, Barack made a good choice.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I like Biden. I registered as a Democrat this year in order to vote for Richardson in the Primary, but he pulled out before the California vote. He would have been my first choice. As far as politicians go, Biden is someone I generally respect. I've been griping lately about "having to" vote for Obama in November - now I'm feeling better about voting Democrat in the General Election. So I guess in this very limited household poll of one, Barack made a good choice.

Add me to your poll of thinking that this was a good choice for Obama.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think going with someone who's been critical of him and complimentary towards his opponent is a smart move for Obama. It reinforces the, "I don't have to agree with you to respect you," side of things, which is a vital message for him. The political, and particularly foreign policy, experience that comes along with that is a bonus.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Ok cool, I'm glad people like the choice.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

One more thing - my text message was timestamped 1am. Um, how exactly does that mean that the texted people were notified first? Lame.

[Alex]

My understanding is that they intended to do the text message in the morning but they got scooped by the Secret Service (when ABC learned they'd assigned a detail to Biden) and so sent the text in the middle of the night before they officially confirmed it.

But who knows.


I did note a startling unexpected pattern: nearly universally conservative news "analysts" thought Biden a horrible choice, almost single-handedly scuttling Obama's campaign, and a confirmation of every bad thing they've ever said about either man; nearly universally liberal news "analysts" thought Biden a pretty smart choice, a confirmation of every good thing they've ever said about either man and a solid counter to likely McCain attacks.

I'm sure the party line split is purely coincidental and doesn't at all reflect on their actual ability to provide analysis and their personal insight.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Alex rules. I think both parties can agree on that.

[Alex]

This suggests I have the power of taxation.

But don't worry, I'm fair and believe both in the redistribution of wealth so the rich don't get too rich and an ethic of self-sufficiency so that the poor don't get lazy.

Therefore I'll take all your excess and just keep it.

[Strangler Lewis]

I smell a bait and switch.

I'm not sure how various state ballot rules bear on the following, but I predict that if the election looks in doubt for Obama, Biden will have another aneurysm, and Hillary will be asked to take his place--firing up her supporters, while leaving little time for the Hillary-haters to counter.

[wendybeth]

I think Hill's gonna be pegged for a cabinet position, if she plays nice. She'd be good at nearly anything, but she's got to stop trying to tear down his campaign first. She has power but she's using it very unwisely.

[Alex]

Lani and I were talking about that. I don't know if she wants cabinet but I think Obama should (from a political gamesmanship point of view) offer her Justice and a free rein to pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration. She can be the parties holy crusader and be getting personal revenge against many of the same people who caused the Clinton White House so many exaggerated problems.

Seems to me that might get her ardent support (if she's interested at all).

[innerSpaceman]

And mine as well.


By the way, someone's already coined the ticket "OBiden" and i like it. Kinda puts Obama's name in the background, but it might diffuse the nimrods who think he's a muslim. They'll be voting for the first black Irish president instead.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Now I wish the roles were switched, just because I think "Joebama" is way better than "Obiden".

[Alex]

I'm not a fan of Chris Matthews but he had a line yesterday I liked (and, showing why I'm not a fan of Chris Matthews, you could tell he was immensely proud of himself) about Biden putting the apostrophe in Obama.

[scaeagles]

I think Hill's gonna be pegged for a cabinet position, if she plays nice. She'd be good at nearly anything, but she's got to stop trying to tear down his campaign first. She has power but she's using it very unwisely.

Here's the thing - the Clintons have always put the Clintons first. They have no loyalty to party or anyone. I am convinced that Hillary wants Obama to lose so she can run against McCain in 2012. It's a tough balancing act because she has to give the apeparance of supporting Obama and stab him without it becoming public knowledge that she is Brutus.

[sleepyjeff]

. It's a tough balancing act because she has to give the apeparance of supporting Obama and stab him without it becoming public knowledge that she is Brutus.

That'll be easy...just send in Bill to campaign on Obama's behalf; aside from himself just about everyone Bill campaigns for loses:)

[innerSpaceman]

Sorry, GD, but JoeBama sounds too much like Yo Mama, and in a very Blackie kind of way that's not likely to encourage too many votes for the first African American Presidential Candidate in United States history.


Happily, then, OBiden it is!

[Deebs]

Free Obama button
(https://political.moveon.org/obamabuttons/?id=-8856051-)

Sorry if this has already been posted, but I haven't seen it if it has. Also, can't really hurt to post it again.