Thus far the blogging of the VP debate drew comments faster and more furiously than the Presidential debate. Let’s see what happens this time around. As always, I’m watching the broadcast on PBS. Comments below the cut line.
9:02: ” I have selected a long list of excellent questions that will not be answered…”
9:03: McCain in a red tie, Obama in a blue tie. Perfect.
9:03: Obama goes for the attack early.
9:05: I’m being reminded of the Underpants gnomes from “South Park.” “Step One, Bailout. Step two…(deafening silence). Step three: Profit!”
9:06: Huh? Energy independence? Uhm…okay.
9:07: I’m waiting for McCain to sit down on the step next to the guy. Maybe ask him to sit in his lap.
9:08: And McCain goes for a joke! It’s a missed bunt.
9:09: Here’s the problem: McCain is talking about wall Street cronyism, yet he has plenty of Wall Street lobbyists on his staff.
9:10: Obama continues on the attack. He’s trying to bait McCain into blowing his temper, get scolding, etc. It’s a gambit; if it doesn’t work, if McCain doesn’t respond to the attacks, Obama going to look as if he’s endlessly carping.
9:12: The questioner is looking for specifics. Let’s see if he gets them. And now McCain fires back at Obama, referring to “cronies.” Obama is going to have to spend time defending himself rather than getting specific.
9:14: Smart. Obama speaks to the question first rather than responding to McCain’s charges.
9:15: And yet politicians ARE pointing fingers.
9:18: How do we trust you? Good question.
9:19: This could wind up being a major question because Obama tends to be a history and facts wonk while McCain does better in connecting with people on an emotional level, and trust is an emotional question.
9:20: This would have been the question for Obama to talk about hardscrabble roots or some such, the notion that “I’ve known hard times, I’m on your side.”
9:21: No, he has NOT been a consistent reformer. He has been consistently self serving. Read the Rolling Stones article.
9:22: They’re both blowing this opportunity. This is the kind of question that Bill Clinton would have knocked out of the park. Say what you will about Clinton, but he has tremendous personal charisma and you would have seen it on display for this question.
9:24: he could work on all three at once? NOW he can multi task? He couldn’t even campaign and work on the economy at the same time.
9:25: Every time he says, “My friends” I keep flashing back to “The Music Man” doing “Trouble.”
9:26: Yeah, but JFK had to die to give us the impetus to get to the moon.
9:27: Brokaw is trying his best to rein them in for time.
9:29: That air force tanker was actually a pork barrel project that he managed to push past through Carter’s objections. And there was a lawsuit involved as well because of European involvement that made its construction unfair competition for Americans.
9:30: OBAMA mentioned 9/11 first? Cripes.
9:31: Still, the comment about going out and shopping “not being the kind of call to service we were looking for” is kind of funny.
9:32: Clean coal technology is a myth. Unless there’s a new scientific breakthrough, it’s never going to happen.
9:33 If Bush says Wall Street got drunk, I’d take his word for it. With his history, he’d know.
9:34 I wonder if either of them will talk about putting Wall street on a 12 step program.
9:35: Obama should say, “I know Senator Obama worked with Herbert Hoover and knew Herbert Hoover, but I assure you I’m no Herbert Hoover.”
9:37: I keep waiting for them to follow the “West Wing” format and basically say, “Screw the rules, we’re just going to talk back and forth.”
9:38: Social security is the third rail of politics. If they talk about reforming it, they’re in trouble. “The straight talk express lost a wheel.” Nice. I’m sure he was waiting for the opportunity to use it.
9:40: Obama is steering the question away from what Brokaw said.
9:41: I’LL answer the question. Oh, snap.
9:41: Oh God, another frakking commission.
9:42: Look at the record? Keating 5.
9:43: McCain tries to distance himself from the Bush administration. Smart. Let’s see if Obama tries to tie him right back to it. Meantime he follows the West Wing scenario, advocating nuclear fuel just as Vinick did. Again, let’s hope a nuclear meltdown doesn’t happen to keep the scenario going.
9:45: Is EVERYTHING one of the biggest challenges of our time?
9:46: YES! Obama finally hits the nail in talking about the fact that McCain has been there for so long and hasn’t accomplished any of the things he talks about.
9:47: God, I just wish that Brokaw would just say, “Look, do you guys just want to toss the rules? Because if you do, let’s take the gloves off and go and I will go ‘Meet the Press’ on both of you.”
