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

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


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



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



And thus ends my sunday morning rant.

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

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

Once again, Garrison Keillor puts things in perspective in his own colorful and inimitable way.

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

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

For the record, these are his words -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently I must spread some mojo around, CP.

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

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

McCain's own Wikipedia page kind of glosses it over, but reading the main page for his ex-wife sure is enlightening.

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

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

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

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

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

Disgusting.

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

And Republicans want this person running the country...

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

Yes, You Can. ;)

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

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

Is that official LoT policy:confused:

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

I'm voting for Alfred E. Newman.

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

It's Nephytys.

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

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

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

Hey, how about that Obama guy!

I heard he was Muslim and related to Saddam!










KIDDING!!!!!!!!

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

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

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

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

Honest to god, there are people like this.

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

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

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

Stupid voters exist on all sides of the political spectrum.

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

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

Yeah. Kids. :)

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

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

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

That doesn't even make sense.

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

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

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

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

It does make sense.

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

Maybe I read it and earlier statements incorrectly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, but it still doesn't make sense.

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

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

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

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



;)

Never, ISM.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, apparently McCain is a bit inspired too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

There are uninformed voters everywhere.

But I'll stop.

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

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

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

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

Mucho Alex mojo.

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

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

VAM, VAM, VAM.

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

VisibleAlexMojo

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just found this YouTube clip that kind of summarizes Barack's approach to things. It starts getting good about 20 seconds in, so just sit through the dull bit.

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

Republicans for Obama.

Come on scaeagles, take the plunge.

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

Here's one group. Though they don't seem to be so much for McCain as pissed of about Clinton losing.

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

Bud Clark was a Republican?

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

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

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



http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...aps/Aug12.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...aps/Aug12.html

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

I kinda liked this one because the lyrics make sense in the context.

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

I guess this is supposed to be an insult...

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

Hmmmm.... when you say something is "Micky Mouse" in a noncomplimentary way, it's referring to something being stupid or dumb, or too simple.

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

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

Tenigma is still learning the ways of the LoT ;)

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

Link to the whole story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fine, I'll remove the "aggressor" part of it.

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

Mmm yesh, I am but a grasshoppah.

Wax in, wax out.

Oh hey by the way, Obama's now http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...3T]gone mobile!

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

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

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

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

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

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

D'oh! I've been pwned.

Repair for Tenigma's link.

And here I thought you were being sarcastic, purposely getting the quote wrong...

Ok, can't help but post this.

http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/

http://hillaryismomjeans.com/

Hit refresh, refresh, refresh. Endlessly entertaining.

Aw3som3!

Obama really has stood up to Hillary well. Wonder how this equates to how he'll stand up to world leaders when necessary.

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

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

Film at 11.

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

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...aps/Aug15.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That is all. Move along.

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

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

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

*ducks*

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

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

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

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

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

Technically, the election hasn't begun yet. The conventions kick it off, and that's not until late August. The "season" started ridiculously early this time around.

Link? I hadn't heard this.

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

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

You know, people were really complaining about this well before Hillary conceded--people I know who have been actively donating and fundraising for Obama's campaign has zero interest in helping Clinton pay off her debts.

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

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

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

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


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


Pfft.

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

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

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

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

I think I was going to quote him, and the tags got jumbled - sorry! :)

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

A deal is a deal. I know nothing about this deal (still no links) but if they made a deal, both need to stick to it.

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

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

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

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

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

Off the wall prediction....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, he's not perfect. I've said from the beginning I'm not in 100% alignment with him. I'm barely in 100% alignment with myself though, so it's a bit unreasonable to expect to find a candidate that I agree with absolutely everything on.

Just to clarify, Alex: Saddleback Church

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

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

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

Cover image here > http://www.comicbookresources.com/pr...pid=1219159644

^ Now we know he can't lose.

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

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

Toby Keith is a registered Democrat and likes Obama, not McCain.

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

Shocked.

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

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

Well according to his My Space he does not support the war in Iraq rather the troops and the song was in support of invading Afganastan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...aps/Aug20.html

Anyone still think Obama has this thing locked up?

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

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

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

How so?

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

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

Visible BTD mojo for defending the purple.

Reagan and Carter were running neck and neck until the end, when Reagan won in a landslide. One pundit's mention of this:
Yes, just punditry, no claims to prescience from me. We'll see how it goes...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit to add:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really? A Democrat? Thank goodness for your parenthetical.

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

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

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

I am surrounded by wordsmiths.

Was that a fat joke?

No. Did it come off as one?

How's that using historical trends working for you in predicting the course of the current election?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Why so snarky?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't think it was unintended at all.

So Obama says yesterday -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is an email circulating with some erroneous information about how taxes will skyrocket under Obama. The requisite Snopes link.

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

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

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

Just my opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No text yet.

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

Mmm that, and also that this gave him a huge jump in subscribers. The thing is, these are people's cell phones, and most people don't give up their cell phone numbers easily. Now his campaign has millions (presumably; if not hundreds of thousands) of interested potential voters. By geographical location based on area code. He can send out directed text messages rolling up to and on election day to remind people to vote, and to get the word out to tell their friends to vote.

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

How cool is that?

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

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

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

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

Biden is now at $88.

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

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

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

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

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

I actually think the secret service needs protection from Biden.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow!

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

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

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

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

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

What a disappointing choice.

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

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


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

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

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

McCain ad with Biden

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

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

He voted for the war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But who knows.


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

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

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

This suggests I have the power of taxation.

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

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

I smell a bait and switch.

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

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

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

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

And mine as well.


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

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

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

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

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

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


Happily, then, OBiden it is!

Free Obama button


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

CBS's Denver affiliate is reporting that four men are under arrest in connection with an alleged plot to kill Obama during his acceptance speech.

Full link here.

Well, it's likely the other 4,573 nutjobs who want to assassinate him won't admit it the first time they are asked.

If Obama's elected, he's going to need a PopeMobile, and he likely should never go out in public.


It makes me ill, but the man's going to have a target painted on his head for too many miscreant Americans who are a disgrace to the word.

I know you are right, but I try not to think about it -- which doesn't make it any less of a reality. I have enough bad stuff in my daily life that I really try to limit thinking about things that make me even more sad. I keep the blinders on so I can get through my day with a minimum of tears. Because the thought of some despicable excuse for a human being assassinating Obama really does make me cry.

