Yes, we can.

[Alex]

Sorry, I was amusing myself with the La Pine reference on the assumption nobody would know the place (my stepfather's mother had a bumper sticker on her car that said "Where in the hell is La Pine?").

I'm sure that the area tilts McCain (though I was amazed last time I drove through there just how much it has built out in the last decade.

[sleepyjeff]

Sorry, I was amusing myself with the La Pine reference on the assumption nobody would know the place (my stepfather's mother had a bumper sticker on her car that said "Where in the hell is La Pine?").

I'm sure that the area tilts McCain (though I was amazed last time I drove through there just how much it has built out in the last decade.

Lots of transplanted Californians live there so I wouldn't be surprised if the area was a tossup politically speaking...but yeah, most of the old timers are probably Republicans.

[scaeagles]

In all the discussion about Republican racism, I was very (not sarcastically - I really am) suprised by this (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93AIV882&show_article=1) poll from Stanford and AP.

Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks—many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.

Now, I will say that I don't think the last item specifically listed in the quote ("responsible for their own troubles") is a racial thing. I typically think most everyone is responsible for their own troubles. I would not be surprised if that was what most respondents said, but I don't know for sure from what I've read.

Perhaps I live in some sort of sheltered bubble of good people....I know maybe 3 genuine racists (all republicans, btw). I was really shocked by this.

[flippyshark]

This survey seems mighty strange to me. I'd like to see exactly how it was worded and scored. Also, do these white democrats who apparently think black people are lazy or violent feel the same way about Barack? Really? Was the survey really that general? I'm appalled by it, but suspicious enough that I don't plan to put any store by it.

[Alex]

FiveThirtyEight.com raises some concerns (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/on-race-based-voting.html) about the article. Not so much a refutation as simple concerns (the polling methodology apparently hasn't been released).

Also, since the cell phone issue has come up several times recently in relation to polling, that site also has an article today (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/estimating-cellphone-effect-22-points.html) looking at the differences between polling organizations that do poll cell phones and those that don't.

[bewitched]

I hate to say I'm not surprised by the poll, but I would suspect that many Dems who won't vote for Obama based on his race are probably part of the group we used to call the Reagan Democrats: generally blue collar workers (from the NE industrial states) who are socially conservative.

I'm not indicting all social conservatives, but they are a great deal more likely to be racist than people who are either liberal, or middle of the road regarding social issues.

[innerSpaceman]

So, surprise surprise, many of Obama's top donors are the very investment banks he supports bailing out this week with a $700 billion blank check from the taxpayers.


You youngin's who support Mr. Obama with your impressionable hearts and souls are perhaps too young to remember the similar campaign of Bill Clinton during the less drastic economic crisis of 1992 ... and how between the time of being elected and being inaugurated, closed door meetings with famed economist Robert Rubin caused, according to Rubin, a complete conversion in Mr. Clinton. This is bourne out by how he governed as president, gutting welfare and repealing the 1934 Glass Steigal act which was the post-depression firewall between risky investment banks (that have now tanked) and consumer banks holding the life savings of ordinary citizens ... which essentially prevented risky investments such as the ones which have again decimated the financial sector from affecting consumer savings.

Clinton repealed that act, under vast pressure from his masters, the investment banks and Wall Street.


Who's to say these large donors are not Obama's masters as well? Where will the countervailing pressure come from to hold Obama's feet to the populist fire he preaches so freely with his mouth?


Democrats in Congress want some minor conditions on the $700 billion blank check, such as caps on CEO compensation and protection for millions of homeowners facing foreclosure. But the Bush Administration (surprise surprise) wants a simple blank check and unlimited powers given to the Treasury Secretary to bail out failing banks by buying the bad mortgage debt packages with taxpayer funds as he sees fit, i.e., as banks demand. Banks are already salivating and urging Treasury to purchase other bad debts beyond the mortgage packages with our money.


Meanwhile, reputable economists have predicted this disaster for years. So this is not some unforseen disaster to Congress and the Administration like a hurricane or nuclear attack. These are their policies coming home to roost ... and suddenly we have the most activist goverment since the New Deal with powers and funds government long insisted it didn't have.

Where were these powers and moneys when it came to reforming health care, saving social security, restoring our national infrastructure??


All the young Obama supporters are too young to remember when government actually did anything, when government made things instead of unmaking them. In their entire lifetimes, all they've seen is cutbacks and can't do's. Oh-ho, suddenly there's plenty of money, and plenty of willpower to take radical and meddling action in altering the free-market economy trumped uber alis by our government for decades.


Meanwhile, in the midst of the looming and unfolding crisis, the two presidential campaigns have become nearly meaningless. And sure, Obama looks to be the better candidate on the economy than McCain by a long shot. But he's almost as dangerous. It already looks like he's under the thumb of his Wall Street donors, and what kind of president will good-mouthed Obama really be?

Ah memories of Clinton's promise ... and ultimate failings. Why the Republicans didn't just love him as president, I will never know. He governed precisely as a big-business Republican would have.


Meanwhile, FDR's New Deal after the depression was not a cake-walk for that administration. It was a series of radical and progressive acts, opposed by Wall Street at every turn. And the results were actually compromises Wall Street accepted ... because, at the time, the alternative was actual revolution in the streets.


That kind of serious, radical, prevalent grass-roots pressure from below is what it will again take for the next president to feel a countermanding pressure from Main Street below to match the intense pressure from Wall Street above.


I don't think the American people are up for it.



See you in the bread lines.

[scaeagles]

This (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0) is an easy to understand piece on why this financial crisis is largely the democrats failure, not the republicans. It also points out that McCain was one of three cosponsors on a bill that would most likely have averted this should it have passed.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

....

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

...

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.


This needs to be publicized from the mountain tops by the Mccain campaign.

No wonder Pelosi has been loudly proclaiming the dems have no fault in this. It appears to be largely their fault, and McCain was one who tried to pass legicaltion to reign in this problem three years ago.

[Tom]

This (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0) is an easy to understand piece on why this financial crisis is largely the democrats failure, not the republicans. It also points out that McCain was one of three cosponsors on a bill that would most likely have averted this should it have passed.

It also is written by a McCain campaign advisor.

[innerSpaceman]

Three years ago when the Republicans controlled the White House and Congress??? I'm confused, and won't be examing any of this material until someone can explain to me how the Republicans are not responsible for anything that passed while they completely controlled Congress.


Believe me, I'm not holding the Democrats harmless in this. But certainly Mr. Keating Five Scandal, aka McCain, has been no less in the pockets of Wall Street Banks than the rest of his collaborators on both sides of the aisle.

[scaeagles]

True. However, it does remain a fact that he did cosponsor legislation to reign in Freddie and Fannie. The extrapolation of the impact of those two on the rest of the market and industry would certainly be up for debate.

[scaeagles]

Believe me, I'm not holding the Democrats harmless in this. But certainly Mr. Keating Five Scandal, aka McCain, has been no less in the pockets of Wall Street Banks than the rest of his collaborators on both sides of the aisle.


Completely agreed.

[innerSpaceman]

Ok, but maybe we should take this to another thread, or start a Great Depression Two thread.

I hold Obama responsible for the pressure of his donors on his eventual presidency, if there is one.


If we want to talk about the responsiblity of McCain vs. general Democrats, or general Republicans vs. general Democrats, I propose that it doesn't belong in the Obama thread.


Maybe a General You thread is in order. ;)

[Tenigma]

It also is written by a McCain campaign advisor.

Hahaha... now that's what I call pure pwnage. :D

[scaeagles]

Not at all...

And ISM, as I understand it, the house passed their version of the bill in question by a large majority (330-120 or something like that). The Senate bill was never able to come to vote due to a dem filibuster.

[innerSpaceman]

Maybe I'm just obtuse this morning, scaeagles. But you say the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed the measure by a large majority, and then the Republican-controlled Senate was stopped from making it a law by a Democratic fillibuster, but you blame the eventual law on the Democrats?


Or are you talking about the McCain co-sponsored alternate bill? What are you saying, man? And does what you're saying have anything to do with Barack Obama???

[Tom]

Scaegles, do you have a link that shows it was filibustered? I've been looking around and have been unable to find any evidence that it was. The article you posted never said it was. According to the Senate website the last action on the bill was "Jul 28, 2005: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably," which seems to indicate that it never left committee. The Republicans should have at least been able to get it out of committee on a party line vote, even if it didn't come before the full senate later.

[scaeagles]

Or are you talking about the McCain co-sponsored alternate bill? What are you saying, man? And does what you're saying have anything to do with Barack Obama???

Sorry....you're right in that this isn't the place for this subject matter. I just posted it as you brought up the broader subject of Obama and his ties to the banking industry.

[scaeagles]

Scaegles, do you have a link that shows it was filibustered? I've been looking around and have been unable to find any evidence that it was. The article you posted never said it was. According to the Senate website the last action on the bill was "Jul 28, 2005: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably," which seems to indicate that it never left committee. The Republicans should have at least been able to get it out of committee on a party line vote, even if it didn't come before the full senate later.

Yeah, that's why I said "I think". I haven't had the time to research it so I apologize for anything that might have misled.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if a combination of dems and republicans stopped it from coming out of committee. To me, the main point was that McCain at least seemed to see that this was coming, but this is the Obama thread, not the McCain thread, as ISM pointed out, so the subject matter doesn't fit here.

[BarTopDancer]

We shouldn't be so cocky that CA is going to go (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/22/MNPP130KA7.DTL&tsp=1) to Obama.

[Snowflake]

We shouldn't be so cocky that CA is going to go (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/22/MNPP130KA7.DTL&tsp=1) to Obama.

From the article BtD cites:

Despite generating all this fear and enthusiasm, the Palin Factor hasn't changed the race in California. Obama beats McCain 52 percent to 36 percent in a Field Poll released last week, and neither campaign is broadcasting ads in the state's expensive television markets. On Thursday, Palin canceled her rally and fundraising visit to the state planned for this week.

Maybe not too cocky, but still fairly confident, I'd say.

[Alex]

I'm going to continue being cocky about that.

Unless he takes the opportunity at one of the debates to climb up on McCain's lectern and fart audibly in McCain's face while waiving the national flag of Iran, Obama will win California (and probably would still win).


I wouldn't worry about that "big funding for activity in the state" and "solid internal polling numbers." That is just campaignese for "Please, please, don't give up!"

[Snowflake]

Alex, bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa

[BarTopDancer]

If Democratic voters and voters leaning towards Obama decide to not vote because "Obama is just going to win anyways" it can be lost.

[Alex]

That is true, though it was true of the last four elections as well and didn't in any way put the Democratic candidate at risk of losing the state (which has been a 10 point win or more each time).

But yes, everybody should vote regardless of how certain the result seems. I just don't see any real risk of the result (for president) changing. California is willing to consider Republicans at the state level, they just don't seem willing to do so at the national level. North Carolina is similar in reverse.

[innerSpaceman]

And I'm still not voting for him. It would have to get awfully more close in the polls for me to change my mind.