9:51: No. the health care in the congress is one of the most generous policies ever. They have all the stuff that we have slowly lost over the years due to the insurance companies.
9:52: Notice that Obama is no longer (a) stuttering at the start of questions and (b) saying “Senator McCain is absolutely right” about anything.
9:53: Why does no one point out that $5000 won’t get you health insurance?
9:54: cross-state insurance won’t work. NY people can’t go flocking to Ohio for health insurance, because in many states the state governments supplement the medical programs (the HIP program, for instance, is supplemented by state taxpayer money.) If the state governments see people flooding in from other states whose taxes aren’t going into the pot, how likely are they to continue supplementing the programs?
9:56: Oooo. Obama finally brings the personal aspect in.
9:57: Hah! He brought up McCain voting against children’s healthcare. I was wondering if he would.
9:58: Obama just stepped in something and he knows it. Biden’s from Delaware.
9:59: Obama can use this question as a major opportunity to link McCain to Bush when it comes to damaging our ability to act as peacemakers.
10:01: Obama was wrong about the surge. And McCain was wrong about every aspect of the war.
10:02: Not really answering the question, but he’s jabbing back at McCain at least.
10:03: 79 comments on this thread thus far. As of this time during the VP debate we had over 200.
10:05: I agree with McCain: It requires a cool hand at the tiller. Unfortunately his is anything BUT a cool hand. That’s the problem.
10:07: “Your young men and women are my first priority right after our nation’s security.” Which would make them your…second priority.
10:09: Except the problem is that more troops in Afghanistan will likely not lead to much except more deaths of civilians which is going to pìšš øff the people there and further inflame hostility toward us.
10:11: Actually it’s “speak softly and carry a big stick,” which is a West African saying that Roosevelt quoted.
10:13: YES! YES! And notice he said “speaking softly, ” the correct quote.
10:15; And we’re back to McCain’s secret plan to get bin Laden. He keep saying that. He has a secret plan. Has he shared this plan with anyone?
10:16: Brokaw is going to give Saturday night Live a field day.
10:18: Oh my God, McCain said that Obama was correct about something. Is that a first?
10:19: McCain’s right, I doubt we’ll have another cold war with Russia.
10:20: We’ve been SHOWING moral support for Georgia. It didn’t mean jack.
10:21: Yes. Obama jumps on the moral support opening. The question is, where do we get the money to provide financial support. And Obama already said the first thing he would cut would be money designed for foreign support.
10:22: As opposed to anticipating something AFTER it happens?
10;23: Gee, I would have thought McCain says Yes.
10:25: Ooooooo. the Jewish vote is listening carefully.
10:26: Aw, c’mon, are we back to the preconditions thing?
10:27: So Obama is basically saying that we want to take steps to make sure Israel isn’t attacked by Iran. Which is fine. But WHAT IF IT IS? That’s the question. If the steps fail, what then?
10:29: He never answered the question.
10:30: Obama deflects the zen question with humor and switches to his stump speech.
10:31: I could see McCain saying, “I don’t know how we will survive if Obama is elected, and I intend to never have to learn it.”
10:34: Except the great honor of his life was to put himself first. Again, read the RS articles.
CONCLUSION: I think both of them got good shots in. To my mind, Obama gave the better performance, albeit narrowly, but I’ve no idea if anyone who is undecided would have been swayed one way or the other.
• 
It’s also important to note that the real power in Iran is the religious leaders, not the secular government. Ahmadinejad’s ranting won’t change that.
Another FOX bit of propaganda over Palin. Check out the story at YouTube, by searching for “FOX Freakout Over Unretouched Palin Photo On Newsweek Cover”.
First of all, I have that issue of Newsweek, having bought it on Wednesday, and didn’t notice the facial hairs or other imperfections until right now, when Andrea pointed them out. To get a clue of how dishonest Andrea is, consider that Julia pointed out that she has seen unflattering covers of other people, including Obama. Andrea’s response? Did she concede this, or explain why this was not true, or how it did not serve to refute her position? Nope, she just repeated her original assertion, that the cover is a “slap in the face”. Thank you, Andrea, for proving how you, like the rest of the right-wing Kool Aid drinkers, cannot approach the issues in this campaign honestly or intellgiently.