I am keeping my rose colored glasses on and thinking about Obama's Inauguration Day in January. :) No blood shed.

And they look like such fine, upstanding young men..... :rolleyes:

Oh no kidding. One look at those pictures and I was like "Ohhh man, Hollywood couldn't have typecasted these guys better!"

What's your Obama tax cut?


(no need to post answers, don't want to out everyone's income :) )

Well, i'm not impressed with my tax cut. But, yeah, i'm single, and no longer have dependent kids. And, on paper, my income is more than ok.

I guess I could buy an A.P. with it, though, and still have enough left for a nice Jazz Kitchen dinner.

Not enough that it would effect my choice in president (though admittedly I care so little about taxes that I have little idea how much I paid last year and have never made any attempt to minimize what I pay preferring to just stick with a basic 1040 as reward).

But without going into details, if this were to come true (and presidential tax promises generally have little chance of becoming reality seeing as they don't have any direct ability to set tax policy) it would be less than one household paycheck.

Tax policy is huge with me. It's one of my two major issues.

However, I remember vividly Bill Clinton and his promise of a middle class tax cut. Something tells me it isn't going to happen.

Also, tax policy to me goes far beyond what I will get.

My tax cut would be fairly significant. I'm good with that.:D

Oh, I care a lot about tax policy, I just don't care much about the taxes I personally pay.

I am more interested in spending then taxes......if the Feds spend a $100, that's a $100 we as a nation have to bear; pretending like the "rich" or "big business" or whoever is paying it is delusional.....you're paying it; even if you pay no taxes you still pay some way or another.

Wow, then the cost of the war must really be grating on you, Jeff.;)

I have no problem with our tax dollars going for such things as improved infrastructure, education, national security, etc. I am just dumbfounded at the incredible waste and graft that occurs by the people we charge with the responsibility to implement these things. They don't care- most of them don't even pay into Social Security and such, and they are set for life. I'd like to see EVERY 'public servant' have to pay the same sort of taxes we do, and try to live on their savings and SS like the rest of the country.

...ahh yes...it's the chromosome twins.

No Wonder Obama is popular among the GLBT community!

Obama has two daddies

hehehehe

*Pops in*
Traces of Alex 4 posts ago... aha !
*Pops out*

Okay, I may be flamed for this, but it supports the point I was making earlier.

Last night, Obama was reamed. Reamed by Palin and the media is all over her lauding her speech and what she said.

And where is the strong rebuttal from Obama as of this post? Where is the 'Palin is wrong about the following items and here they are' response to the speech?

This is exactly the Kerry-esque flaccidity that screwed him. While there is no response, no hard hitting comeback, what Palin said will sink in with the undecided.

Well, I'll give them through the weekend to bite back in the media.


I admire the high road taken by Obama in declaring Palin's family off-limits, and taking the further good-guy step of stating he himself was the child of an 18-year-old mother. But if they let Palin's schoolyard attacks go unchallenged, I'm not going to wait until he gets into office to start being disappointed.

The weekend is too long of a wait.
They should have responded already.
In less time, McCain wiped Obama's speech off of the map with his Palin announcement.
There should have been a response that was hard-hitting already.


It's interesting that Palin's family is off-limits, but heck she can sure as sh!t support laws that invade the private lives of other families. Yeah, you are carrying your father's child... too bad no abortion for you. You two men, yeah you've been together for 30 years but no wedding for you.

I imagine they're waiting to see what McCain says.

Interestingly, according to Gallup, there aren't very many undecideds to worry about.

I saw that, too. Interesting, indeed.

With only 20% of voters being considered "swing votes" by Gallup, and Obama carrying a ~8-9% lead, that means that McCain would have to swing about 75% of those undecideds his way. Considering that most of those undecideds are moderates, and Palin's ravings are meant not to appeal to moderates but to try to convince the base to come out and vote, that's a pretty tall order.

And that's just get the popular vote polling lead. Obama's still got a pretty healthy electoral lead. With that 20% of undecideds scattered around the country, that leaves little room for McCain to swipe any states.

Obama's in good shape. Not that he should be complacent, but he should be acting like a candidate in the lead, not like a scared candidate panicing over every attack that's thrown his way. He shouldn't be scambling onto the airwaves just because the 'pubs show up at their convention and say what they're expected to say at their convention. He should smile, wait for them to finish their pep rally, then calmly say, "Okay, that's nice, but here's how things really are."

I agree. This is what the Republicans are expected to do, and they win the last word (including the wind-sucking Palin announcement) because their Convention was later on the calendar.

Frankly, I think that bit of timing is only fair, since it's the Democrats' election to lose.



I like Obama's high-road in comparison to the GOP's gutter sniping. But I trust he's wary of being swift-boated, and will respond when necessary and as swiftly as their assessment determines.

That said ... every general always fights the last war, and ever politician always counters the last campaign. Rarely does that kind of strategy work, but it's the only one most humans throughout history have ever been able to come up with.

I disagree. Every fire should be extinguished. Not necessarily in a panic, but in a confident manner.

Biden's response to her was almost praise. It's sickening:
Source

She's a child. I like the belittling tone and strategy. I think it will work for the type of voter that goes for Obama. I don't think even the undecideds leaning his way want to see his campaign sink to the mud-fight.


Ok, we can go around and around all day. I don't want them to roll over and spread their legs either. Something in between would be nice. And I'll grant it's a fine line to walk, and their balance point might be different than either you or I would wish.

No, I hear you. If I had the opportunity to leave the country or go somewhere isolated (yet fun) until the day after Election Day, I would.
:)

Do you really want Obama to dignify Palin's chihuahua-yapping? Let Biden do it. It's what he's there for.

I've been scanning the blogs this morning and while Palin has galvanized the hard right, she doesn't seem to be picking up Hillary fans and her squawking is apparently turning off some of the independents and moderates. I know McCain chose her as a political maneuver to solidify his base but I don't know how many of the independents he's gonna get from this move.

Freaky as it sounds I can kind of envision all of this as a Disney movie: "Hockey Mom"

Hockey Mom turns local mayor turns local governor who boots out an extremely unpopular boob governor. Gets picked to be VP nominee. Like Sandra Bullock in "Miss Congeniality," Hockey Mom has to learn the ropes real fast. Does a reasonably good job.