[Alex]

Absolutely, I was very careful in phrasing that so it didn't say who to vote for, just to vote.

(And president is really the only position where I hold the view that everyone should vote regardless. For everything else I think most people should refuse to vote on grounds of ignorance.)

[sleepyjeff]

Senator Biden on the recent stock market selloff:

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed"


Wow, just wow.........and some of you guys want this mental giant as your next VP;)

[3894]

Wow, just wow.........and some of you guys want this mental giant as your next VP

I don't get it. Is it the Roosevelt reference that bugs you?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Television

[scaeagles]

Wasn't Hoover President when the market crashed?

[Alex]

Yes. And FDR was governor of New York and already had presidential ambitions.

But I don't know how much of a public figure he was on the issue in 1929. There is much potentially wrong in Biden's statement (though not so much in the sentiment attributed to FDR) but I think TV was the main laughing point.

Of course, the obvious response from McCain is to make a joke of it if he is secure enough in the age issue. Some version of I knew FDR and you're no FDR.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, Biden messed up. Roosevelt solved the Great Depression, he did was not president when it started. And of course his famous "Nothing to fear but fear itself" address was on radio.


Let's retire Joe, and elect his son Bow as king, er, president, er vice-president.

[Alex]

FDR didn't solve the Great Depression, WWII did. But FDR did make people feel like government was trying.

[scaeagles]

Damn - was about to post the same WWII thing and got beat to it.

[3894]

Ohhh, television. I didn't catch that. Thanks.



Of course, the obvious response from McCain is to make a joke of it if he is secure enough in the age issue. Some version of I knew FDR and you're no FDR.

He's probably insecure about it at this moment what with the "fundamentally sound" economy gaffe, the Spain gaffe and the creepy grandpa thing about the little fishes swimming around the oil platforms, among others.

[Moonliner]

The great crash took place in Oct of 1929

Herbert Hoover was President from March 4, 1929 to March 4, 1933

In 1925 Dr. Ernst Alexanderson broadcasts in Schenectady, NY area to an estimated 300 receivers.

However, FDR is credited with being the first President to appear on Television. He spoke at the opening session of the New York World's Fair on April 30, 1939.

The first regular scheduled TV broadcast in the US was also in 1939.



Yes. My name is moonliner and I am a Googleholic.

[Tenigma]

Let's retire Joe, and elect his son Bow as king, er, president, er vice-president.

Hell, if it annihilates the Palin ticket I will even agree to a switch to Hillary.

[Snowflake]

Uh-Oh, Obama's doomed for sure now! ;)

Clinton says Democrats should win this year

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that Barack Obama is going to be elected the next president and that she has "no doubt" about it.

Clinton also said that while she recognizes that race and gender play a role in the minds of voters as they make their presidential choices, she believes enough people want change from Republican policies to put Obama over the top in November.

Interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show," she was asked what she thought about Republican Sarah Palin's vice presidential candidacy. She said she thought any woman is going to face certain issues and questions but that "the bottom line is who is on top of the ticket."



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_obama

[sleepyjeff]

I might have to change my mind and vote for Obama after all......with Biden around to poke fun at, the next 4 years could be a delight;)

[sleepyjeff]

Uh-Oh, Obama's doomed for sure now! ;)

Clinton says Democrats should win this year




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_obama


Don't worry, so long as Billy isn't actively campaigning for him he should be alright:D

[Tenigma]

I might have to change my mind and vote for Obama after all......with Biden around to poke fun at, the next 4 years could be a delight;)

And we will likely not wind up spreading ourselves thinner fighting wars in Iran, Pakistan, and Russia! What a bonus!

[sleepyjeff]

And we will likely not wind up spreading ourselves thinner fighting wars in Iran, Pakistan, and Russia! What a bonus!

Oh, because they will be too busy laughing at Biden to do anything we would want to stop or will it be that we will be too busy laughing to put a stop to anything they might do?

;)

[scaeagles]

Funny....no one has suggested a war with Russia, Obama is critical of us not doing enough militarily in Pakistan (yes, I'm aware of the recent story of US special forces incursions into Pakistan) even suggesting the possibility of using nukes....but I wouldn't doubt something could be up with Iran. However, I suppose Israel is going to be behind most of that.

[mousepod]

Funny....no one has suggested a war with Russia

Sorry for the long quote, but I don't want to be accused of taking things out of context.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Oh, because they will be too busy laughing at Biden to do anything we would want to stop or will it be that we will be too busy laughing to put a stop to anything they might do?

;)Gaffes, right. While you're doubled up in glee with tears streaming from your eyes at the absolute hilarity of the concept that Biden said the term "TV" instead of "radio", there might be real issues being discussed by the adults at the table.

[scaeagles]

Mousepod, I'm aware of the interview. I find no problem with it, really. Who will stand up to them if they are renewing their imperialist ways? Hypotheticals are fine and dandy, but of course if Georgia or the Ukraine was part of NATO we would have no choice but respond.

Palin didn't suggest war with Russia. Gibson did. The last highlighted portion said other things would be tried first. These are the same arguments that were ongoing during the cold war. Should she say that the US has no desire to assist or interest in the continuation of free former Soviet states?

Honestly, I don't know what the problem is with what she said. She didn't suggest it. Gibson did. She asserted that any ally deserves to be protected. And she's right.

[scaeagles]

Gaffes, right. While you're doubled up in glee with tears streaming from your eyes at the absolute hilarity of the concept that Biden said the term "TV" instead of "radio", there might be real issues being discussed by the adults at the table.

CP....c'mon. You know if Palin said that FDR was President in October of 1929 she would be ridiculed. This isn't about TV - it's about historical knowledge.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

CP....c'mon. You know if Palin said that FDR was President in October of 1929 she would be ridiculed. This isn't about TV - it's about historical knowledge.

Really? You don't think that Biden is aware that FDR wasn't President during the Great Depression? You don't think he is aware that television didn't exist in 1929. Really?

Personally, I think all of the candidates brains get a little fried after weeks of talking literally non-stop. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to McCain that he knows that Czechoslovakia no longer exists and to Obama who certainly knows that there are 50 states.

[scaeagles]

Sorry. Of course I know Biden knows that Hoover was President. I meant the ridicule....it wasn't about TV vs radio, as has been alluded to in the thread. It was about who was President.

If Palin said it, her knwledge would most certainly be questioned. I don't question Biden's at all. Not here, perhaps, but certainly in the media.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

CP....c'mon. You know if Palin said that FDR was President in October of 1929 she would be ridiculed. This isn't about TV - it's about historical knowledge.What MBC said.

Also - Of course "she would be ridiculed", doesn't mean that I'd do the ridiculing. There have been lots of these gaffes from both sides and focusing on them shows just how much we love petty drama. I can practically hear the Married With Children audience laugh track. "Ooooooooooohhh!"

Disclaimer - I'm sure I focused on gaffes in the past, but I've totally changed my stance on them. I'm done fcuking around with slip-ups and mistakes, pointing them out only when certain people do them, and pretending they don't matter when other people do them. I could list a few moments of McCain and Palin caught in mis-speech that don't bother me to prove my point but that would mean mentioning them, and I won't do it. None of them really bother me any more.

Further disclaimer - "gaffe" means whatever we want it to mean, doesn't it? I'm sure I'll point at something and someone else will say it was just a gaffe, while I disagree. Such is life.

[JWBear]

...Palin didn't suggest war with Russia. Gibson did. The last highlighted portion said other things would be tried first...

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold right there!

So Palin is saying that diplomacy and sanctions should be tried first before going to war?! Isn't the Republican position just the opposite? Didn't they, in complete lockstep, ridicule Democrats who suggested the exact same thing in?!

[scaeagles]

Ummm....no.

There is a difference between negotiating with sponsors of terrorism who violate the nuclear non proliferation treaty and with the Russians. It's like when we negotiated with North Korea recently or Saddam after Gulf War I or any other number of negotiations.

Sanctions have never been ridiculed against Iran. In fact, they've been encouraged and pushed for, primarily with Russia standing in the way (largely due to arms sales). Just direct unconditional talks with leaders of terrorist states has been ridiculed.

[JWBear]

...There is a difference between negotiating with sponsors of terrorism who violate the nuclear non proliferation treaty and with the Russians....

Ummm....no. there isn't. Nice try, though.

[scaeagles]

Suppose it's matter of opinion that we'll never agree upon.

At least you must agree that sanctions have been there in dealing with any adversary and promoted by the republicans, right?

[sleepyjeff]

"Unfortunately, only US citizens are eligible to register to vote"

A telling line from the Obama's web site?

Why the word "unfortunately"? Why not "sorry" or simply leave out that part of the sentence all together and just say "Only US Citizens..."?

To me the word "unfortunately" implies that they regret that only US citizens are allowed to vote in a US election......as if maybe they wish every person on Earth(except US military personal, of course) should be allowed to vote in this most historic election:rolleyes:

[sleepyjeff]

A telling line from the Obama's web site?

Why the word "unfortunately"? Why not "sorry" or simply leave out that part of the sentence all together and just say "Only US Citizens..."?

To me the word "unfortunately" implies that they regret that only US citizens are allowed to vote in a US election......as if maybe they wish every person on Earth(except US military personal, of course) should be allowed to vote in this most historic election:rolleyes:


Decided the check the McCain site just to make sure I wasn't going to get egg on my face; I am not. On the McCain site they say:



You MUST be a citizen of the United States to register

[Ghoulish Delight]

Good catch, that doesn't sit well. I went through it and I don't think they were trying to push some sort of agenda, I think it was more of a, "Unfortunately you just wasted your time and we're trying to let you down easy." But not a good choice of phrasing considering the context. Those tech-pubs guys sometimes get stuck in their own heads.

[sleepyjeff]

Good catch, that doesn't sit well. I went through it and I don't think they were trying to push some sort of agenda, I think it was more of a, "Unfortunately you just wasted your time and we're trying to let you down easy." But not a good choice of phrasing considering the context. Those tech-pubs guys sometimes get stuck in their own heads.

You're probably right....not likely that they are really trying to push an agenda here; at worse it might be a freudian thing on the part of the publisher I suppose.

[flippyshark]

You're probably right....not likely that they are really trying to push an agenda here; at worse it might be a freudian thing on the part of the publisher I suppose.

That's exactly what it strikes me as. Mind you, I don't see this slip as a sign of arrogance. It rather seems like a slip indicating a lack of confidence. ("The rest of the world seems to like Obama, but will our own country? I'm not so sure....")

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Jews, click here! (and everyone else too) NSFW due to language.

http://www.thegreatschlep.com/site/index.html

[bewitched]

Jews, click here! (and everyone else too) NSFW due to language.

http://www.thegreatschlep.com/site/index.html


LMAO!

"I'd rather have a president who's name means 'lightening' than one who's name means 'toilet'" :D

[JWBear]

LMAO!

"I'd rather have a president who's name means 'lightening' than one who's name means 'toilet'" :D

Hey! Careful what you say about the name "John"....