Second, the title. The title is a summary, in shorthand, of the article inside by Jon Meacham, and yes, it is an opinion piece, which that title merely reflects, without ambiguity or subterfuge. Meacham’s point is that Palin’s image as being “one of the people” is neither unique today among high-level U.S. politicians, or in Presidential history, and that by itself, is not the most important virtue in selecting a President. In his words, “mindless populism is just that–mindless”, and he’s right. The “problem”, therefore, that is mentioned in that cover blurb is elevating “just one of the folks” populism to some type of primary criteria for the VP spot, and yes, that idea IS a problem. Andrea distorts this by claiming that it’s an “insult” to those folks who subscribe to the magazine, which is proof that she either didn’t read the article, and is interpreting that blurb via the prism of the GOP mantra about Palin and her critics, since Meacham never mentioned “the folks”, much less made the article about them. In itself, to do this without even trying to see if the article provides a more explanatory context is logically untenable. But to refuse to do this even after you’ve been asked to be interviewed on national television is inexcusable, and reveals Andrea to be either incompetent, or a liar.
Another FOX bit of propaganda over Palin. Check out the story at YouTube, by searching for “FOX Freakout Over Unretouched Palin Photo On Newsweek Cover”.
First of all, I have that issue of Newsweek, having bought it on Wednesday, and didn’t notice the facial hairs or other imperfections until right now, when Andrea pointed them out. To get a clue of how dishonest Andrea is, consider that Julia pointed out that she has seen unflattering covers of other people, including Obama. Andrea’s response? Did she concede this, or explain why this was not true, or how it did not serve to refute her position? Nope, she just repeated her original assertion, that the cover is a “slap in the face”. Thank you, Andrea, for proving how you, like the rest of the right-wing Kool Aid drinkers, cannot approach the issues in this campaign honestly or intellgiently.
Second, the title. The title is a summary, in shorthand, of the article inside by Jon Meacham, and yes, it is an opinion piece, which that title merely reflects, without ambiguity or subterfuge. Meacham’s point is that Palin’s image as being “one of the people” is neither unique today among high-level U.S. politicians, or in Presidential history, and that by itself, is not the most important virtue in selecting a President. In his words, “mindless populism is just that–mindless”, and he’s right. The “problem”, therefore, that is mentioned in that cover blurb is elevating “just one of the folks” populism to some type of primary criteria for the VP spot, and yes, that idea IS a problem. Andrea distorts this by claiming that it’s an “insult” to those folks who subscribe to the magazine, which is proof that she either didn’t read the article, and is interpreting that blurb via the prism of the GOP mantra about Palin and her critics, since Meacham never mentioned “the folks”, much less made the article about them. In itself, to do this without even trying to see if the article provides a more explanatory context is logically untenable. But to refuse to do this even after you’ve been asked to be interviewed on national television is inexcusable, and reveals Andrea to be either incompetent, or a liar.
It is true that Ahmadinejad is not in control of Iran, and many of the problems posed by Iran to Israel and to the US will continue even if he is gone. Some people say that it is a good thing that he became president, because it reveals the true policies of Iran (which is why he’s such a liability). However, I personally feel that his actions and inflammatory rhetoric make things worse in some ways. So although the problems will continue even when his term ends, I will feel better if he is replaced by someone who will not make it such a point to publicly inflame our already difficult situation.
It is true that Ahmadinejad is not in control of Iran, and many of the problems posed by Iran to Israel and to the US will continue even if he is gone. Some people say that it is a good thing that he became president, because it reveals the true policies of Iran (which is why he’s such a liability). However, I personally feel that his actions and inflammatory rhetoric make things worse in some ways. So although the problems will continue even when his term ends, I will feel better if he is replaced by someone who will not make it such a point to publicly inflame our already difficult situation.
Fox seem to be pushing this ACORN story all day, and trying to connect Obama to it. I wonder if it will succeed
Fox seem to be pushing this ACORN story all day, and trying to connect Obama to it. I wonder if it will succeed
I’ve read reports of speeches by McCain and Palin in New Mexico and Bethlehem that are disturbing. They’re trying to paint Obama as a big unknown, a figure of fear, and it seems like they’re not talking about his inexperience. McCain makes insinuations, and the crowd goes wild shouting that Obama is a terrorist, a socialist, and one woman even called him a child molester (no doubt those infamous ads about kindergarten sex education).