Lots of fast-forward scenes of Hockey Mom sitting at kitchen table trying to identify country names as her kids point to places on a wall map, while she juggles feeding baby and hemming older daughter's wedding dress. There is even a little mini-drama near the end of the movie when the presidential nominee seems to have a heart attack... but it turns out he was dehydrated and the stress was a bit too much. But it's enough for her to realize that she may indeed have to fill in the President's shoes, and she realizes that it's not just a big game.

In the end, there is a big climax where it looks like her party MIGHT win... but then, she loses. Instead of being upset, she realizes what a wonderful family she has, and what a wonderful country she lives in. She ends up thanking the Presidential nominee, and for a brief moment she gets to meet in person the opposing party's Presidential nominee, whom she'd been demonizing for the whole campaign... and she sees that he loves his children and wife as much as she loves her children and husband. She realizes that he is not a demon but just looks at life from a different perspective. She returns to her home state with her family, where she lives happily ever after. Oh, but there's always 4 years from now! The end.

[Played by Tina Fey, of course.]

I hear you.
I'd watch that movie.
:)

Tenigma: I'd watch that, sounds cute.

The party seems to be doing a good job of stepping up and being his surrogates. Governor Sebelius responds

In the big picture both McCain and Obama are worlds better that what we have now plus neither of them are Hillary. So in my mind the people have already won this election.

I still can't read this thread title without thinking "Because we can can can can can can can can caaaaannnnn!" from Moulin Rouge. Grr.

YES.

NO.

Drudge has reported, and the Obama campaign confirmed, that Obama has rasied $8 million dollars since Palin's speech last night, and is on course for $10 million before McCain takes the stage tonight.

A few other things reported on Drudge...

Only 1 million fewer people watched her than Obama, and 12 million more watched her than Biden.

CBS News has the two tickets tied in the polls now. Looks like Palin provided a huge bump even before McCain has spoken. He will probably need that money.

And I have to laugh....after denying the surge had done much of anything, he will acknowledge on O'Reilly that it has succeeded beyond anyones wildest dreams. Does that mean he is conceding McCain was correct on pushing for the surge (some would argue he is the reason there was the surge) and is admitting he was wrong?

And McCain, while there are no specific numbers as of yet, has also reported huge donations pouring in. I even donated, which I hadn't done yet.

That's hardly surprising, it being her first appearance on the national stage.

That is true....I even watched, and I never watch.

You don't think McCain/Palin is at least a SLIGHT improvement over Bush/Cheney?

Did he say "slight"? He said "worlds". Hell, there's a good chance he could be worse. Put someone in there with similar goals a Bush, but with a glimmer of intelect and I shudder to imagine.

If McCain wins, I will consider it a failure of the electorate. Failure.

More than 75% of the country says we're headed in the wrong direction, and yet half the country wants to vote for McCain? It boggles.

I could draw a similar parallel between voting for the dem congress and senate, who have lower approval ratings. Most in general, though, believes their particular rep or senator isn't the problem....this is why incumbants usually win reelection.

And I'd add that so many conservatives are disenchanted with Bush (me among them) that we also fit in the headed in the wrong direction category when you throw in dem majorities in the house and senate. All those who think we are headed in the wrong direction do not necessarily agree as to what the right direction is.

This is true, but McCain is pretty much a guarantee of continuing to travel in that wrong direction.

Again, it depends on your definition of the wrong direction, which will vary quite a bit in the 75% of those who say the country is headed the wrong way. I do not concur with your assessment, though of course many, many would. And by the looks in the polls, 42% seem to agree with me, and 42% seem to agree with you (based on the CBS poll that's out today).

And I wonder what percentage of that 42% that agrees with you still swallows the lie that we're fighting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Iraq.

I wonder what 42% of those that agree with you think, like Obama said, that Iran is just a tiny country that poses no real threat to the US or her interests.

One is a lie, the other is a matter of opinion. Considering how insanely overblown the threat that Iraq posed was, I'm inclined to not take as gospel, from the same overblowers, the threat posed by Iran. There's also the fact that I much prefer a leader that looks at a country that's huffing and puffing and posturing and responds by staring them down and saying, "Ummm, you don't really scare us."

In other numbers, Obama retains a 71 electoral vote lead. 38 of those are of the "barely Obama" variety, while 51 of McCain's are barely his. Still Obama's to lose.

In that vein, given the setup, if McCain wins, it's not a failure of the electorate half as much as it is a failure of the Democrats.

As one talking head put it: "Leave it to Hillary to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." (Blaming her for the damage to the overall Democrat campaign to replace the GOP in the white house)

Except that Obama didn't say that. He said that Iran and it's threat were tiny compared to the Soviet Union. It was a comparative statement, not an absolute one. He has made perfectly clear numerous times that he regards Iran seriously.

scaeagles, have you drunk the kool-aid, or was that a legitimate error on your part? Because otherwise, it stinks of the same misleading crap Republicans love to spread like the manure it is.

There's only so much a campaign can do. If the voters continue to allow themselves to be lied to and fooled into believing that we're at war with the boogieman, then Obama is going to lose and there's nothing he can do about it.

Posted on Yahoo 9 minutes ago...
 

Source

Better than nothing, I guess....

Heh, and threw in a little "relate to the working man" tidbit while he was at it. (eg: the b-ball reference)

I think that was for the yutes and maybe for the ladies. I don't think too many working men his age are running full court. Maybe George Clooney.

The exact quote of Obama is this -

Comparison is part. The other is clearly a statment that they don't post "any serious threat". I actually regard Iran as a larger threat. The Soviet Union didn't want to get nuked and they weren't state sponsors of terrorists, and were not inclined to give nukes to terrorists. So no koolaid. No misleading. It is what he said.

In fact, what he said was ridiculous enough that he has hed to try to emphasize a completely different point of view since then, stressing they are a "grave threat".

My apologies, then. Sincerely. Non-mousepad. ;)

Scaegles, you left part of the quote out, and it still misrepresents what Obama said. Here is the full paragraph quote:

"Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khruschev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - these countries are tiny compred to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet."

The reference to Iran was entirely in comparison to the Soviet Union. You can disagree with what he said, but to say he does not view Iran as a serious threat based on that quote is factually incorrect.

I can see why you would read it that way, but he is still saying they are not a serious threat and saying that the Soviets were. I don't think he was equating the type of threat, but the level of threat. He's saying that the Soviets were a serious threat, but Iran is not.