[bewitched]

Hey! Careful what you say about the name "John"....


;)

[innerSpaceman]

it's twu, it's twu!

Hahahaha, Obama's circumsupercized!

[Tenigma]

From Real Clear Politics blog (http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/09/fl_poll_mccain_1.html) (Time magazine):

SurveyUSA has the race down to one point Florida (Sept 27-28, 599 LV), a five point swing from ten days ago:

McCain 48 (-3 vs. last poll Sept 16-17)
Obama 47 (+2)

Good golly Miss Molly, this is breathtakingly startling. ONE POINT. I knew Florida was a battleground state, but there's a lot riding because they have so many electoral votes.

But honestly, I had completely written off Florida.

This is STUNNING. Just to be SO CLOSE. Wow.

[Tom]

Florida will be close. Actually, it's been looking for a while like it would be closer than more traditional battlegrounds like Ohio or Missouri.

And without Florida, it's really hard to imagine how McCain could win.

[Snowflake]

Florida will be close. Actually, it's been looking for a while like it would be closer than more traditional battlegrounds like Ohio or Missouri.

And without Florida, it's really hard to imagine how McCain could win.

Well, Flippyshark, this puts some pressure on you, doesn't it? ;)

[Gemini Cricket]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/2891789396_4ac6a4ba40.jpg
University of Mississippi in Oxford, MS on Friday, September 26, 2008. (David Katz/Obama for America) A shot taken before the debate.
I like this photo.

[Moonliner]

I like this photo.

Me too. Although if that's his travel bag in the photo he carries more makeup than my wife.

[innerSpaceman]

He does. It's all that blackface. He's really white.





(He's half white, so I'm kinda bugged by this whole first black president thing. Half is half.)

[Alex]

Well, to be fair it would kind of suck if after centuries of "one black great-grandparent and you can't sit at the front of the bus" (and equivalents) it were now turned around and said that he isn't black because only one of his parents is black.

But that's unimportant. The key to me is that he's going to be the first president to have lived entirely with a 50 state United States. That's a key aspect of his identity right there.

[Tom]

Good golly Miss Molly, this is breathtakingly startling. ONE POINT. I knew Florida was a battleground state, but there's a lot riding because they have so many electoral votes.

If you got this excited about a one point race in Florida, then you probably shouldn't even look at this (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/election_2008_florida_presidential_election). You might hyperventilate.

And by all means, do not look at this (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_929.pdf), whatever you do.

[scaeagles]

I don't think this is close at all anymore. I think Obama has this in the bag, and honestly, the longer an economic package (if any) takes to pass and the American people are in a borderline economic panic state, the longer he will continue to increase his lead.

The rhetoric coming out of Pelosi's office, which is completely disingenuous, will continue to grab press attention and play to the American people.

However, McCains position at present can in no way be completely balmed on the dems. He's looked weak recently and the dems are doing a great job blaming republicans in general. He needs to start campaigning or it is all over.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I have no idea if it's at all valid, but I love www.fivethirtyeight.com . The guy claims he knows what's he's talking about. It'll make any Obama supporter feel better :)

[Tom]

I have no idea if it's at all valid, but I love www.fivethirtyeight.com .

I've been reading that site for a while, and it's become the political site I most often refresh through the course of the day. I have found his blog to be enlightening and insightful, and I actually had to read it for a number of weeks before I even became aware that he's a Democrat (though he's been letting that out more often of late). I don't know if the various percentages he has assigned to the races and the statistical analyses behind them are valid, but they seem to be pretty much in the ballpark of what I would expect based on my entirely unscientific impressions of the races.

[flippyshark]

Well, Flippyshark, this puts some pressure on you, doesn't it? ;)

I'm hoping it all comes down to me. :)

[Tenigma]

However, McCains position at present can in no way be completely balmed on the dems. He's looked weak recently and the dems are doing a great job blaming republicans in general. He needs to start campaigning or it is all over.

Wow, an early concession speech from sceagles?

As a point, McCain made a huge issue about how he was going to postpone his campaign, made a huge deal about going to DC, and then this thing doesn't pass. He might go around blaming Pelosi and Obama, but it just makes him look bad.

It's not really all his fault; Republicans in a close race that are running this year are voting against it. But it still makes him look petty.

[Not Afraid]

I don't think this is close at all anymore. I think Obama has this in the bag, and honestly, the longer an economic package (if any) takes to pass and the American people are in a borderline economic panic state, the longer he will continue to increase his lead.

The rhetoric coming out of Pelosi's office, which is completely disingenuous, will continue to grab press attention and play to the American people.

However, McCains position at present can in no way be completely balmed on the dems. He's looked weak recently and the dems are doing a great job blaming republicans in general. He needs to start campaigning or it is all over.

I may just print that out and paste it on my wall until November rolls around.

[wendybeth]

I find it humorous that the cons are decrying Pelosi's partisan speech, while their own candidate took the situation for a very cynical ride (that backfired) last week. At the same time, I think Pelosi really didn't need to give the speech she did. I think the results would have been the same, but now the Repub's are blaming her instead of the real reason, which is they want to be re-elected and they know the public is very much against this bailout.

[innerSpaceman]

He might go around blaming Pelosi and Obama, but it just makes him look bad.

Especially when 60% of the Democrats voted for the bailout bill, but only 33% of Republicans did. Jeebus, John.

As the great de-regulator, you would have been badly enough off with just the economic crisis of 2008 ... but you had to make a spectacle of running to Washington and dropping everything (except Katie Couric) to solve the economic crisis ... and the most leadership you have to show for it is only one-third of your party supporting your solution, compared to nearly two-thirds of the opposition.


I think John McCain should pull the covers up over his head before he blunders this election any more.





TeeHee, bless you, John. :D

[scaeagles]

It's not really all his fault; Republicans in a close race that are running this year are voting against it. But it still makes him look petty.


I believe that Pelosi gave her divisive speech on the floor prior to the vote for the specific purpose of wanting republicans to vote against it. The more I think about it, the more I believe she (and dem politicians in general) want this to continue until the election.

[scaeagles]

Especially when 60% of the Democrats voted for the bailout bill, but only 33% of Republicans did. Jeebus, John.


Hold on....why, then were the republicans blamed when McCains bill in regard to reigning in Freddie and Fannie failed? Didn't get out of committee, but MOST of the republicans voted to get it out of committee and MOST of the dems voted to kill it.

If the dems wanted it to pass, there is nothing the republicans could have done to stop it. Nothing. They even have a guaranteed signature from Bush. They don't want it to pass.

[innerSpaceman]

Who blamed the Republicans for that? Was it Barack Obama???



It's seeming a little infantile of you to be changing the subject like that.


There, I'll concede that politicians wrongly blame the other side of the aisle on a routine basis, all in craven partisan lyinghood.



Now, can we address the subject of what a bonehead John McCain continues to be about the economic crisis, and how his every chosen move just digs him deeper into the hole of unelectability?


Or would you like to discuss mitochondria?

[Gemini Cricket]

Or would you like to discuss mitochondria?
I'll field this one, Leo.
Mitochondria is a cell's power station of sorts. It has two membranes. They can be round or elongated...

[innerSpaceman]

Is that the celluar equivalent of cut or uncut? Or is this getting too esoteric?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Mitochondria are what make Jedis.

[scaeagles]

ISM, this was a recent subject regarding McCain's attempt in 2005 to get some reigns on Freddie and Fannie. It was pointed out to me that the republicans could have passed it at that point in time without one dem vote but it didn't even make it to the floor.

Only bringing it up in that context of who is really in control of this process.

[innerSpaceman]

Apples (from the Riley Farm) and Oranges. A bill not making it out of committee has absolutely nothing to do with a situation where Republicans desperately seeking reelection won't go along with their party mandate when a bill is on the floor.

In fact, more Democrats would have voted for the bill had not so many Republicans voted against it. Midway through the voting, the word went out to the Dems from their leadership that they could vote their conscience, since Republicans were not supporting their party line.

So the only thing Pelosi had to do with the result was perhaps that less Democrats voted for the bailout than would have otherwise. She had zero to do with Republicans voting two thirds against it.



I fail to see the applicability of your comparison, and I call official shenanigans on you, Sir.

[scaeagles]

In fact, more Democrats would have voted for the bill had not so many Republicans voted against it.


HA! A claim of shenanigans from someone using how the republicans voted to justify the dems not passing it? THAT'S funny. That's Kerry-esque.

I see your shenanigans and raise you two more, sir!

[innerSpaceman]

You can't change facts, that's how it went. There's no way of knowing how the Democratic vote tally might have differed, but they were released from their obligations to adhere to the party line as the (I believe four hour long) vote progressed.


I'm not justifying anything. There's no blame from me for the failure to pass this miserable piece of legislation. The Republicans may have voted no for the most craven of reasons, but I applaud them for their lack of support.

[tracilicious]

As representatives, they shouldn't be voting party line anyways. They should be voting the way their home state feels to the best of their ability. Public opinion was vastly opposed to the bailout, so kudos to all who voted against it for representing the public.

[Ghoulish Delight]

As representatives, they shouldn't be voting party line anyways. They should be voting the way their home state feels to the best of their ability. Public opinion was vastly opposed to the bailout, so kudos to all who voted against it for representing the public.
Voting based on public opinion is no more or less valid than voting based on party lines.

They should be voting based on what they think will have the most favorable outcome for the country. The definition of "most favorable outcome" is hardly cut and dry. If they pass it and the economy still falters and the Democrats get voted out for passing a "bad" bailout (nevermind whether any further failures are the fault of the bailout or not) that they voted for but the republicans didn't, is that the "most favorable outcome?" from a Democrat's perspective? Not even in terms of the personal unfavorableness of losing one's job, but from the perspective of, "We got voted out for doing what we thought was right against public opinion, and now everything else we stand for is going to fall by the wayside because of that one issue."

That's just for starters. Such is politics. No vote is done in a vacuum. No vote is safe from being used to screw you in the future. It must really suck to deal with. Even if you're 100% sure of which vote is the "right" vote on a particular issue, you STILL have to stop and think and decide if doing the "right" thing on that single point will prevent you from being able to do the "right" thing on a larger scale down the line.

[scaeagles]

The House of Representatives was never intended to be filled with career politicians for just this reason (the Senate is different, of course). The view of what is the most favorable outcome for the nation is typically trumped by the desire to be reelected.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Even if a representative themself isn't looking at their own reelection, they still want to pave the way for someone who agrees with them to take their place. Politics will always be an inextricable part of the decision making process.

[Alex]

The problem with government spending a lot of money to successfully prevent (or reduce a problem) is that if they are successful, they're screwed because so many people will believe that the prevention was unnecessary since nothing bad happened. If they fail they are screwed since obviously it didn't prevent anything even if it was the only thing that even had a chance of doing so. If they do nothing and it happens, they are screwed since they should have done whatever was necessary to prevent it. If they do nothing and nothing happens then they got away with it.