People here have been saying Palin is being smeared, but dámņ, what they’re doing to Obama is disgusting. They’re painting him as a bogeyman, an “Other”, that represents everything Middle America is afraid of: socialist, foreigner, terrorist, cosmopolitan, intellectual, pedophiliac, muslim. All that is “evil” inhabits Obama’s being, it seems.
Isn’t that the Mother of All Smear Campaigns?
I think I’m starting to really dislike John McCain. And I used to think he was the best Republican candidate in a long while…
(Partially unrelated, but it really bugs me how those people somehow associate pedophilia with liberalism or sexual freedom. Child abuse actually thrives in conservative environments where sexual repression is the norm, and people are so scared of their own sexuality that they seek the only partners that are even less experienced than they are: kids. It’s no surprise it happens a lot in Catholic Churces.)
I’ve read reports of speeches by McCain and Palin in New Mexico and Bethlehem that are disturbing. They’re trying to paint Obama as a big unknown, a figure of fear, and it seems like they’re not talking about his inexperience. McCain makes insinuations, and the crowd goes wild shouting that Obama is a terrorist, a socialist, and one woman even called him a child molester (no doubt those infamous ads about kindergarten sex education).
People here have been saying Palin is being smeared, but dámņ, what they’re doing to Obama is disgusting. They’re painting him as a bogeyman, an “Other”, that represents everything Middle America is afraid of: socialist, foreigner, terrorist, cosmopolitan, intellectual, pedophiliac, muslim. All that is “evil” inhabits Obama’s being, it seems.
Isn’t that the Mother of All Smear Campaigns?
I think I’m starting to really dislike John McCain. And I used to think he was the best Republican candidate in a long while…
(Partially unrelated, but it really bugs me how those people somehow associate pedophilia with liberalism or sexual freedom. Child abuse actually thrives in conservative environments where sexual repression is the norm, and people are so scared of their own sexuality that they seek the only partners that are even less experienced than they are: kids. It’s no surprise it happens a lot in Catholic Churces.)
Information on ACORN here
http://washingtonindependent.com/9136/democrats-gop-challenge-voter-laws
And here…
http://michiganmessenger.com/5366/gop-sound-and-fury-about-acorn-is-a-little-bit-nutty
Methink FOX is exaggerating a tad.
Information on ACORN here
http://washingtonindependent.com/9136/democrats-gop-challenge-voter-laws
And here…
http://michiganmessenger.com/5366/gop-sound-and-fury-about-acorn-is-a-little-bit-nutty
Methink FOX is exaggerating a tad.
I’m starting to get actively worried about some of the crowds at the McCain or Palin rallies. We’ve already had cries of “Terrorist!”, “Treason!”, “Kill him!”, and now a whole questioner today ranting about “socialists taking over the country, like Obama and Pelosi and the rest of the hooligans.”
The biggest worry? McCain and Palin aren’t stopping it, but from footage appear to be implicitly egging it on.
That’s dangerous — and I hope the Secret Service is keeping a close eye so that they can distinguish the real nutjobs from just the overly partisan.
TWL
I’m hoping it stops here and doesn’t extend past election day. Otherwise, we’re seeing a basis for whipping up sentiment in a population segment to sabotage and delegitimize an Obama presidency before it begins.
I’m hoping it stops here and doesn’t extend past election day. Otherwise, we’re seeing a basis for whipping up sentiment in a population segment to sabotage and delegitimize an Obama presidency before it begins.
Yeah, those crowds are getting creepy.
I don’t see why McCain doesn’t just look at this from a *political* point of view. The news has been running footage of him speaking to crowds as they yell “Cut off his head!” about Barack Obama. That doesn’t exactly make McCain look like the safe candidate, it makes him look like a crazy hate-monger. I don’t think he is one, but that’s the impression that people will get when they see a ten second clip of him enthusiastically speaking to a crowd that’s cheering to kill someone. That’s not going to help him with voters, but he’s not getting that.
At this point I think McCain just wants to be loved. When he gives speeches with Sarah Palin and riles up the crowd, they cheer for him. That’s got to feel a lot nicer than the stony reaction he got in the primaries when he told the people of Michigan that the jobs were gone and they weren’t coming back. He actually did talk straight with Michigan and they hated him for it. Right now the enthusiasm he’s receiving from crowds is probably kinda intoxicating. I bet it makes him feel like he’s doing well even when the polls say otherwise.
Yeah, those crowds are getting creepy.