Again, I believe Iran is more of a threat than the USSR was because they are a diffeent type of threat.

I disagree with your reading of the quote, but can see how you would come to it.

By the way, in looking back on my previous quote, I see that it came off as more accusatory than I meant it to be. I apologize for its tone.

No scaeagles, learn to read English. Jeebus.

"They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."

It's a comparative statement only and solely to the threat level of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, when the threat level was nuclear annihiliation of every human on earth.


Nowhere in that statement does Obama say Iran is not a threat, only that they are not the same level of threat that the Soviet Union WAS.



I'm really upset I apologized to you when you assured me you were not mischaracterizing Obama's statement. Either you're being obtuse about it, or you deliberately misled ME, which I'm not pleased about.

I don't think i'm obtuse, nor did I try to mislead. I will consider the apology withdrawn.

I read it as Obama saying that Iran is not a serious threat. It is obvious that they are not a threat in the same way the USSR was and that is really not necessary to say. However, in describing them as tiny, he is saying that the threat they pose is being overstated. As I said, I think they are more of a threat than the USSR was because they sponsor terrorists. He is ignoring that completely and equating size with threat level, which I think is not wise. He also says clearly that they are not a serious threat, saying the the Soviets were. Their nuclear program is a serious threat primarily because of sponsorship of terrorism.

I was not intending to mislead or misquote.

I think his change of opinion on it shows how he realizes what he had said before was unwise. Now it is all about how Iran is a grave threat and how he will eliminate the threat that they pose, and how their nuclear program is uinacceptable. This is a complete change from them not being a serious threat.

Ok, thanks for that explanation of your inteperpretive process. I still think it's a little skewed, but I can at least follow the road map of your thoughts, and agree that you were being neither obtuse nor purposely misleading.

I hereby unwithdraw my earlier apology and raise you one apology.:)

Nah. Screw you.:)

Figuratively, of course.

You know, I'm still of a mind to call some degree of shenanigans on this one.

Your use of "exact quote" is indicative of some level of deceit. At best, you never looked up the quote and pulled it up from memory and labeled it "exact quote". But the missing period indicates the more likely scenario, you very selectively dissected the quote to only what you wanted.

Yes, you had a perfectly reasonable interpretation, even within context. But it's still a distortion of the full picture that tilts the conversation in your direction. Honestly, using "exact quote" can't BE any more of a textbook logical fallacy example, namely appeal to authority. The rest of the sentence introduced a level of ambiguity to the sentence that you just didn't want to deal with and by saying "exact quote" you are obviously implying you looked it up, copied and pasted in whole. Whether or not that ambiguity invalidates your point is irrelevant at that point. By calling it an exact quote, you've started with a lie.

Sorry Leo, I have too much respect for your communication skills to think that you didn't have SOME intent in quoting it like that. Even if it was just because it meant you could chop a paragraph off your post.

Oh, is this the quote you all are talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaG6s...eature=related

Notice later that day Iran went from being a tiny threat to a grave threat?

Also notice, not that it really means anything beyond hometown pride/trivia...that the quote in question was delivered in Portland, Oregon:)

Again, I didn't discount that Leo had a valid point. I simply claimed that by presenting a dissected version of what was said he was framing the discussion under a distorted premise in a way that just happened to remove ambiguity that existed, but my detract form his point.

Perhaps he did just see the quote as he pasted it, quoted by some secondary source and didn't bother to find the original full context himself. If so I suppose I would apologize some for my tone. But it's lazy and still represents someone's conscious decision to deceive.

To find the quote I had in mind, I googled something like "Obama Iran threat" (don't remember exactly). I grabbed one that wasn't a video link and and took all of the quote that was listed on that particular site and pasted that. I did not chop off the the portion of the quote that I felt skewed it from from my interpretation. I knew the basics of the entire quote Tom gave, and that hadn't altered my interpretation of it.

One thing that I certainly understand about this place is that it is not possible to be factually incorrect without it (usually) rapidly being brought to the attention of all. I would dare not to insult the intelligence of the posters here in attempting to do that.

One other thing I completely forgot to mention is that in linking Iran to Cuba and Venezuela he is equating the three in terms of threat. At least in how I read it. I may have missed something McCain or Bush has said, but I don't think anyone has called them threats to the US. They're more like annoying mosquitos - best not to let them breed (and no doubt Chvez is looking to expand his influence in South America), but certainly no threat.

I wonder if the Republican spinners are saying the same. The party line has been "any country that isn't a democracy is always a threat" since WWII.

Kind of an expanded Truman doctrine feel indeed.

I meant Republican party doctrine. As in, Red Scare, Axis of Evil, etc.

The Truman doctrine revolved around the red scare, so I think you're right on. It now seems to be expanded to include the islamoterrorist scare.

(sigh) I guess the Monroe Doctrine is no longer en vogue.

(Probably wouldn't work in today's world anyway. It's a nice thought though)

I think most of those people, myself included, do not equate McCain with Bush and his policies. With Bush it's as much his cronies as it is him. Certainly there is no love between McCain and Rove. Cheney will be gone. So already we are way ahead. Plus unlike Obama, McCain would, in all probability, be facing an unfriendly congress. That will help to limit his more extreme policies. So overall I'd take McCain over Bush any day of the week. If I'd take him over Obama, well I'll have to get back to you on that....

McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time, and he's been in Washington for 26 years. Yet people like that he's using the word "change". (not you, Moonliner.) Bwahahaha!

And his maverick status is bull**** perpetuated by the press and the story arc they love to weave about him.


There are other Republicans who've voted contrary to their party far more often than McCain, but they are not press darlings.

Well, couldn't the same be said of Obama's choice in Biden? There's certainly nothing to do with change there - he's been in Washington longer than McCain.

Also, I'm curious as to where that 90% of the vote comes from. I've heard that as well, but have also heard that this includes even ceremonial and numerous proclamations and unanimous senate votes, for such things as "we proclaim today to be soccor mom day" or whatever, getting unanimous approval and ceremonial ruibber stamps of the President's signature.

Again, I have not researched it at all. Just what I've heard, so I'm curious.

OK so McCain voted with Bush 90-95% of the time.

From what I can find, Obama voted with Bush 40-50% of the time.

What I would like to see, but have not been able to find, are the cases where Obama voted against Bush and McCain voted with him. Any idea where I might find that info?