[scaeagles]

I agree to an extent. However, their votes would then be more often be in line with what they think is best rather than what they think is politically expedient.

Agreed, Alex. And it is very easy to present any spin as a political opponent.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I agree to an extent. However, their votes would then be more often be in line with what they think is best rather than what they think is politically expedient.Vaguely so, but I really don't think it would be enough to make a huge difference. The only thing it really cuts out is votes and deals based on long standing personal relationships between individual representatives. The larger scale deal making and politic-motivated voting between parties at odds with each other will continue no matter how often you rotate the individuals. I agree that it would be an improvement, but not enough for me to be hugely motivated to fight for term limits. And definitely not enough for me to vote term limits in for my own state while other states remain limit-free.

And yeah, you're right Alex, damned if you do, damned if you don't. They've kinda put themselves in this position, though, by going through the charade of publically reaming Paulson and company, only to turn around and say, "We've almost come to an agreement!" And then, by ditching that agreement, coming to another one, and voting THAT one down, it's painfully obvious that they've stopped making decisions based on what's best to do but they're just riding the wave of public opinion.

[Betty]

If they are truly representing "us", shouldn't they be loyal to public opinion? or is it too little too late for them to start that now since it never really mattered before?

[scaeagles]

Public opinion is fickle and uninformed.

[Ghoulish Delight]

If they are truly representing "us", shouldn't they be loyal to public opinion? or is it too little too late for them to start that now since it never really mattered before?
No, they should represent our interests, not our demands.

[Alex]

If they are truly representing "us", shouldn't they be loyal to public opinion? or is it too little too late for them to start that now since it never really mattered before?

Not necessarily, which is why we're a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. The fickleness of public opinion is one reason the Senate was specifically shielded from it with long six year terms in rotating waves.

If this "crisis" had arisen 12 months ago or six weeks from now, the behavior in the House of Representatives would be dramatically different knowing that there would be a period of time for the voters to either come to terms with it, to forget about it, or for it to work in a way that they can stand tall for having done it.

As far as blame for yesterday's embarrassment goes, I put it squarely on whoever is heading the Republican caucus (and whips) on this issue. Among the nays were both people acting simply for political reasons and people acting out of ideological principles.

But the bill should never have come to vote until both caucuses were sufficiently confident of passage. Either the Republican caucus failed to accurately count votes or they were unable to hold their internal agreements.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

GD's avatar makes all his posts sound stupid to me. :D

[Moonliner]

GD's avatar makes all his posts sound stupid to me. :D

I don't think his avatar makes all his posts sound stupid.

[sleepyjeff]

You know, so many like to give Palin never ending grief when she stumbles a little facing reporters asking gotcha questions;

Yet, for some reason, Obama can stumble a little on his own(sans reporters) and that's ok?

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


Todays vocabulary word is Teleprompterless :)

[Ghoulish Delight]

At least he had actual thoughts to lose.

[JWBear]

Stumble a little?!? Dude, she fricking tumbled down a mountain!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Seriously, sleepyjeff, do you really want to start down the road of, "Does Obama have a worse grasp of the issues than Palin?" Seriously?

[sleepyjeff]

Seriously, sleepyjeff, do you really want to start down the road of, "Does Obama have a worse grasp of the issues than Palin?" Seriously?



Palin stumbled going up against a couple of world class journalists who were setting her up with gotcha questions.....Obama tripped over his own tongue.

Palin looks like an idiot doing an interview with someone tyring to make her look like an idiot(imagine that)

Obama, even when confronted with a very friendly interviewer says things like "my Muslim Faith" and gets a pass on it(I am not saying he shouldn't get a pass on that but if he, someone who has been campainging for the #1 job for two or so years gets a pass shouldn't someone who has only been campaiging for a few weeks and the #2 job also get the same sort of pass?).

[Gemini Cricket]

Michelle Obama posted some thoughts on MOMocrats. I love her. (http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/09/guest-post-mi-1.html)
:)

[Gemini Cricket]

Palin stumbled going up against a couple of world class journalists who were setting her up with gotcha questions.....Obama tripped over his own tongue.

Palin looks like an idiot doing an interview with someone tyring to make her look like an idiot(imagine that)

Obama, even when confronted with a very friendly interviewer says things like "my Muslim Faith" and gets a pass on it(I am not saying he shouldn't get a pass on that but if he, someone who has been campainging for the #1 job for two or so years gets a pass shouldn't someone who has only been campaiging for a few weeks and the #2 job also get the same sort of pass?).
"Gotcha journalism" "gotcha questions". Is it as easy as that? McCain brings up a label for something and now everyone is using that same label in lockstep from now on? Is this going to be like "media elite" and "activist judges" etc? Ugh. At least "Hope" and "Change" are used in a positive manner and not in a way to put things in a tidy box and then discounted.

I expect interviewers to be tough on candidates running for office. When it comes to someone running for office, Couric asked very simple questions, Gibson asked very simple questions... Palin didn't have any answers for them. "I'll get back to ya" is not a good response. O'Reilly grilled Obama and he handled it very well. Palin didn't "stumble". She fell on her face. Palin was widely panned by liberals and conservatives alike. I don't buy it that journalists are deliberately trying to Swift Boat Palin. That's a copout. She f'ed up big time. While we're at it, "Stumble" rubs me the same way "peppered" did. Give me a freakin' break.

When someone is coherent and on the money about something most of the time and trips up a few times, they get a buy in my book. When someone keeps tripping up over and over, I raise my eyebrows and say 'something's not right here'.

[Tom]

Palin stumbled going up against a couple of world class journalists who were setting her up with gotcha questions.....

Are you serious? I just watched the Couric interview today. Those were not gotcha questions. Those were not hard questions. Palin embarrassed herself all on her own there.

[scaeagles]

Hope and change mean nothing. They are a campaign slogan. They are most certainly used to put things in a tidy little box.

Gibson was most certainly attempting to do "gotcha", and in fact made himself look like an idiot. The question about the "Bush doctrine" that he was so visibly disgusted that she didn't know what he was talking about, when in fact there have been 4 distinct Bush doctrines, and the one Gibson expanded upon isn't even regarded as the current one. I can post a link to a couple of write ups about it (Krauthammer did a good one) if anyone really is interested.

Couric asked Palin about a depression. Her words. Then she later jumped on palin for using the word depression about the economy (disclaimer - I did not actually see the Couric interview. This is what I read, and I do not recall who wrote it up. It is entirely possible that I am wrong about this one and apologize if I am. I don't have time nor the desire to watch Couric).

Palin certainly stumbles. No doubt. But she most definitely gets help doing it from some rather hostile members of the media.

[Moonliner]

But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

He's also known as the maverick, though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about — the need to reform government.

I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?

I'll try to find you some, and I'll bring them to you.

How was that a "gotcha"?

[scaeagles]

If you are addressing me, that was not a gotcha in the least.

[BarTopDancer]

I highly recommend you want the SNL opening from last week to get a grasp of that interview. Much more entertaining then the actual interview.

Palin talks circles around the issue like a bad salesperson. It's sad that she can barely handle herself in an interview with the US media. How is she going to handle foreign press and leaders? She'll be eaten alive.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

You know, so many like to give Palin never ending grief when she stumbles a little facing reporters asking gotcha questions;

Yet, for some reason, Obama can stumble a little on his own(sans reporters) and that's ok?

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


Todays vocabulary word is Teleprompterless :)Hoo boy, that's some cringe-worthy stuff there, no doubt about it. I guess he is human after all. ;)

I've been hearing a lot about how much time these candidates spend talking to people. That they do these townhall meetings, and outdoor speeches, then shake hands with spectators, visit local businesses and schools, and then do interviews on the bus, and another on the plane, and call in to radio shows, and sit down with news anchors.....

I heard on NPR this morning that Palin is mostly relegated to introducing McCain on stage, and has stuck to the same speech she gave at the convention, minus the "thanks but no thanks" and "sold the plane on ebay" which were both false. They said she doesn't do any townhall meetings, any lunches with the public or other appearances. The report made it sound like this isn't what a VP nom should be doing.

I found a blog about Biden (http://www.delawareonline.com/blogs/biden.html), and it does seem he's not tethered to Obama at all.

I tried to find a blog about Palin's activities and found this (http://sarahpalin.typepad.com/). Heh, kinda funny. But I didn't find anything else.

In any case, if Palin doesn't answer questions from the public and is only trotted out as MC for McC, while Obama does townhalls and shaking hands in restaurants and all the rest, then it's guaranteed that he's going to have more gaffes and blind spots.

In addition, it's not like Palin blew just one question of the Couric interview. She blew a good 75% of it (and I think that's generous). She was a deer in headlights.

As Tom says - these were valid, sensible questions. She looked like a moron.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Are you serious? I just watched the Couric interview today. Those were not gotcha questions. Those were not hard questions. Palin embarrassed herself all on her own there.

I don't know. This question was particularly difficult, and obviously one of those setups we keep hearing about.

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —

COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.

PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.

COURIC: Can you name any of them?

PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.

;) I mean, who could expect anyone to know the answer to that? Talk about unfair...

[JWBear]

(disclaimer - I did not actually see the Couric interview. This is what I read, and I do not recall who wrote it up. It is entirely possible that I am wrong about this one and apologize if I am. I don't have time nor the desire to watch Couric).

I really wouldn't try defending her if you haven't watched it.

[innerSpaceman]

I can't believe I'm reading this. I don't know if it was 3894 in this thread or another, but the study about conservatives who simply dig in when presented with evidence contrary to their wishful worldview has apparently come home to roost among the couple of conservatives we have here, whom I have otherwise come to respect for some modicum of intelligence and integrity.


Please, sleepy and scaeagles, give it up on defendaing Sarah Palin. I can't believe everyone else here is wasting their time and fingertips explaining to you how the sun rises in the east, but also am appreciative of the massive solar rising evidence gathered here in one easy place.


I'm not going to waste any more of my particular fingertips on this subject. If we want to talk about how hot it is at noon, which IS debatable, then fine. But Palin sucking at interviews and the sun rising in the east are two absolutes I will no longer bother with ... and with all due respect I suggest the rest of you stop trying to convince these two ultra-stubborn individuals otherwise.


Check the study that 3894 linked to. There's just no point arguing, er, talking to such people.


I'm ashamed of both of you. You can do better than this.


scaeagles, if you change the subject one more time to try and deflect some criticism you're not happy with, I'm going to put you on Ignore till the election is over. Jeebus.


sleepyjeff, you on the other hand, have drunk far too much kool-aid, and your statements are so absurd that I don't have to bother ignoring them. They are almost gibberish of a foreign language.



Sorry to get too personal. But this is your guys' lowest hour.

[Gemini Cricket]

(disclaimer - I did not actually see the Couric interview. This is what I read, and I do not recall who wrote it up. It is entirely possible that I am wrong about this one and apologize if I am. I don't have time nor the desire to watch Couric).
Then you should have no opinion on the subject, imho.
Not seeing it nullifies your take on the interview.