I don’t see why McCain doesn’t just look at this from a *political* point of view. The news has been running footage of him speaking to crowds as they yell “Cut off his head!” about Barack Obama. That doesn’t exactly make McCain look like the safe candidate, it makes him look like a crazy hate-monger. I don’t think he is one, but that’s the impression that people will get when they see a ten second clip of him enthusiastically speaking to a crowd that’s cheering to kill someone. That’s not going to help him with voters, but he’s not getting that.
At this point I think McCain just wants to be loved. When he gives speeches with Sarah Palin and riles up the crowd, they cheer for him. That’s got to feel a lot nicer than the stony reaction he got in the primaries when he told the people of Michigan that the jobs were gone and they weren’t coming back. He actually did talk straight with Michigan and they hated him for it. Right now the enthusiasm he’s receiving from crowds is probably kinda intoxicating. I bet it makes him feel like he’s doing well even when the polls say otherwise.
Fox seem to be pushing this ACORN story all day, and trying to connect Obama to it. I wonder if it will succeed
And McCain and Palin are pushing Obama’s connections to Bill Ayers, even though they appear to also be trumped up to the point of absurdity.
Will such things succeed? At this point, it looks like they will not.
I’m hoping it stops here and doesn’t extend past election day.
Don’t hold your breath.
There are idiots out there that are falling for the “Obama knows Ayers, thus he’s a terrorist” or “somebody claimed Obama is Muslim, so he must be a terrorist” crap, crap which the right-wingers throw out there in the hopes that it sticks. Well, I’m hoping it completely backfires.
Others are simply clamoring over the notion that Obama is going to lead us straight into socialism. As if Bush & Co. wasn’t doing a great job of that already with the bailouts (oh, but it’s *different* if Bush does it, apparently).
No, this kind of rhetoric won’t stop after election day. If anything, an Obama win guarantees that it’ll only get worse.
Fox seem to be pushing this ACORN story all day, and trying to connect Obama to it. I wonder if it will succeed
And McCain and Palin are pushing Obama’s connections to Bill Ayers, even though they appear to also be trumped up to the point of absurdity.
Will such things succeed? At this point, it looks like they will not.
I’m hoping it stops here and doesn’t extend past election day.
Don’t hold your breath.
There are idiots out there that are falling for the “Obama knows Ayers, thus he’s a terrorist” or “somebody claimed Obama is Muslim, so he must be a terrorist” crap, crap which the right-wingers throw out there in the hopes that it sticks. Well, I’m hoping it completely backfires.
Others are simply clamoring over the notion that Obama is going to lead us straight into socialism. As if Bush & Co. wasn’t doing a great job of that already with the bailouts (oh, but it’s *different* if Bush does it, apparently).
No, this kind of rhetoric won’t stop after election day. If anything, an Obama win guarantees that it’ll only get worse.
“And McCain and Palin are pushing Obama’s connections to Bill Ayers, even though they appear to also be trumped up to the point of absurdity.”
Could be worse. They could be trying to connect Obama with Bill Myers 😉
“And McCain and Palin are pushing Obama’s connections to Bill Ayers, even though they appear to also be trumped up to the point of absurdity.”
Could be worse. They could be trying to connect Obama with Bill Myers 😉
Never heard of the guy before and had to check it in Wikipedia. For a while I thought you meant Mike Myers. 😉
For some frightening info on Palin’s own connections to the Alaskan Independence Party, see the YouTube videos “Rachel Maddow Show On Palin And The Alaskan Secessionists” and “Sarah Palin’s Secessionist Pal Speaks”. Unlike Obama and Ayers, Palin really did “pal around” with these nutjobs.
For some frightening info on Palin’s own connections to the Alaskan Independence Party, see the YouTube videos “Rachel Maddow Show On Palin And The Alaskan Secessionists” and “Sarah Palin’s Secessionist Pal Speaks”. Unlike Obama and Ayers, Palin really did “pal around” with these nutjobs.
I wouldn’t hang out with the Alaskan secessionists…but then again, they advocate a vote on the question, which is several orders of magnitude less of a problem for me than, say, blowing up civilians. trying to neutralize the Ayers issue with the AIP is not going to fly.
the truth is simple enough–if you are a Chicago politician you are probably going to have some unsavory characters in your circle of associates. That’s something I think most people understand and have already put into the calculation.