Edited to add: Damn you demon Scaeagles, must you always post what I am going to post before I post it. (And if you edit your message to add "Yes" at the end.... There will be war.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I who cares about VP?

So here is what I found so far....

Obama sponsored a bill which would have increased the level of family sponsored immigrants from 226,000 to 567,000. McCain voted no.

Obama voted for an amendment that declared English to be the common language of the United States. John McCain voted no.

Obama voted against the flag desecration amendment while John McCain voted yes

Obama did not vote on the moveon.org resolution that criticized the group for bashing General Petraeus. McCain voted yes.

Obama voted for an amendment that opposes criticism of our military. John McCain voted against this bill.

Obama voted to grant habeas corpus to persons being detained by the US. Mccain voted against it.

Both rejected the same sex marriage amendment

Obama voted for a congressional committee to study how contracts were to be handed out in Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain voted no

Obama voted against Alito and Roberts. McCain voted yes.

Obama did not vote on the economic stimulus package. McCain voted yes.

Obama voted for a temporary crude oil profits tax. McCain voted against it.

Obama voted to provide 500 million to help vets deal with PTSD and substance abuse. McCain voted no.

Obama voted against CAFTA. McCain voted yes

Well, I read in the paper today there's a 1 in 5 chance of any sitting U.S. President dying in office. I have no idea what that stat is based on. It was printed in the L.A. Weekly.

But John McCain, if elected, would be the oldest serving president in U.S. History.


That combined with the absolute loathing I hold for his V.P. choice leaves me concerned about the Vice Presidency more than I ever have been for any other election.

Maybe McCain will adopt David Bowie's Changes as his theme song, then he can be both for change and hip.

"Hip replacement" is more like it....

That stat would be based on the fact that out of 43 Presidents, 8 have died in office (making it actually slightly less than 1 in 5).

And whether the odds are slightly increased or not remains irrelevant to me. I'm voting for the Presidential candidate and I have to assume that the one that makes it in there is going to be the one that is doing the job. Unless the VP is someone so entirely anathema to the reasons I'm voting for the primary candidate that it would be impossible for one to even understand why they'd choose to run together, it just doesn't matter in the least to me.

(William Henry Harrison + Zachary Taylor + Abraham Lincoln + James Garfield + William McKinley + Warren Harding + Franklin Roosevelt +John Kennedy) divided by 43 presidents = ~ 18% or 1 in ~5.5

However, those are just the ones that died. I think you would have to add Nixon to that list since he did not finish his term. That brings us to 20% or exactly 1 in 5.

Of course I think it might be more accurate to count the number of terms rather than the number of presidents. We are currently in the 55th term. So that gives us ~ 16% or 1 in 6.25 chance of a VP becoming president on any given term.

You haven't....however Palin's experience has become a major issue in the media, meaning that obviously many people do care. A whole bunch of people on this board seem to care. My comment wasn't intended to suggest you did.

Well, so far he isn't having much luck with using music from various artists. Members of Heart, Jackson Browne, Frankie Valli and the composers of the Rocky theme have all told him to stop using their music in his campaign, especially since he didn't ask for any of their permission first.

Great minds and all....mine just works a bit faster, it seems.:)

What's the deal with that? Do they really need permission? Can an artist say, yes you can play my song here but not there? As long as you pay the proper fee can't anyone use a song? Or is this considered advertising and covered by different rules?

Since he didn't pay any fee either, it doesn't really matter.

It probably varies artist to artist, but in most cases it's probably just a matter of courtesy. Their contract probably doesn't give them veto rights, but it seems a matter of principal that if an artist requests you don't use it you're kind of a dick if you continue to. That said, if it ain't in the contract and you immediately come out acting all indignant, that's pretty lame. But if you ask nicely and they still say no, by all means, complain away.


OMG, I, like, totally did!

The exact quote is:

Of course - posting while tired. Sorry. I meant you haven't expressed that you care. The media does and many people here do. You have expressed exactly the opposite.

Wow....I need to stop posting tonight. Duh. Said exactly the opposite of what I meant.

I think someone's bodysnatched Leo.

I don't like timid Leo.

Leo just got tired of the ugliness that was becoming the LoT in terms of tone and nastiness (understanding he was a contributor to said tone and nastiness) so he left for a while and in his place is cautious Leo who treads lightly.

That's cool. I think you can understand why we were suspicious. I mean, I'm still not ruling out body snatchers.

Read post 202 in the RNC thread. He's trying to return, it looks like.:)

How's it feel to be a small fish in a big pond?

I'd love to see the LoT Political threads "covered" by Bill O'Reilly - I know the theme song already (NSFW)

Too tired to do a long post here.... but I will say that the idea that anyone can use any song for anything as long as they pay the "fee" is incorrect. Trust me on that one.

My name's not Leo, but I am a Leo, and I decided that (aside from replying to any appalling misquotes or spying any glaringly obvious opportunities to zing) I am also going to refrain from anything that clutters our cool. We're friends, I like that, and I don't want to try to solve the world's problems at the cost of any friendships. We're not going to solve anything at this rate- we're just pissing each other off and it's not worth it to me. The cynical part of this usually optimistic soul knows that the main players in this game are largely apolitical and oh, so willing to sell their little souls for their greater good. Why should we tear into each other on principals that we wish they would stand on? Let's all just get a large bucket of popcorn and let the jackals have at each other. I also plan on having a few of these- it seems to dull the pain::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

Actually this was explained in a Slate article today; the fee is paid for by the venue and it apparently has to be a special license over and above whatever license they already pay for for their sports games.

But I like that the artists come out and say something publically.

You know, Ann and Nancy's dad was a career Marine. They grew up as military brats and they are quite patriotic and love the military. They just have a good head on their shoulders and they know when their music is being used for bunk. lol.

I know the Limbaugh had some sort of battle with the artist who wrote his shows opening theme. I don't know much except that he still uses it. Perhaps he offered some form of extra monetary incentive. No - wait. I think because he was on the radio and he pays the standard radio fees to use music of whomever he was allowed to keep using it. Perhaps there is a distinction in rules between radio and public use.

My, we're all up early talking politics.

That sounds like a Little Golden Book about a lion.

It's because we stayed up kinda late talking politics, well many of us, outside the theater after Assassins.