That was like me arguing about The Passion of the Christ without even seeing it. I said, how can I have an opinion without doing the homework? So I saw it and then continued my rant...
;)

[Gemini Cricket]

On another note, I had a wonderful conversation with Mum about politics tonight. It didn't get heated and we both were very cordial to each other. She worries about Palin's readiness to lead and is concerned about McCain's temper. She wants to like Obama, but she thinks he's not as smart as JFK. She also thinks that Michelle Obama is going to be another Hillary Clinton and be a puppeteer.

I asked her if she believed the silly rumor about Obama being a Muslim. And she said at first she did but is questioning it because there is no proof. I told her that he says he's a Christian. She wanted to know how long he was a Christian. I said it didn't matter, born again Christians are brand new and embraced by other Christians, so even if he was a 'new Christian' it shouldn't matter... Christian is Christian...

The most important part was that she was actually listening to my take on Obama. It was refreshing.

She honestly is considering protest voting. Leaving it blank. Which was interesting to hear. She is a die hard Republican (although she voted for Carter twice and loves loves loves JFK).

Oh, and she thought it was rude that McCain didn't look at Obama during the debate. She said she kept yelling at the TV for him to do just that.

[scaeagles]

Hey ISM - I don't know how I changed the subject. Seriously.

[sleepyjeff]

In any case, if Palin doesn't answer questions from the public and is only trotted out as MC for McC, while Obama does townhalls and shaking hands in restaurants and all the rest, then it's guaranteed that he's going to have more gaffes and blind spots.



I am torn here.....my initial reaction to this portion of your response is "good point, mathematically speaking Obama is probably making far less mistakes percentage wise than Palin based on the fact that he indeed is speaking far more than her"......

but, ...it's been pointed out that I am incapable of conceding a point and must dig my heels in, drink kool aid, write gibberish, etc.

What to do, what to do?

[tracilicious]

I am torn here.....my initial reaction to this portion of your response is "good point, mathematically speaking Obama is probably making far less mistakes percentage wise than Palin based on the fact that he indeed is speaking far more than her"......

In all fairness to iSm, if I had read this post from you I'd have to wonder if my browser were somehow mixing up posts with usernames. It's not exactly typical...

[sleepyjeff]

In all fairness to iSm, if I had read this post from you I'd have to wonder if my browser were somehow mixing up posts with usernames. It's not exactly typical...

Now I am torn again.....If I point out that just within my last 30 posts or so you will find me conceding on several points, it looks like I can't even agree with someone on something as mundane as ~what is typical~ but if I don't point that out than I am conceding that I rarely concede.....I am so confused;)

[scaeagles]

Obama is starting to move into landslide territory. Realclearpolitics shows him up by 158 electorals.

(psst....ISM....I suppose you may consider this a change in the subject, but since it is something that says Obama is doing well, I'm hoping you'll excuse it.)

[lashbear]

Isn't this thing over yet ???

...Geez, you USA'uns know how to spin out elections, don't ya ??

:p

[Strangler Lewis]

The question about the "Bush doctrine" that he was so visibly disgusted that she didn't know what he was talking about, when in fact there have been 4 distinct Bush doctrines, and the one Gibson expanded upon isn't even regarded as the current one. I can post a link to a couple of write ups about it (Krauthammer did a good one) if anyone really is interested.



I read the Krauthammer piece, and my reaction then and now is that watching her answer, she couldn't have named any of them. Otherwise, she would have responded that his question was vague and explained why it was vague: "Well, Charlie, that's a phrase that's been thrown around a lot. Which Bush doctrine are you talking about? The one where . . ." And so on.

[scaeagles]

I certainly agree, Strangler. She isn't coming off as even a little bright. I would figure (hope?) she's smarter than she is interviewing.

My point wasn't that she would have been able to answer if it were more clear, it was Gibson's arrogance.

To be sure everyone understands what I'm saying, every politician needs to be able to deal with a hostile media, because even those that are loved one moment will be hated the next. Gotta be ready for it. She is not doing well. However, she's at a stage right now where I think the media ingeneral wants her to fail, and she isn't handling any of it well. Her fault. Her fault. Her fault. I write that three times so no one accuses me of trying to be a kool aid drinking synchophant (sp?). Once again, her fault.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Sorry, Leo, but if you haven't seen the Couric interview, I'd say you have no room to speak about Palin anymore at all. It's not something you can absorb from elsewhere, you must see it to believe it. It's an undeniably awful, embarrassing, incredible moment in American politics.

[scaeagles]

Fair enough. This is why I gave a very lengthy disclaimer, though, and only offered one thing I had read, which was very specific rather than anything about her overall performance.

I am planning on watching the debate Friday. After I watch that am I free to comment on her again?

[Betty]

I thought the debate was Thursday... ?

[JWBear]

I thought the debate was Thursday... ?

It is, but Gov Palin is planning on showing up on Friday... ("What? You mean today isn't Thursday? Oh, darn!")

[scaeagles]

HA! Contrary to what will probably be believed here, that was not an intentional attempt to deceive so you would all miss it.

[Snowflake]

This is the first I've seen of everything being +Obama across the board.
730
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Of course, polls don't mean sh!t, but I find it encouraging and they are fun to look at. I'm going to be very curious post-VP debate (providing Joe does not put his foot in his mouth) is there will be an even larger point spread.

[scaeagles]

I think they reflect some nervousness on the part of undecideds on Palin and her shakiness. I don't think it depends on Biden at all....If Palin has a good show, McCain/Palin gets a boost. If she continues on her current path, it could be over.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think they reflect some nervousness on the part of undecideds on Palin and her shakiness. I think it reflects nervousness on the part of undecideds on McCain's shakiness.

[Tom]

There are also some Quinnipiac state polls out today that have Obama up 8 in Ohio, 8 in Florida, and 15 in Pennsylvania. Those are bigger margins than other polls of those states have shown recently, but if they're even close then Obama would really be pulling away.

McCain needs to turn this around fast if he's going to have any chance. I would guess that we will be hearing about reverend Wright in the not-too-far-off future.

[innerSpaceman]

Um, too late for that. If you live in a swing state, you are already getting anonymous faxes and computerized telephone calls with misleading info about Reverand Wright and every other faux Obamination.


I thank the gods we live in California where campaigns and the underbelly of unaccountable supporters don't bother. Oh, and those unaccountable supporters have, of course, found loopholes in the law that allow them to escape the financial disclosures of the last election cycle. They are now completely unaccountable - and thus more disgusting and despicable in their conduct than ever before.


Kiss the ground in California, my friends.

[Gemini Cricket]

McCain needs to turn this around fast if he's going to have any chance. I would guess that we will be hearing about reverend Wright in the not-too-far-off future.
I'm worried that this will happen:
The October surprise will be Palin announcing she is dropping out to spend more time with her family. McCain replaces her with someone like Mitt Romney. This reignites the McCain base and gives him the oomph to win the election.
It's Rove-ian. I wouldn't put it past them...

[Strangler Lewis]

I've thought the same thing, but with Huckabee, not Romney storming out of the dressing room like Hulk Hogan to energize the base.

I comfort myself with the thought that they both want to run in 2012, and they won't think that being the VP on a losing ticket will be a big resume booster.

[scaeagles]

That's been a rumor with Hillary replacing Biden as well.

[Tenigma]

I'm worried that this will happen:
The October surprise will be Palin announcing she is dropping out to spend more time with her family. McCain replaces her with someone like Mitt Romney. This reignites the McCain base and gives him the oomph to win the election.
It's Rove-ian. I wouldn't put it past them...

Too many twists and turns on this journey already. All it shows to me is that McCain is impetuous and is not ready (or is too old and flumoxed) to lead our country. He probably would've been way better than Bush had he won in 2000. But I think he's past his time.

Whether Palin drops out may really depend on how she does in the debates tomorrow. If she does relatively OK (which I predict she will), she will be bolstered enough to stay. If she is as bad as she was with Katie Couric, then I think their numbers will drop even further and it will be really embarrassing.

The thing is, Palin galvanized the Republican core, strengthened the female conservative vote. If you replace Palin with either Romney or Huckabee, McCain will alienate that very core, and it will be total chaos. I don't know that he will be able to recover.

I really blame McCain in all this. It reminds me a lot of Team Hillary in the last months leading up to the last primary elections... she got thrown a curve ball after the February primaries and she never fully recovered, and she wound up with very little game plan except to mostly lob overripe tomatoes at Obama.

McCain seems to be changing and morphine every day. It's hard to keep up, and this is coming from someone who reads (or at least skims the headlines) multiple times a day. I mean, he made a HUGE deal about postponing the campaign to go and be the hero and get the bailout bill passed. He threatened to not attend the debate. Obama didn't bite. McCain finally gives in and shows up, and then McCain goes "back to Washington" but he's actually caught out of town when the vote finally came down... and it didn't pass. And then his team had the temerity to blame "Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the other Democrats" for the failure of the bill, when in fact it was his own inability to rein in his own party members.

There are a lot of TRUE conservative Republicans in Congress and neither Bush nor McCain has their support. Forget "bipartisan," McCain is simply disliked by most in Congress, it seems; and he sounds like the inept high school principal nobody listens to while everyone's busy having a food fight in the cafeteria.

All of this makes him look b-a-d. Swapping Palin with a Huckabee or Romney is not going to help. He's quickly running out of footballs to toss for his Hail Marys.

...I wouldn't put it past him to pull ANY stunt at this point, but to me it just shows how they're completely devolving.

[Gemini Cricket]

Excellent points, Lani.
:)

[scaeagles]

There are a lot of TRUE conservative Republicans in Congress and neither Bush nor McCain has their support.

Please see my avatar.

[Gemini Cricket]

Please see my avatar.
I see a celebrity in your avatar.
;)

[scaeagles]

Please don't accuse me of changing the subject. This is the Obama thread, this is sort of about Obama.

Is anyone else creeped out by the children singing about Obama? Seen the Youtube ideo? I don't happen to have a link handy, but it's not hard ot find.

[scaeagles]

I see a celebrity in your avatar.
;)


I see the last of the true conservatives. Need a crying smilie (oxymoron?).

[Strangler Lewis]

Please see my avatar.

Who's he on the stump for? I thought he was under the stump.

Speaking frivolously of dead presidents, just as there have been simulated tournaments between the greatest heavyweights and the greatest baseball teams, has their ever been a tournament of mock elections to figure out who'd be elected the greatest president ever? Interesting idea. (Thank you, SL) Would it be done by ignoring party affiliation? If not, some might complain, Reagan would have to face Lincoln before the finals. Or would Lincoln be recharacterized as a Democrat?

Carry on.

[JWBear]

McCain seems to be changing and morphine every day.

That explains a lot... ;)

Or would Lincoln be recharacterized as a Democrat?

I don't know about Lincoln, but Teddy Rooseveldt sure would!

[innerSpaceman]

Leo, for the record, I'm not accusing you of changing the subject. I'm accusing you of constantly responding to a criticism with a different or similar criticism of another person. It's a poor tactic to say, well Joe Schmoe should be excused because so-and-so did something similar or worse.