From what I can see, Obama pretty much cut ties with Ayers once he was elected senator. Just as he cut ties with wright once he became the nominee. lesson learned; Obama may opportunistically use some nasty people to advance his career but he isn’t afraid to jettison them once they become liabilities. That is not an altogether bad characteristic in a politician. Bush would have been a whole lot better off if he’d told some of his liabilities to take a hike when it became obvious they were doing him more harm than good.
The danger for Obama is if he tries to run out the clock. It worked in the Primaries only because he had an insurmountable lead. Can’t do that now; the polls on November 3rd don’t matter. I’ve suspected that the result will be much like carter vs reagan was, with McCain as carter–a massive surge to Obama in the last few days. But I suppose it could go the other way. It would take some incredible effort on the part of Obama or the media for it to happen though.
I wouldn’t hang out with the Alaskan secessionists…but then again, they advocate a vote on the question, which is several orders of magnitude less of a problem for me than, say, blowing up civilians. trying to neutralize the Ayers issue with the AIP is not going to fly.
the truth is simple enough–if you are a Chicago politician you are probably going to have some unsavory characters in your circle of associates. That’s something I think most people understand and have already put into the calculation.
From what I can see, Obama pretty much cut ties with Ayers once he was elected senator. Just as he cut ties with wright once he became the nominee. lesson learned; Obama may opportunistically use some nasty people to advance his career but he isn’t afraid to jettison them once they become liabilities. That is not an altogether bad characteristic in a politician. Bush would have been a whole lot better off if he’d told some of his liabilities to take a hike when it became obvious they were doing him more harm than good.
The danger for Obama is if he tries to run out the clock. It worked in the Primaries only because he had an insurmountable lead. Can’t do that now; the polls on November 3rd don’t matter. I’ve suspected that the result will be much like carter vs reagan was, with McCain as carter–a massive surge to Obama in the last few days. But I suppose it could go the other way. It would take some incredible effort on the part of Obama or the media for it to happen though.
I don’t see Obama as being very opportunistic. Sure, a little, but we’re all willing to stop talking to people once things get bad enough. The connection to Ayers was barely there to begin with. His boss actually set up that meeting at Ayers house, so they were hardly friends. He essentially cut loose someone he barely knew.
Palin, on the other hand, has a history of doing this. There are lots of people in Alaska, from Ted Stevens to State Senate Republicans, who Palin supported when convenient, then cut off when convenient. That’s what I call opportunistic, when someone does it so much that she knows she’s going to cut people off before she even starts being nice to them.
That’s actually how the thing with the Alaska Independence Party strikes me. I don’t really worry about the quotes of the founder saying how much he hates America. I don’t imagine her connections to the group represent anything close to those feelings on her part. She just got chummy with a couple of guys because they could help her win the Mayorship in Wasilla, that’s all.
I don’t see Obama as being very opportunistic. Sure, a little, but we’re all willing to stop talking to people once things get bad enough. The connection to Ayers was barely there to begin with. His boss actually set up that meeting at Ayers house, so they were hardly friends. He essentially cut loose someone he barely knew.
Palin, on the other hand, has a history of doing this. There are lots of people in Alaska, from Ted Stevens to State Senate Republicans, who Palin supported when convenient, then cut off when convenient. That’s what I call opportunistic, when someone does it so much that she knows she’s going to cut people off before she even starts being nice to them.
That’s actually how the thing with the Alaska Independence Party strikes me. I don’t really worry about the quotes of the founder saying how much he hates America. I don’t imagine her connections to the group represent anything close to those feelings on her part. She just got chummy with a couple of guys because they could help her win the Mayorship in Wasilla, that’s all.
I also don’t worry about the connection with the Alaska secessionists because I have a hard time taking them seriously. It seems like they know secession is never going to happen, so they’re just kinda playing around with the idea.
It’s like the guy who goes to a Renaissance Fair and then says he loves medieval times and wishes he could have lived back then. No matter how serious he is, if he actually had the chance to go back in time he’d turn down the lice ridden bed and stay where he is. If the people in the Alaska Independence Party had a chance to actually secede, they’d realize it would be the end of all that federal money that Alaska gets and they’d back off.
I also don’t worry about the connection with the Alaska secessionists because I have a hard time taking them seriously. It seems like they know secession is never going to happen, so they’re just kinda playing around with the idea.