Hmmm, something about the subject matter of the play put us in the mind to discuss the U.S. presidency.:rolleyes:


I had a bizarre dream that I was somehow elected President by mistake, and there was a Hospital Wing next to the West Wing ... Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, even older than they are now, were in a room together, while the two Bushes were in a room across the Hall, and they were all making demands on me to find things for them they left somewhere in the Oval Office, and they couldn't stop bickering with each other from across the hall.


Can we have the election tomorrow please? This is obviously getting to me. (But, yeah, it won't be every night I see a musical about presidential assassins.)

That certainly borders on the bizarre. I once had a dream about Hillary Clinton in which her neck and shoulders were made out of shiny black flexible steel and I found her extraordinarily hot because of that.

Was exceptionally creepy and haunts me to this day.

I once had a nightmare where this incompetent boob from Texas got elected to the White House... oh, wait... never mind....

No politician has ever entered my dreams I am happy to say........although I have had some daytime fantasies where I am playing hockey and slamming Ron Wyden into and over the boards:evil:

If it's that "[I went] Back to Ohio" song, it's by Chrissie Hynde and the Pretenders. I have *no* idea what their political leanings are... if they were new today they would probably fall under some kind of Goth category but they were New Wave back in the 1980s... I was just surprised when she had a kid that she said some really weird stuff... about how women's bodies are designed to make babies and that if women don't get pregnant by a certain age it makes them go into depression or something.

The "Ohio" song is that strong rhythmic tune that I associate with Rush.

As an aside, I remember Alex and I were on a cross-country road trip a few years ago when I had the radio set to a country music station (because in some of the backwaters it's country or Latin accordion salsa music and I MUCH prefer country, thankyouverymuch). Martina McBride came on with "Let Freedom Ring" and just as she started singing the chorus, Alex started singing along... because it was the one line he was familiar with from the Hannity show. rofl. OK I probably just embarassed him.

Please understand that I DO NOT think Obama is a Muslim. Not for a second. But boy did he make and oops on This Week with George Stephanopoulis.

In discussing faith, Obama referred to "his Muslim faith", finished the sentence, Stephanopoulis corrected him with "Christian faith", and Obama quickly corrected himself.

Oops.

oh he did not??? hahahaha, giant frelling oops.

Well, perhaps it isn't as huge as I thought. He still said it, but what he was saying is that McCain and his campaign have not tried to say his is a Muslim. He said "you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.". What he meant was that McCain hasn't been trying to say he is a Muslim. So still an oops, but not like he was just discussing faith and called himself a Muslim. I think he just didn't say what he meant very well.

It'll still get pointed at by those desperate to follow this well-trounced rumor. there are always a few. Me, I'm still having a fine chuckle over Terry Moran's priceless flub. I wish there was footage of the look on his face when he either realized what he said, or someone pointed it out to him.

:D

I just got this in an email, and I thought I'd share it:

:D

Skip to 1:15 - the questioner rambles - but the answer is spot on.

Obama defends himself - and the Constitution - clearly.

Diggers - Digg it! :)

Ya know, the more I think about it, the more I find I can't support Mr. Obama. I don't think I'm even going to vote for him.



His stance on finding common ground on thorny social issues that divide this country has become more and more troubling to me. He desires to pull all sides to the middle, and to accommodate people who want to foist their religious beliefs on all Americans so as to curtail the liberties that this country is supposed to be dedicated to.


I have no desire to accommodate people who consider me a sinner who should burn in hell. There's no middle ground that could be occupied. I demand my full civil rights and I will settle for nothing less. I will not meet in the middle those on the complete wrong side of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


Furthermore, with Proposition 8 the most important element of this November's election as far as I'm concerned, I won't be supporting any candidate for any office who is opposed to gay marriage rights.

I'm not willing to move to the middle on women's reproductive freedoms either. So any talk of accommodating the Fundies on this one is a no-go for me as well.


Being as this is California, and a done deal for Obama, I have the luxury of voting my conscience. And mine will not allow a vote for either the Democratic or Republican candidates.

Does Queer Nation still exist? where are the Gay Terrorists?

ISM, I can totally relate. I've gone back and forth with voting for McCain or simply taking advantage that I live in AZ which he'll win by a significant margin. It's only very recently that I feel like I can vote for him without completely gagging as I punch the chad or mark the mark or whatever it is I'll do.

I, for one, will not be someone saying that since you didn't vote you can't complain. Not voting due to a conscious decision is far different than apathy.

iSm, click here.
Yes, he is not a supporter of the gay marriage movement, which sucks. But he's everything but, and surely 89% is worthy of consideration. I'd say he is the strongest gay-rights presidential candidate, ever.

Just sayin'. :)

CP,
I agree. I would rather see Obama represent me than McCain. I'm thinking that with Obama, I'm going to hear less about how me marrying someone of the same sex is going to destroy the country.

Not to try to speak for ISM, but I think he's in agreement with that, but because he's in an easy Obama win state, he can feel free to vote his conscience rather than worrying about casting a vote for the lesser of two evils.

I say this only because I have been in the exact same boat on the oppostie side.

I like the whole idea of protest voting. But does anyone really look at those ballots with blanks and say, 'Hey, look at that! We better do something!'?

Yes. Those statistics are kept and you can bet the people whose job it is to run campaigns pay attention to the numbers of people who, say, vote mostly party line but leave the Presidential part of the ballot blank.

And then they use that info to shape the way the next campaign is run? Or use it to gauge what kind of response their newly elected president will receive?
These aren't loaded questions, I'm just askin'.

One would assume both. And not just Presidential elections, but local elections as well. I imagine it gets factored into every decision the party makes and who it's targeting its message to.

I don't care if they take it into account or not. That's not my purpose. My purpose is Living With Myself.

I thank the lucky stars that living in California means I don't have to vote strategically. I didn't vote for Gore, btw. I voted for Nader. I would never have done that in a swing state.

Fvck the electoral college for making my vote meaningless ... but since it is, I'll accept the luxury of actually voting my conscience.


CP, I will check out that link and see if my conscience eases. I appreciate the philosophy behind his consiliatory desires, but if I'm not willing to budge on gay rights and reproductive rights, what do you think the chances are for the neanderthal homophobes and abortion foes?


We spoke a bit last weekend about the one-issue voters. I daresay most of those are abortion-issue voters who ignore everything else. Well, seeing as the presidential election is meaningless in California, and rather we have the most important ballot measure election I can recall in my lifetime where the issue of TAKING AWAY my rights to marry the one I love is at stake ... I am A One Issue Voter this time around.