That is (most times) completely besides the point. To say, But, waaa, the Democrats did bad thing "B" does not excuse the Republicans from doing bad thing "A." And responding that Joe Biden put his foot in his mouth is not a valid refutation of Sarah Palin putting her foot in her mouth.


It's perfectly valid to bring up any of these things. But to constantly bring them up to deflect criticism you don't like of entirely other people or persons is really rather infantile.


Please reconsider.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Bully!

[Morrigoon]

Ew. I hope the Hillary-replaces-Biden thing stays merely rumor. Else I'll have to reconsider my vote.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Please don't accuse me of changing the subject. This is the Obama thread, this is sort of about Obama.

Is anyone else creeped out by the children singing about Obama? Seen the Youtube ideo? I don't happen to have a link handy, but it's not hard ot find.I haven't seen the video, but I'm generally creeped out by children as performers in any context so I imagine I would be.

[Strangler Lewis]

Sight unseen, I will concede the impropriety of using children as props in any political campaign, be it small-worldy-sounding songs for Obama or as sign-carrying "evidence" at anti-choice demonstrations.

[flippyshark]

I haven't seen the video, but I'm generally creeped out by children as performers in any context so I imagine I would be.

You'd best avoid Bugsy Malone (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074256/) then.

I agree that using kids as performers for political and/or religious advocacy is manipulative and awful.

[Tenigma]

Is anyone else creeped out by the children singing about Obama? Seen the Youtube ideo? I don't happen to have a link handy, but it's not hard ot find.

Yes, completely creepy. Drudge linked to it with a tag that said "Children sing for dear leader." I think he also under the Obama video, had a link to a bunch of North Korean children singing for their leader, as well.

There was a time when Drudge posted positive links about Obama. Now he routinely ignores controversial stories... Troopergate would otherwise be HUGE (I just have to read Mudflats (http://mudflats.wordpress.com) instead).

Who's he on the stump for? I thought he was under the stump.

Ouch! Hey, the poor guy's dead, let him rest with his jar of Jelly Bellys

[scaeagles]

Leo, for the record, I'm not accusing you of changing the subject.

Please reconsider.

OK.

To be honest, I don't even know how I did that in relation to your post, unless you were referring to my comment on "hope" and "change", which was only made because GC mentioned those terms.

[innerSpaceman]

No, no. I'm not talking about a specific post. I'm talking about a pattern developing over many posts, throughout many threads, over many days.

[scaeagles]

Me??? Well, you should see what MBC's been doing! :)

[Tom]

From Politico.com:

Channel 73 on the Dish Network is now The Obama Channel.

Three readers from different parts of the country email that Channel 073-00 on the Dish Network is now labeled OBAMA... The channel plays his two-minute ad laying out his economic plan on a loop, over and over.

...a Dish Network executive emailed to reassure the user that it "is paid advertising by the Obama campaign and is not an endorsement of Senator Obama by DISH Network" and will broadcast through November 4.

[JWBear]

Obama and Bartlett (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21dowd-sorkin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

[innerSpaceman]

^ HYSTERICAL! :D

[cirquelover]

Gary was watching the Obama channel last night and it is actually more than a two minute loop. I caught a mini biography of him and also him explaining the new bailout. Although then they go to the loop in between other short stories.

I commented that he must have paid a fortune for that privelege and also asked if there was a McCain one too. There is not.

[JWBear]

God! I wish Jed Bartlett was running for President! He'd make short work of McCain and Palin. (And with his Nobel Prize in economics, he could easily solve the economic chrisis as well!)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Thought I'd post some positive news. That's a lot of blue. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/)

We'll see what the debate does, though reports are currently saying that it will do nothing.

[Ghoulish Delight]

McCain needs to turn this around fast if he's going to have any chance. I would guess that we will be hearing about reverend Wright in the not-too-far-off future.
Good call:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27018572/

"We're going to get a little tougher," a senior Republican operative said, indicating that a fresh batch of television ads is coming. "We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here," said the operative, who was not authorized to discuss strategy and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Hopefully if Wright's name resurfaces, the name Kalnins pops up right behind it. Not that I give a crap what Kalnins has said, but if they're going to bring up irrelevant views of someone other than the candidate, then it's fair game to fight fire with fire.

[Gemini Cricket]

I got some sh!t from a frat boy and friends in an Expedition in the Angels' parking lot last night for having an Obama sticker on my car.
"NObama!" He kept chanting as he drove next to me all the way out to Gene Autry Way. I just smiled and ignored his ass.
I hope Obama wins. It'll wipe that smile off of that f*cker's self-righteous face.

btw - I'm going to get an official Obama sticker for my car instead of the free MoveOn.org one I got in the mail...
:)

[innerSpaceman]

then it's fair game to fight fire with fire.
You know Obama's going to stay above all that, and appear (and likely be) calm and collected. Maybe that didn't work for Kerry, but it seems to be working very well for Obama as a cool head in a time of crisis, and frantic mudslinging by the McCain camp will likely look like more flailing around.


Pfft, i also think it's going to be very hard to "change the subject" from American financial collapse in the next four weeks.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oh, I don't expect Obama to join, but his surrogates are free to.

[Tenigma]

Bruce Springsteen in an acoustic concert (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B61C2Pl23oo) in Philly on Saturday for a voter registration rally sponsored by the Obama campaign.

He took a few minutes out to talk to the audience (http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/new_jersey/20081004_ap_springsteenrocksobamarallyinphilly.htm l) (tens of thousands but I haven't seen an estimate) about why he's voting for Barack Obama:

"I've spent 35 years writing about America and its people and the meaning of the American promise , a promise handed down right here in this city," said the New Jersey rocker, whose songs often depict down-on-their-luck, working-class dreamers. "Our everyday citizens ... have justifiably lost faith in its meaning."

[BDBopper]

I am starting to hear rumors of an October surprise of massive proportions. the rumors are being fueled by Joe Biden canceling campaign appearances to deal with an illness in his family. The rumor is that Biden is about to step down with Hillary Clinton to replace him.

No matter how unlikely what would your opinion of such a move be? I think Obama would be making a mistake of seismic proportions. He's in the cat bird's seat. To use a sports analogy he is up by a field goal with two minutes left to go in the game, McCain has no time outs and Obama has the ball. If his VP is replaced that would be like carelessly passing the ball instead of running the clock out and winning the game. Such a move would have to be seen as one in unneeded desperation.

[scaeagles]

That rumor has been circulated for quite a while and I put no credence to it whatsoever, particularly with sizable Obama lead.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

No way they'd do that. It's stupid.

[BDBopper]

Was just watching "Huckabee" on Fox News and during the half-hour news break they mentioned that Joe Biden's mother-in-law has just passed away. :( My condolences go out to him and his family on their loss.

[Alex]

I think it was earlier in this thread that we discussed polling flaws and whatnot. The poitn was made about the pollsters being pros at their jobs and doing the best to adjust for the difficulties of random sample polling.

I agree with that idea, and the difficulty is that while you know some polls will be wrong, it is difficult to know which ones. Anyway, an interesting case in point.

Two surveys for Minnesota. Same polling period. Star Tribune has Obama up by 18 in that state. SurveyUSA has McCain up by 1. Anyway, found it interesting.

[bewitched]

As much as I would love Clinton on the ticket, I think it is far more likely that Palin would have some kind of "emergency."

That said, I think the chance of either VP choice bailing, with 1 month left, is nil to less than nil.

[scaeagles]

Two surveys for Minnesota. Same polling period. Star Tribune has Obama up by 18 in that state. SurveyUSA has McCain up by 1. Anyway, found it interesting.

That is an amazing gap.

[BDBopper]

I don't think either poll seems to be accurate. I predict a 5 percent win for Obama in Minnesota. Still close but but as close as it was there during 2000 and 2004.

[Gemini Cricket]

Homer Simpson tries to vote for Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ)

[Ghoulish Delight]

At this point, Obama is where Bush was, from an electoral standpoint, against both Gore and Kerry. All he has to do is hold all the blue states, and win a small handful of toss-ups (all leaning his direction right now) and he has more than 270. McCain will have to hold all the red states, and either take a blue state or take every single toss-up state (all of which are leaning Obama). Not outside the realm of possibility, Kerry and Gore came vey close to pulling it off, but they didn't, the odds are long.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I don't think I can hold my breath for a whole month more

[Tenigma]

I am starting to hear rumors of an October surprise of massive proportions. the rumors are being fueled by Joe Biden canceling campaign appearances to deal with an illness in his family. The rumor is that Biden is about to step down with Hillary Clinton to replace him.
As others have mentioned, Joe Biden has cancelled public appearances for today and tomorrow because his mother-in-law passed away.

The October surprise is basically that McCain's advertising has been confirmed as going 100% NEGATIVE. They are basically throwing in the kitchen sink, which is what was happening with Camp Hillary in the last month of the primaries.

Palin, as "the wolverine biting at the pant leg of passersby," she has revisited the relationship of Obama with Bill Ayers, starting with her stumping this weekend. She also started mentioning Jeremiah Wright. I'm sure it won't be long before she's also mentioning Rezko.

If nothing else, I'm going to tip my hat to Hillary for vetting all this stuff out on Obama during the primaries. It means none of this is new news, which means it makes Palin just look like she's slinging monkey-poo.

The thing is, Team Hillary was at least smart about the way they did it. Camp McCain, not so much. They were either so insecure or so gleeful that McCain finally gave the go-ahead, that THEY COULDN'T CONTAIN THIS INFORMATION. As the news media was going into the weekend, Republican operatives LEAKED THIS INFORMATION to the media (that McCain's campaign was going to start hitting Obama below the belt).

This gave Obama a huge hand, because they immediately went to work on readjusting their plans for this week. They almost immediately posted a 30-second teaser about McCain's associations with Keating in the Keating 5 savings and loan scandal from the early 1990s.

The Obama campaign released a 12-minute+ video on YouTube today that talked about McCain's association with Keating, and explaining how this is where McCain came from, and talking about McCain's history of wanting DEREGULATION (less government overnight) rather than MORE oversight, which is what McCain is currently trumpeting.

I'm sure Obama won't go completely negative (you don't go negative when you're leading the polls) but there are pro-Obama people who will gladly remind you about Todd and Sarah Palin's associations with an extremist organization in Alaska that condones "domestic terrorism" and wants Alaska to secede from the United States (how patriotic is that?). There's also a pastor that McCain is associated with, who is just as radical and crazy as Jeremiah Wright... in fact it's one of the reasons McCain told his campaign staff relatively early on NOT to touch the Wright issue because he knew that would come home to roost on his nest.

...

The numbers are amazing. I've been going to the barackobama.com site almost everyday now for a year, and you could see how little seeds kept getting planted. One of those little seeds happened earlier this spring, when, even though he hadn't won the primaries yet, he started reaching out to prep for the general election campaign by getting a very very very large and extensive grassroots volunteer force set up in all 50 states. There was a huge drive to get volunteers. Because volunteers are way cheaper than paying for TV advertising, and they are far more effective... nothing as effective as your neighbor chatting with you about the economy and the future, and who to vote for.