It’s like the guy who goes to a Renaissance Fair and then says he loves medieval times and wishes he could have lived back then. No matter how serious he is, if he actually had the chance to go back in time he’d turn down the lice ridden bed and stay where he is. If the people in the Alaska Independence Party had a chance to actually secede, they’d realize it would be the end of all that federal money that Alaska gets and they’d back off.
I don’t see Obama as being very opportunistic.
I think that is almost a requirement to get into a position to become president, so it doesn’t bother me much. yes, it would be nice if his career did not include the manes of Wright, Rezko or Ayers, but each one probably did something that helped him get where he is. So far as I’ve seen there is no evidence he did anything illegal in return.
I think it would be a mistake to try to make much of the Alaskan secessionists. Like you said, they aren’t much of a force and, at any rate, it would be hard to find anyone who has ever been harmed by them. That isn’t the case with the Weather underground.
I don’t see Obama as being very opportunistic.
I think that is almost a requirement to get into a position to become president, so it doesn’t bother me much. yes, it would be nice if his career did not include the manes of Wright, Rezko or Ayers, but each one probably did something that helped him get where he is. So far as I’ve seen there is no evidence he did anything illegal in return.
I think it would be a mistake to try to make much of the Alaskan secessionists. Like you said, they aren’t much of a force and, at any rate, it would be hard to find anyone who has ever been harmed by them. That isn’t the case with the Weather underground.
Let’s also not forget that the “Undecided” vote usually goes to the Republican candidate.
Republican = status quo = safer.
Democratic = change = scary.
Let’s also not forget that the “Undecided” vote usually goes to the Republican candidate.
Republican = status quo = safer.
Democratic = change = scary.
Alan Coil: Let’s also not forget that the “Undecided” vote usually goes to the Republican candidate.
Really? That doesn’t match up with the polls and results that I’ve seen.
Let’s also not forget that the “Undecided” vote usually goes to the Republican candidate.
While that’s often true, it may not be this year. Given the economy (and other things, but certainly the economy), there’s a very big “throw the bums out” sentiment out there. In a case like that, undecideds might well favor the challenger, who is by implication Obama.
TWL
Let’s also not forget that the “Undecided” vote usually goes to the Republican candidate.
While that’s often true, it may not be this year. Given the economy (and other things, but certainly the economy), there’s a very big “throw the bums out” sentiment out there. In a case like that, undecideds might well favor the challenger, who is by implication Obama.
TWL
Some guy recorded statements from people leaving a McCain/Palin rally in Ohio, and it’s some pretty outrageous, scary stuff:
youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E
youtube.com/watch?v=VJghQMq49dw
Some guy recorded statements from people leaving a McCain/Palin rally in Ohio, and it’s some pretty outrageous, scary stuff:
Here’s one worse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVFWahLTdUo
Some guy recorded statements from people leaving a McCain/Palin rally in Ohio, and it’s some pretty outrageous, scary stuff:
Here’s one worse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVFWahLTdUo
Given the economy (and other things, but certainly the economy), there’s a very big “throw the bums out” sentiment out there. In a case like that, undecideds might well favor the challenger, who is by implication Obama.
That’s true. Go to http://stateoftheunion.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/behind-mccains-fall/ and they’ve plotted McCain’s poll numbers vs the S&P numbers. The correlation is 0.77.
Given the almost cosmic certitude that the markets will not recover in 3 weeks it would seem to put a final nail in the McCain campaign’s coffin. If that’s the case the only thing McCain can accomplish at this point is to reduce Obama’s star power, which has already happened to an extent (for someone who was once heralded as the most articulate speech giver since JFK, his performance at the last debate was a snoozer. Though it was good enough for the win). Even among hard core Obama supporters here there is a sense of fatigue at this endless campaign. Farrakhan may call him the messiah but most of us just see him as the best of two choices that once seemed far better than they do now.
And hey, maybe that’s for the best. If people actually expect him to sweep into office and solve the economic crisis with a smile and a wave they are setting themselves up for a crushing disappointment.
My big question is which foreign douche bag will be the one who tries to test his mettle by getting froggy with him. I think they will probably regret it.
Given the economy (and other things, but certainly the economy), there’s a very big “throw the bums out” sentiment out there. In a case like that, undecideds might well favor the challenger, who is by implication Obama.
That’s true. Go to http://stateoftheunion.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/behind-mccains-fall/ and they’ve plotted McCain’s poll numbers vs the S&P numbers. The correlation is 0.77.