So I doubt it will make much difference to me that Obama agrees I should be able to visit my loved one in a hospital. If he's going to stop short of supporting my rights to marry, which I CuRRenTly HaVE, then I'm not going to vote for him.


I understand he feels he can't make that committment in this Country in this day and age. The loss of my vote won't phase him.

I am appalled.


This is precisely what I object to. Basing American liberties on religious beliefs. That is tantamount to treason in my book. Exactly the opposite should be the case. Our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not have a religious test. They are absolute.

Leaving it up to the States is pathetic. Many of the most important marriage rights are granted only at the federal level.


Furthermore, I agree with the California Supreme Court that separate cannot be equal. To say that it's ok for me to have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage without calling it that is an affront to my dignity and an insult I will not bear. Again, it is only religious belief that would snatch away my current right to have the same societal acceptance and honor that comes distinctly with marriage.



Sorry, CP, but your link did nothing but cement my opposition to Obama.


I hope he wins rather than McCain, but I cannot support his election.

iSm... Hillary Clinton has the exact same position on gay marriage as Obama.

I very much wish that Obama (and Clinton) had the sense and moral rigor to fully support gay marriage. I also wish that Barack, in particular, did not feel the need to wave the God flag so high and so often. On the other hand, I'm in a major swing state (that tends red lately) so I'll have no problem casting my vote for Barry. Still, really society-at-large, get a fvckin' grip.

If it matters, I think the government should be out of the marriage business all together.

I may or may not agree with that, but as long as it is, it should be available for all.

Could you please define "out of the marriage business"?

Does that include the IRS?
How would you deal with a contentious divorce?
Child custody?


As a total aside, I just saw the comment Leno made on the subject of gay marriage. "They should have the same right to be miserable as the rest of us".

Then I likely would not have voted for her either.

In California, we have the blessing of our election not matter to the presidential candidates. So we are not bombarded with ads (which I wouldn't see anyway, since I don't watch TV) and they generally don't bother to campaign here.

As such, I have limited opportunities to hear them speak. If I'd seen Hillary speak about her stance on gay marriage rights, she would have lost my support then and there. I think I assumed as much about both candidates, but hearing it from their lips puts a chill in me that I cannot shake.


If Obama tries not to have his religious beliefs dominate or determine his stance on this matter, he needs to try harder. Because right now, he fails.

Instead of leaving it blank, how about a write-in vote?

Source

JWBear posted the above link in the Random Politics thread.

I'm not good at writing out what's in my brain. But what he writes is exactly what I am talking about.

1. Obama has no game plan right now. We're going to lose. He has much to his advantage, but he's reading from the Gore/Kerry Playbook and thinking he'll succeed where they didn't just because.

2. The press is not liberal. They are run by big corporations who benefited financially from the last 8 years and want to see 8 more. Forget that particle accelerator, CEOs like Rupert Murdoch are f*cking this country and this planet up just to make money.

3. There is no convincing the Christian conservative right of anything. They stick to their party like they do to their religion of choice. Ever try talking to someone about religion and try to sway them? It's impossible. That is now becoming true of a majority of people who vote Republican just because GOP candidates outwardly talk about Christianity and Christian beliefs. The Democrats are in the minority because a lot of them think with their brains and not their bibles and sway. Take iSm for example: liberal, Obama supporting but because he wants to be true to his conscience, he is protest voting. Republicans, conservatives do not do that, they don't stray from their way of thinking no matter what. It's much more black and white for them. And why? Because it's easier to look at things in black and white without having to think about what comes between. The ironic thing is that these politicians are looking to retain their jobs and don't give a sh!t about Christianity, family values. The corruption, the affairs, and the cover-ups that follow demonstrate that.


So what does Obama need to do? He needs to paint McCain as someone who is not a Maverick but someone who follows the Bush playbook. Bush is out of the spotlight for a reason. Because someone told him to vanish. The less we think about Bush, the less we think about comparing McCain to Bush.

I agree with Adam McKay that Obama needs to come up with a slogan that sums up what he feels about McCain and Palin. And repeat it, over and over and over. Something catchy and repeated like that can sway voters. It worked for Bush. Heck, it even worked for Johnny Cochran.

Obama needs to come out swinging and make the country forget that he was eaten alive by Palin. If he's got to dig in the dirt to do it, so be it. The opposing party already has mud under their fingernails. I want to be represented by someone with guts. Obama is not that person right now. I'll vote for him, but the idea of protest voting intrigues me too.

found this. thought some might enjoy it.



that is all

:p

You should know that elections often boil down to choosing the person who is either less offensive or a little more likeable than the other.

I'm really very disappointed in your decision, iSm. Voting is the ONE right you have in this country. And you choose to waste it.

I'm hardly wasting it, Tenigma. I'm casting the most important vote of my life. The vote to RETAIN my rights to marry the person I love.


There's never been a presidential election in California nearly as important. The presidential election has NEVER been a contest in this state for the 30 years I've lived here.


Don't presume to tell me my vote is wasted. Where did I EVER say I'm not casting a vote for president? I said I'm not voting for either the Republican or Democratic candidate. Sheesh.

Yes on the IRS.
Contentious divorce and child bustody....good questions. Admittedly no idea.

For the record...from an AP article....

No on the IRS. I don't see any reason why two married people living in different houses should get different tax consideration than two unmarried people living together.

No on the contentious divorce. If the government isn't defining marriage then there is nothing for government to dissolve. Either the people in the "divorce" will never have legally solidified their relationship in which case they are free to walk away however they want or they have legally solidified it in other ways and they can pursue remedies through the civil courts.

Irrelevant on child custody and support. Those laws already mostly exist independent of marriage anyway and to the extent they don't, they should regardless of what happens with marriage. It isn't like I get out of supporting my child or lose any legal right to participation simply because I was never married to the mother.

Because of the other Obama picture posted, I had to post one I came across. No idea if it is photoshopped or not, but I found it funny.

Obvious photoshop (look at the chord). And amusing kind of.

Google shows the photos first going around in April so this one is probably from Clinton supporters though it has recently been revived by Sean Hannity.)


ETA: Here's the original unaltered photo. The clock is completely photoshopped in as well.

Here's a similar idea with slightly better photoshopping (but only slightly) from 2005:

And she was for the bridge to nowhere. Until she had the power to do something about it.