These little seedlings are sprouting all over the country. Even in states where it was assumed that there was no chance for a Democrat to win, they still worked the ground. What it did was force the McCain campaign to have to spread itself extraordinarily thin. A good example? Nebraska. Oh my god, let me tell you about Nebraska.

Nebraska has not voted for a Democrat in like 6,000 years (back when man walked among the dinosaurs, as Gov. Palin would tell ya). But unlike a lot of other states, Nebraska does not use a winner-take-all system for the general. They've broken into three precincts. Two of them offer up two electoral votes, and the third offers up just a single one.

But see, the Obama people have been working Nebraska hard. Because if they can even capture a couple of those electoral votes, that could make the difference in the event of a near-tie.

Is Team McCain worried? You betcha! They aren't just putting TV ads in Nebraska. They're sending their big gun: Sarah Palin HERSELF is going to Nebraska to stump this week. For a state that has traditionally been a given for the Republicans, sending Ms. Rising Star herself? UNPRECEDENTED.

A lot of different scenarios can happen for this election. In the worst case, it may be a tie (which Congress has to break). But I think all those seedlings the Obama campaign planted will come to bear fruit.

It's quite possible we will even turn red states into blue. Just imagine. Nebraska. Georgia. Florida. VIRGINIA.

[Tom]

Great post, Tenigma! Thanks or all the info and enthusiasm.

Unfortunately, though, you were a little off on the vote allocation in Nebraska. They give two electoral votes to the candidate who wins statewide, and one electoral apiece vote for the winner of each of the state's three congressional districts. There is a possibility that Obama could be competitive in the states second Congressional district, which includes Omaha.

To back up your final point, I saw two(!) polls today that had Obama up by double digits in Virginia.

[Snowflake]

Great post, Tenigma! Thanks or all the info and enthusiasm.

Ditto

To back up your final point, I saw two(!) polls today that had Obama up by double digits in Virginia.

:-) Big grin here.
In my neighborhood when I lived in Warrenton, I was the sole blue dot in a sea of red!

[Morrigoon]

Speaking of Omaha, where's Warren Buffett stand on this election? Is he going for Obama? (if I recall he's actually a democrat, isn't he?)

[Alex]

Warren Buffet has endorsed Obama.

[innerSpaceman]

So, do we want Obama to win badly enough that we'd like the entire economy to tank? For millions of people to lose their jobs? For fiscal conditions that will completely cripple the next Administration no matter who wins?

[Morrigoon]

Because Buffett's wrong SO often where the economy is concerned.

[Ghoulish Delight]

So, do we want Obama to win badly enough that we'd like the entire economy to tank? For millions of people to lose their jobs? For fiscal conditions that will completely cripple the next Administration no matter who wins?
Huh? What does one have to do with the other?

[Scrooge McSam]

So, do we want Obama to win badly enough that we'd like the entire economy to tank? For millions of people to lose their jobs? For fiscal conditions that will completely cripple the next Administration no matter who wins?


Who are you talking to?

[Tenigma]

Unfortunately, though, you were a little off on the vote allocation in Nebraska.

Oh thank you for the correction! I also said "precinct" when I meant congressional district.

So, do we want Obama to win badly enough that we'd like the entire economy to tank?

I don't think anything will change in the economy right now regardless of whether we want Obama or McCain to win. Listening to the news today, though, it looks like the ripples are hitting Europe, and even one bank in China.

[Gemini Cricket]

From the Huffington Post:
30 Lies Refuted About Ayers and Obama (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/30-lies-refuted-about-aye_b_132109.html)

[Snowflake]

Taliban split with al Qaeda, seek peace
By Nic Robertson
CNN Senior International Correspondent

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Taliban leaders are holding Saudi-brokered talks with the Afghan government to end the country's bloody conflict -- and are severing their ties with al Qaeda, sources close to the historic discussions have told CNN.


King Abdullah of Saudia Arabia hosted meetings between the Afghan government and the Taliban, a source says.

The militia, which has been intensifying its attacks on the U.S.-led coalition that toppled it from power in 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, has been involved four days of talks hosted by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, says the source.

The talks -- the first of their kind aimed at resolving the lengthy conflict in Afghanistan -- mark a significant move by the Saudi leadership to take a direct role in Afghanistan, hosting delegates who have until recently been their enemies.


Article Here (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/afghan.saudi.talks/index.html)

If mods think of a better place for this, please move it. I was not sure where to put it.

[innerSpaceman]

To answer GD's HUH and Scrooge's WHO .... it's the economic disaster that's putting this in the bag for Obama. There's 2 days less than a month to go. The economy is not going to stand still during that time. It's either going to get worse for the nation and thus better for Obama (which, yes, I believer would ultimately be better for the nation), or it's going to get better and dissolve Obama's distinct advantage.


And that's not directed to anyone in particular. Just a Sophie's choice presented to anyone to ponder.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oh, is that what you meant.

First of all, the economy is not going to magically heal itself in the next month no matter what. Even if the bleeding stops, it will take a long time for a full recovery. The odds of a sudden turn around and everyone saying, "OMG, McCain really DID go fix everything!" are nil.

Second of all, even in the event of a more realistic turn around, where the bleeding stops and things level out, or even begin the slow climb back uphill, I would be beyond shocked if that were enough to turn things around for McCain. The damage has already been done, McCain has already shown that he's ill prepared to handle himself under economic pressure. From, "The economy is sound," to, "I'm suspending my campaign to do campaign interviews about suspending my campaign, to the Linda Blair routine("I'm proud to have made this bill pass." "This bill is crap, Bush needs to veto it!" "Obama phoned it in while I went there and made this bill happen." "Veto Veto Veto!!!"), no one is buying it.

[Alex]

If the choice is:

A. Obama presidency and anything close to the worst case scenario being presented economically.

B. McCain presidency and a healthy return to a 2004 economy.

I would, without hesitation pick B. Now, I don't think that is at all the option we're facing, but if God came down and said "I'm existing for a few minutes for the sole purpose of putting this choice on your shoulders..." then that is how I'd go.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Put that way, yes, I suppose I agree. I'm not sitting here rooting for utter economic meltdown so that Obama can win.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, that's sorta what I meant. I was halfway cheering economic woes for people just so they'd see the light about McCain. I felt bad about it.

[Morrigoon]

I'm a little disappointed that the Obama camp is stooping to McCain's level:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27062761/

[innerSpaceman]

Personally, I'm thrilled.


Everyone complained when Kerry got his asz swiftboated into oblivion by being above the fray. Now that swiftboating is a freaking VERB ... I don't want even the likes of cool and collected Obama to just sit there and take it.


If John McCain wants guilt-by-association ... he made a very, very, very bad choice. McCain's got some truly dicey associations, and I hope the Obama camp outs every one of them.

BTW, I don't mind them saying, while they do so, that guilt by association is retarded ... but since McCain brought it up, here's some of the villains he's done business with over the years of his long maverickhood.

[Snowflake]

[QUOTE=Snowflake;244531]Taliban split with al Qaeda, seek peace

This has been disproved and denied. Sorry, CNN (and me) made a boo-boo

[innerSpaceman]

Like I ever believed that for a second anyway. But why is this in the Obama thread? Are you saying he's a muslim terrorist?

[Morrigoon]

I just got a call from the Obama campaign looking for phone bank volunteers. They have an office in Mission Viejo (corner of Los Alisos and Trabuco) that's open from:

10a-9p weekdays
11a-9p weekends

The phone number there is 949-584-5819. They have a calendar you can sign up on, but he said walk-in volunteers are welcome as well.

You guys up for a little campaigning?

[Moonliner]

I just got a call from the Obama campaign looking for phone bank volunteers. They have an office in Mission Viejo (corner of Los Alisos and Trabuco) that's open from:

10a-9p weekdays
11a-9p weekends

The phone number there is 949-584-5819. They have a calendar you can sign up on, but he said walk-in volunteers are welcome as well.

You guys up for a little campaigning?

Sure. That could be a helluva lot of fun. For a little bit at least...

[wendybeth]

.......I saw two(!) polls today that had Obama up by double digits in Virginia.



That's because Virginia is Communistland.;)

[JWBear]

Personally, I'm thrilled.


Everyone complained when Kerry got his asz swiftboated into oblivion by being above the fray. Now that swiftboating is a freaking VERB ... I don't want even the likes of cool and collected Obama to just sit there and take it.


If John McCain wants guilt-by-association ... he made a very, very, very bad choice. McCain's got some truly dicey associations, and I hope the Obama camp outs every one of them.

BTW, I don't mind them saying, while they do so, that guilt by association is retarded ... but since McCain brought it up, here's some of the villains he's done business with over the years of his long maverickhood.

Unfortunately, ties to an ultra right-wing fascist organization will only make him more popular with his base…

[innerSpaceman]

His base doesn't matter. He's already got that covered with Sarah Palin. Yes, that's been a very good weapon for him. His demoralized base which might have sat home WILL be coming out to vote for Palin.

But this election is all up to the four undecided white women who live in the middle of nowhere. I don't know how they feel about facism.

[JWBear]

His base doesn't matter. He's already got that covered with Sarah Palin. Yes, that's been a very good weapon for him. His demoralized base which might have sat home WILL be coming out to vote for Palin.

But this election is all up to the four undecided white women who live in the middle of nowhere. I don't know how they feel about facism.

(pssst... iSm, it was a joke....)

[innerSpaceman]

Is it ok if I picture Mr. Avatar whispering "pssst ... iSm" in my ear?

[JWBear]

Absolutely. ;)

[Strangler Lewis]

But this election is all up to the four undecided white women who live in the middle of nowhere. I don't know how they feel about facism.

Depends. Are they pretty?
Or are they plain, Starbuck?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Wait, I'm confused, which candidate is the one that's supposed to not be ready to lead on day 1 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/obama-mccain-transition-e_n_132976.html)?

[Morrigoon]

Polls, polls and more polls...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26981780/

[Ghoulish Delight]

It looks like the idiots may cancel each other out. According to Gallup polling, while 6% say Obama's race makes them less likely to vote for him, 9% say it makes them more likely to. If you figure, as most people have been, that there's a chunk of folks who SAY that race doesn't matter, but really won't vote for him because of his race, and it seems like it'll be a wash.

[JWBear]

Polls, polls and more polls...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26981780/

That's from a week ago.

[JWBear]

Wait, I'm confused, which candidate is the one that's supposed to not be ready to lead on day 1 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/obama-mccain-transition-e_n_132976.html)?

McCain doesn't need an administration - staff are for sissies! He's going to run the whole country by himself, 'cause he's a maverick!

[Strangler Lewis]

Yes, we can. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=77052)

While I can't say I entirely support the premise and execution of the video, what surprises me is that the folks on the site found it so appalling as to not even require comment.