Given the almost cosmic certitude that the markets will not recover in 3 weeks it would seem to put a final nail in the McCain campaign’s coffin. If that’s the case the only thing McCain can accomplish at this point is to reduce Obama’s star power, which has already happened to an extent (for someone who was once heralded as the most articulate speech giver since JFK, his performance at the last debate was a snoozer. Though it was good enough for the win). Even among hard core Obama supporters here there is a sense of fatigue at this endless campaign. Farrakhan may call him the messiah but most of us just see him as the best of two choices that once seemed far better than they do now.
And hey, maybe that’s for the best. If people actually expect him to sweep into office and solve the economic crisis with a smile and a wave they are setting themselves up for a crushing disappointment.
My big question is which foreign douche bag will be the one who tries to test his mettle by getting froggy with him. I think they will probably regret it.
JFK also wasn’t as good at debates as he was at speeches. People who listened to the Nixon debate on the radio said Nixon won. It was the visuals of JFK vs. Nixon that put Kennedy over the top, which is pretty much true for these recent debates, also.
None of that relates to your point that McCain is affecting Obama’s reputation, Bill. It just seemed like an interesting historical parallel.
As for whether or not McCain’s actions are for the best, I don’t think so. What the McCain Campaign is doing is stirring up a lot of hatred. I think we’re in a situation where we *want* people thinking the next president will be a strong leader and support him. We’re seeing the opposite right now, where Bush says things will get better and nobody trusts him enough to be comforted by that.
JFK also wasn’t as good at debates as he was at speeches. People who listened to the Nixon debate on the radio said Nixon won. It was the visuals of JFK vs. Nixon that put Kennedy over the top, which is pretty much true for these recent debates, also.
None of that relates to your point that McCain is affecting Obama’s reputation, Bill. It just seemed like an interesting historical parallel.
As for whether or not McCain’s actions are for the best, I don’t think so. What the McCain Campaign is doing is stirring up a lot of hatred. I think we’re in a situation where we *want* people thinking the next president will be a strong leader and support him. We’re seeing the opposite right now, where Bush says things will get better and nobody trusts him enough to be comforted by that.
No, dude. The longer the campaign, the longer McCain has to strap down his rage:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-09/john-mccain-shooting-craps-pìššëd-off/
I wish I could tack on 3 more months to the campaign.
No, dude. The longer the campaign, the longer McCain has to strap down his rage:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-09/john-mccain-shooting-craps-pìššëd-off/
I wish I could tack on 3 more months to the campaign.
No, dude. The longer the campaign, the longer McCain has to strap down his rage:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-09/john-mccain-shooting-craps-pìššëd-off/
I wish I could tack on 3 more months to the campaign.
A GENERAL NOTE!!!!
Please Oh Please give the program some time to process your request to post and don’t hit post a bunch of times. It kind of gums up the works and I have to come in manually and sort through the posts.
I thank you for your understanding in this matter.
Kath
A GENERAL NOTE!!!!
Please Oh Please give the program some time to process your request to post and don’t hit post a bunch of times. It kind of gums up the works and I have to come in manually and sort through the posts.
I thank you for your understanding in this matter.
Kath
I wish I could tack on 3 more months to the campaign.
You must not live in a potential swing state. We are at the point where we get the same ads for the same politicians running right after each other! If those banks had invested in the ad companies making political ads the Dow would be at 15,000.
For me, once I’ve decided on a candidate and once I’m pretty sure said candidate will win there is very very little left to occupy my interest. At one time I couldn’t wait for the debates. Now they are just a good reason to watch another movie on my queue. (tonight– Sting Of Death! Half man! Half jellyfish! All terror!)
This is what I get for not paying attention. I thought the comment I responded to above was from you, Jason. Otherwise, would not have bothered.
Actually from Jason this time–
JFK also wasn’t as good at debates as he was at speeches. People who listened to the Nixon debate on the radio said Nixon won. It was the visuals of JFK vs. Nixon that put Kennedy over the top, which is pretty much true for these recent debates, also.
true, but at least that debate was interesting. This last one was deadly dull. The first one wasn’t all that memorable either. Plot them on a graph and my projections indicate that the next one may actually cause brain embolisms.
The one thing I would not have predicted from an Obama/McCain matchup was that it would put me to sleep.