Tongue in cheek - meant to be funny
 

But, it's not all. :D
I think this is a pertinent picture to post. Obama needs to find his inner Sith and go on the attack. (No, I'm not saying he should be evil...) But right now he's in uncool Jedi-Land, always on the defense, boringly preaching. And we all know what happened to the Jedi.
:D

oops!

Funny, but I don't think it's anything major....Biden was out campaigning and asked a wheelchair bound man to stand up and be recognized. Oops! But a funny oops. At least I think so. Something tells me if Palin did this some people on this site would be talking about how oblivious and callous she was, but that's another issue all together.

Not to slam you in particular, scaeagles, but I'm getting tired of one side telling a stupid story about a politician that they don't like, with the added "I'll bet if this happened to the politician I like, the other side wouldn't be as cool as me." As far as I'm concerned, you're spreading the story - in just as slimy a way as you imagine the "other side" would.

Both sides do it. I call shenanigans.

I said I thought it was funny and no big deal.

I also posted this about the time I read a different poster post an unsubstantiated rumor about Palin referring to Obama as "Sambo" and to Hillary as "that b!tch". So actually, I stand completely by what I said. I didn't say he did anything wrong at all or call him callous or stupid because I don't think he is. The pattern here lately with some posters, particularly when it comes to Palin, is to never give the benefit of the doubt. I did. Some others are not. Which is why I said "some posters on this site" and not "every left leaning person on this board would jump on the opportunity to use it against Palin to say she's stupid".

I'm sorry if I don't give Palin the benefit of the doubt, but she rubs me the wrong way. Meaning, alas, she will be president of the United States when McCain is elected and then dies in office.

Query: If it turns out she did say it, and this is the first I've heard of it, would your response be

1) Ewww, or

2) Jesus Christ, people, have a sense of humor, or

3) That's nothing compared to what the Democrats say about the oil companies.

I don't care if you do overall, really, because I would suspect you base your opinion of her on policy without jumping on a rumor of her calling Obama "Sambo". This isn't about bridge to nowhere or about misrepresenting a sale of a plane on ebay where there is legitimate debate on her intentions vs. what she said.

Definitely 1. No doubt. Nothing funny about it, so defintely not 2. While I would consider 3 in the back of my mind, 3 has nothing to do with race, so that would go out the window quickly.

Edited to add: I don't mean to ignore the supposed reference to Hillary. There is also no room for that, either, whether in a campaign or in real life, and references like that real do downgrade what I think of the person.

And your point is...?

Look, she's a "heartbeat away from the presidency"--given the things that are coming out about her (and no, I don't mean things uttered at a Denny's), I am not about to give her a micron of benefit. Sorry.

PS: Gorsh speaking of funny, isn't it funny how some Republicans are treating her all special-like, almost like um... a celebrity? :rolleyes:

...perfectly clear, I thought.

And since Obama would actually be in the Presidency, I would guess that means he should be given even less of a benefit of a doubt than Palin.

Neither one of you are making any particular sense in those last two posts.

And actually, you both sound like you love swirling these dumb rumors around.

Seriously, "I don't care about this awful rumor but here I'm going to make everyone read it anyway"? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If it's any consolation to anyone... I know a couple of women, who are Republicans, who have decided to vote for Obama because McCain selected Palin.

Sheesh. I directly quote something Biden said (not a rumor) because I thought it was a funny "oops", and that is equated with posting an unsubstantiated rumor about Palin calling Obama "Sambo". I'll see your three :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: and raise you three more :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: .

Do you think I believe anyone here is going to be swayed by me posting that Biden said that? Well, you guessed it. I figured that every Obama supporter would be so shocked that they would immediately abondon their support. I'm caught.

My sister: was lukewarm towards McCain but is now excited about the Palin pick.

My Sister in-law: Was campaiging for McCain but is torn about his pick for VP; she likes that he chose a woman but thinks a better woman could have been found....she still continues to campaign for him.

My Mom: Dad said she shouted with joy when she heard the pick. She was going to vote libertarian(like she has done since 96') but nothing short of Palin getting a sex-change operation would stop her now from voting for McCain.

My foam supply lady: Says she's very excited by McCain's pick for VP....but then again, she probably has me pegged for a Republican and doesn't want to see her sales go down;)

My lunch delivery gal: Wears Obama garb so I doubt if the Palin pick has affected her opinion of McCain one way or another.

My Wife: Really, really doens't like McCain(she's no Obama fan either) but the pick of a woman VP has her at least entertaining the thought of giving him her vote.

I know more women than this, but oddly enough not too many share thier political opinions with me;)

Well... Most of the women I know had no intention of voting for McCain, even before he picked Palin. :)

Out of curiosity, why would a Libertarian who actually votes Libertarian be swayed by the pick as vice president of a person who espouses no Libertarian views?

Or is she just a vagina fan?

I'm a vagina fan.

I just want sleepyjeff to spend time contemplating whether his mom is a vagina fan.

Probably the later.......her brother is somewhat of a bigwig in the Libertarian party so she tends to vote that way when she doesn't like the Republican Candidate....which she hasn't since 1992.

Or it could be that my Dad was behind McCain and Palin just gave her an excuse to vote with him(household harmony and all) :)

No, she likes the Winterhawks(a Portland Junior Hockey team that sometimes plays against a team from the Canadian city of Regina) ;)

Good god... perhaps it is really true, 2012 really WILL be the end of the world.

My head hurts.

I'm pretty sick of hearing these little stories that, whether they are true or not, are at best meaningless and at worst poisonous barbs, and when repeated, even with caveats and disclaimers galore, just mean that the stories are heard over and over and over.

I heard another smear today. Only complete morons would think it's actually an offensive thing. It's getting attention from the opposite side, and I'm beyond disgusted. I'm not f'n repeating it here, and if anyone else does, I'll call it what it is.

One story? No. But many, over time, all of them with cutesy a little "Oh I don't mind this, it doesn't mean this to me, but listen to this" tacked on, does have an effect. Mood, mood, mood. Just ask GC, eh? So when you, or Tenigma, or anyone else posts smears, I'm going to call it as it is.

Just because someone says "this is news!", doesn't mean it is news.



Oh, and every time GC has a negative post, I'm going to post this to counteract it:

Obama is going to win, because we won't let him lose. :)