[Tom]

It is being reported that Obama haas bought half-hour blocks of time on CBS and NBC, and is negotiating the same with Fox.

I remember it wasnt too long ago that people were wondering how it was that Obama's money advantage over McCain wasn't looking as big as expected. Well, it's playing pretty big.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Wow, for the first time, all of the polls on Real Clear Politics' short list are showing Obama. Gallup still has him with an unrealistically high 11% lead. FiverThirtyEight has Obama at better than 90% chance to win.

Why doesn't any of this comfort me?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Yes, we can. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=77052)

While I can't say I entirely support the premise and execution of the video, what surprises me is that the folks on the site found it so appalling as to not even require comment.I'm sorry, but that looks very fake to me, and totally ridiculous. Of course if you search for it all you get are anti-Obama sites. Can't wait until it's debunked somewhere...

[Gemini Cricket]

Why doesn't any of this comfort me?
Well, speaking for me, I'm not comforted for two reasons: Gore and Kerry.

[Deebs]

This afternoon I went to pick my kids up from a play date set up for them by their dad. They were playing at a person's house I'd never met before, someone my ex knows. He dropped them off there, I picked them up.

The neighborhood is a in an old section, but very nice, and next to the oldest country club in town. When I got to the house I noticed a McCain lawn sign. When I got to the door, the lady of the house was on her cell phone, talking about the Women for McCain party she is hosting tonight. While I stood there waiting for my kids to put their shoes on and pick up the mess they helped make in this woman's living room, I heard her say a variety of disturbing things during her phone conversation.

First, I heard her call Obama, "Osama".

She was not being facetious, she sounded deadly serious. She said "Osama refuses to put his hand on the bible. It's because he is a Muslim, you know."

She went on to say that George W. Bush is being nailed to a cross by the public. There is more, but it's just more of the same.

If it hadn't been so horribly nauseating, it might have been sit com material. She sounded like Gladys Kravitz, in fact.

She invited me to her party tonight. Yeah. I'm on my way out the door riiiiiiiiight this minute.

[flippyshark]

Funny you should mention this. I was just on the phone with my Mom a few hours ago, and she went to a Women For McCain party (in Pennsylvania) a couple of days ago. She is a lifelong Republican, but she was very put off by the ridiculous and baseless barrage of Muslim rumors and fearmongering. When she went to leave, she was offered some signs to put in her yard, and she turned them down. Now, she is much less certain of how she wants to vote. (She is also no fan of Palin, and has been less than thrilled with the McCain of the last couple of weeks.)

I tried ever so gently to nudge her over to the Obama side, but she just sighed and said, "I don't know what I'm going to do." She then said she wishes she could vote for Bill Cosby.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Well, speaking for me, I'm not comforted for two reasons: Gore and Kerry.
Except Gore and Kerry never had a lead like this.

[Gemini Cricket]

Except Gore and Kerry never had a lead like this.
Obama's lead has me hopeful but I'm still hesitant to rejoice just yet...

[Cadaverous Pallor]

If a 90% chance of victory isn't enough to make you feel better, I don't know what is. :) It's not so much Yes We Can as Yes We Are...

[Gemini Cricket]

If a 90% chance of victory isn't enough to make you feel better, I don't know what is. :) It's not so much Yes We Can as Yes We Are...
I hear ya. But I'll be completely happy when his win is official.
:)

[innerSpaceman]

Well you already voted. Does it seem more unnerving because now you just have to wait until everybody else does?

[Strangler Lewis]

I'm sorry, but that looks very fake to me, and totally ridiculous. Of course if you search for it all you get are anti-Obama sites. Can't wait until it's debunked somewhere...

Hadn't considered that it was fake. I think if it had been faked, it wouldn't have led off with the positive affirmations. Of course, maybe the creators think black architects are scary.

[Gemini Cricket]

I usually shrug off any campaign that emails me something to watch. Straight to the trash can... But I did watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCeNPAaGVVY) from the Obama camp and it made me admire him even more.

[Morrigoon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-__IdzH1b8

[scaeagles]

Here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html) is a great break down of why I do not trust Obama and his promised tax cuts. Much of what he calls a tax cut he only can because he redefines what a tax cut is.

[scaeagles]

I will make another post that I am immensely concerned about the amount of voter registration fraud, particularly with the group ACORN.

Also, has anyone else seen the youtube video of the people marching through Manhattan carrying McCain/Palin signs? For the party of tolerance and acceptance, there sure were a whole lot of gestures and words that did not exude tolerance or acceptance of opposing view points.

[flippyshark]

I agree that the rude gestures and booing are stupid and regrettable, and I wish all dems were classy people. But nobody gets to swing this charge with a clean conscience. (Which party was shouting "traitor" and "kill him" last week?) Partisan bickering is annoying, non productive, and brings out the petty in people. Just look at this thread!

I haven't done enough homework on ACORN, but at least in theory, it sounds like a group that needs to exist. Minorities and people in poor neighborhoods have historically been given extremely shabby treatment at the polls. I agree, there is no room in this or any election for voter fraud, and I don't think the dems would need to resort to that this year anyway. (stifling impulse to say "unlike the repubs back in 2000" - okay, technically not stifling it at all, but using comical parenthetical aside to toss an easy brickbat.)

If you have any links to solid info on ACORN malfeasance, preferably from a non-partisan source, I'd read it over. If there really is widespread registering of dead peoples names and transporting of persons across state or county lines for voter fraud happening, it is obviously in the best interests of dems to put a stop to it. On the other hand, if there is only rumor and partisan desperation behind it, well, my eyes can't roll enough.

Edited to add - And if your only purpose in bringing these matters up is to basically say "See, you democrats are hypocrites and bad people," then shame on you, and find another fricking hobby. (said affectionately - I'm a Leo fan.)

[innerSpaceman]

Voter REGISTRATION fraud is not the same as voter fraud. Since money is paid for every registred name, there are AUTOMATICALLY going to be fraudulent acts commited by every party in every state in every country on every planet that pays for registered names.


But since these fictitious people do not show up to VOTE, no voter fraud is committed.



In other words ... YAWN.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, and I don't trust Obama's or ANY candidate's promised tax cuts. Only a fool would believe such a thing after they've experienced more than 2 presidential elections in their lives ... and only an absolute IDIOT would believe there are going to be tax cuts when every single American household owes $480,000 in national debt to be paid, mostly to the Chinese, in the soon to be worthless dollar.

[JWBear]

Minorities and people in poor neighborhoods have historically been given extremely shabby treatment at the polls.

And Republicans will go to great lengths to keep it that way. Smears and lies, again, being the favorite tactic of the Republican Party.

[JWBear]

Oh, and Leo... If you think I'm voting for Obama because of his tax plan, or that I really give a rats ass about it at this point, then you would be sadly mistaken.

[scaeagles]

You know, when I change the subject when someone points out something about the republican party or McCain by pointing out something the dems do wrong, I am usually chastized for it. But no, flippy, I didn't bring those things up for that reason....I brought them up because they are concerning.

My point has nothing to do with what McCain is or isn't doing....my point is that Obama is deliberately misrepresenting and not telling the truth regarding his tax plan. I suppose if the Republicans redefined rich as anyone with a net worth over 10 billion they could say they have never supported tax cuts for the wealthy. I don't care if you support Obama or not whether all or in part due to his tax cuts. The fact is he is LIEING specifically to sway undecided voters. As tax policy is a big, big point for a large number of voters, it is no doubt intentional. I recall the Obama tax cut link to calculate the tax cut you'll get if Obama is elected....something tells me that a lot of people find it important, particularly with the hits Obama is giving McCain on the "tax cuts for the wealthy" and the responses to those here.

Regarding voter fraud - the investigations are serious and ongoing into ACORN. I also believe that being regiestered to vote in more than one place is a crime. I could be mistaken, and if so, I apologize.

[scaeagles]

And Republicans will go to great lengths to keep it that way. Smears and lies, again, being the favorite tactic of the Republican Party.


Voter fraud is one of the favorite tactics of dems....cheating, smearing, lieing....all democrat party strategies.

[wendybeth]

Leo must have read the latest poll numbers.

:p

(I know I commit voter fraud on a daily basis. I get up and the first thing I say to myself is "Wendy, have you committed your voter fraud today?" I have to remind myself to stay on task, because I'm so busy having abortions and sneaking terrorists across the border. Being a Dem is hard work!)

[scaeagles]

Actually, the latest poll numbers are closing the gap. I doubt it will be enough, but they are narrowing.

[Moonliner]

Vote fraud is a very serious issue, even more so with all these ****ing electronic voting systems. They raise the specter of a stolen election like nothing else in the history of our democracy. I'm fairly sure I don't want our election process to become one of who the best hackers support. Especially since BOTH parties have been clearly shown to have members not above stealing an election.

[JWBear]

Voter fraud is one of the favorite tactics of dems....cheating, smearing, lieing....all democrat party strategies.

Actually... In the last two presidential elections there was vastly more voter fraud (and blatant voter suppression) on the part of the Republicans. The old "Your friend shoplifted, so you have to let me commit armed robbery" defense is old, tired, and just plain indefensible.

The massive amounts of dirty tricks, lies, corruption, hypocrisy, and just plain nastiness on the part of the Republicans over the last eight years - vastly outnumbering the Democrats by orders of magnitude - have made me lose any trust or support for Republicans I ever had. I've voted for candidates from both parties equally in the past. No more. I've moved from a moderate to a staunch Democrat now. You can thank your party for that.

[Morrigoon]

But, JW, to be fair, the whining about recounts in the last election was pretty irritating for republicans. And there was plenty of talk about hanging chads becoming less hanging, IYKWIM.

[JWBear]

Vote fraud is a very serious issue, even more so with all these ****ing electronic voting systems. They raise the specter of a stolen election like nothing else in the history of our democracy. I'm fairly sure I don't want our election process to become one of who the best hackers support. Especially since BOTH parties have been clearly shown to have members not above stealing an election.

Fortunately, that tactic only works when the vote is close. If the final tally from the electronic machines is very far off of what the polls (including exit polls), then it becomes too obvious. they will try it, though.

Who is the biggest manufacturer of electronic voting machines? Debolt.
Which brand of voting machine seems to have the most instances of changing Democratic votes to Republican ones - in error, of course (wink, wink)? Debolt.
Which party does Debolt contribute the most money to? The Republican Party.

Hmmmmmm.... No, there couldn't be any relation there...

[JWBear]

But, JW, to be fair, the whining about recounts in the last election was pretty irritating for republicans. And there was plenty of talk about hanging chads becoming less hanging, IYKWIM.

Soooo... You're saying that when there are signs of voter fraud, the losing party just has to shut up and take it? I don't think so.

I'm so very sorry they were irritated. How inconsiderate of us for wanting a fair chance at the White House.

[wendybeth]

A voter recount gave our governor the election. Now, her old opponent is claiming that "Seattle stole the election" and has pasted billboards all over Eastern Wa saying so. It's not having the effect he hoped for.