I find it hysterical that Pelosi's new book has sold less than 2800 copies.

I was thinking about Pelosi today (I know - creepy) and I started thinking about her former buddy Cindy Sheehan. Cindy used to get a lot of face time until she decided to run against Pelosi because of Pelosi's failure to act on the war. Being somewhat conspiratorial, I wonder if that is intentional, or if she had just become old news. When she was camping outside the Crawford ranch she was covered, but I don't see much in the media now that the focus of her protest has changed to dems who haven't followed through on what they had said they would.

I think the Hilton/Spears ad, while initially providing great fodder for humor on both sides, underscores the differences between the two candidates in a way that McCain may not have intended. He comes across as as a sort of bitter old dude that is jealous of the attention his opponent is garnering, and is grasping at straws to make himself relevant. He also drags two persons, one whom is mentally ill, into an arena that neither belongs- and appears to be denigrating them in the process. With all of our domestic and international problems, as Obama said "Is this the best he can do?" Good question. It signaled a return (not that we ever left) to Rovian attack ads and pretty much indicates what sort of strategy his team is going with.

Exactly!

I didn't interpret it that way at all. But you knew that. People who have made up their minds will certainly view that in completely different ways. The undecideds....I have no idea what impact it would make.

It was a take on the media and the celebrity/rock star status of Obama, and that just because one has celebrity does not mean they are ready for leadership.

How did you interpret McCain using two people who have nothing to do with politics (Paris and Brittney) in his ad (without their permission)?

Well, thank heavens that nobody thought that way in 1980, otherwise you might not have an avatar. ;)

Apparently, I must spread more mojo around... :snap:

Yep, I found that mojo-worthy myself.


Of course, scaeagles is likely to respond that RR was governor of California ... to which I will pre-retort:

Ahem, Governator anyone?

Yeah... California will elect anyone as Governor, it's no qualification for leadership.

(Of course, Regan was napping, and not in charge, the whole time he was President, so it doesn't matter anyway.) ;)

To be fair though, by 1980 Reagan had a reasonably long record of executive leadership in private and public government.

You certainly had a longer record of Reagan as a political being than you do of Obama. I don't consider that much of an issue for Obama because I don't really have any doubt as to Obama's political persona. I'm definitely evaluating his leadership skills on less evidence than most candidates historically.