Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The problem with Obama in debates or unscripted interviews is that he pauses and stammers fairly frequently as he is parsing his words. When he is reading a prepared speech from a teleprompter, his delivery is flawless.

If you listen to the full clip of his lipstick/old fish comments yesterday, you'll notice him stuttering quite a bit. It's a great example of what you're talking about.

[JPhillips]

But wait, I thought the lipstick/pig stuff was a pre-planned attack.

[BrianD]

Since the game apparently has become "what would be embarrassing if the candidate meant some else"



Sure she didn't write the speech and sure she didn't say anything about Jews, but even so it creates the impression that Palin hates Jews. When will Republicans learn that not hating Jews doesn't matter if your opponent can lie about it?

What?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Since the game apparently has become "what would be embarrassing if the candidate meant some else"

Sure she didn't write the speech and sure she didn't say anything about Jews, but even so it creates the impression that Palin hates Jews. When will Republicans learn that not hating Jews doesn't matter if your opponent can lie about it?

I was raised Lutheran and Martin Luther was a nutball by the end of his life. That doesn't mean my goal is to be a nutball or that the Lutheran religion is suddenly void of any good ideas or teachings.

[BrianD]

But wait, I thought the lipstick/pig stuff was a pre-planned attack.

I heard it reported this morning that it was scripted...attack or not.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I heard it reported this morning that it was scripted...attack or not.

Point being, as Vegas Vic mentioned, Obama doesn't do nearly as well without a teleprompter in front of him, script or no script. There's a lot more pauses and rough patches in his speaking. McCain does much better when he isn't in front of a teleprompter.

[Subby]

Anybody know if any studies have been done to show the effectiveness of Hollywood Star endorsement of a candidate? My feeling has always been that celebrity endorsements have always been a major turn-off. I don't listen to celebrities for political views, I just like to see them perform in whatever venue made them famous. Seems like the ratio of worthwhile political knowledge versus people they can get to listen to them is pretty low.
I'll agree that the democrats have a perceived Hollywood problem, but I honestly don't know if makes any material difference in the election. The folks that boycott hollyweird aren't sitting on the fence in the first place.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'll agree that the democrats have a perceived Hollywood problem, but I honestly don't know if makes any material difference in the election. The folks that boycott hollyweird aren't sitting on the fence in the first place.

I'm still waiting for the Hollywood wackos who said they'd move out of the country in 2004 if Bush won to actually leave the country.

[larrymcg421]

I'm still waiting for the Hollywood wackos who said they'd move out of the country in 2004 if Bush won to actually leave the country.

If all the conservatives who promised to leave the country when Clinton got elected actually did leave, then Bush wouldn't have been elected in the first place.

[Flasch186]

RCP has listed two National polls today...

Rasmussen: Obama 48, McCain 47
NBC/WSJ: Obama 46, McCain 45

obviously Larry, these 2 are rolling averages :)

[molson]

If all the conservatives who promised to leave the country when Clinton got elected actually did leave, then Bush wouldn't have been elected in the first place.

Part of me wants to break out the stats to show that you're a LIAR.

[Flasch186]

there are stats on people who said they'd move if one person one or lost? Wow, either it's a really small sample size or it's a load of crap on both sides. Shit, I mightve said it over dinner at some point over the last 10 years. It's such a red herring to throw out there but unfortunately since it seems things are treading in a gutter it'd be par for the course for the campaigns, the path to the white house.

Y'know to discuss with MBBF, since he's begun to speak intelligently ;) It seems that the right's move right now is to lay the mines out there, even the small ones and then throw gasoline on the tiny explosion once it's sprung. As Jon would say, it's smart. I hate it and find it disgusting when either side does it but it works with most Americans.

It doesnt change the meat of the things I want to see moved forward which is exposure of lying and hypocrisy whenever it exists or occurs and I wont list them all but boy the bucket is chock full.

The problem is, mainstream America seems to get spun and not pay attention to the exposures and just believes the lies that are repeatedly propogated even when theyre debunked, Like Cheney did to perfection. Its a shame and makes me want to vomit daily.

[larrymcg421]

Part of me wants to break out the stats to show that you're a LIAR.

First of all, it was a joke ("OBVIOUSLY").

Also, I'd love to see how you could come up with stats to prove anything? Do you know how many conservatives said that? Seems to be that would need to be known before you could prove the statement to be incorrect. I mean, if just a few hundred from Florida said it at some point, then the statement is true. So let me know when you've interviewed every conservative in Florida.

[molson]

there are stats on people who said they'd move if one person one or lost? Wow, either it's a really small sample size or it's a load of crap on both sides. Shit, I mightve said it over dinner at some point over the last 10 years. It's such a red herring to throw out there but unfortunately since it seems things are treading in a gutter it'd be par for the course for the campaigns, the path to the white house.

I thought the reference would be obvious, but I was making fun of people who ran out for the stats when that Republican said that Palin got more votes for mayor than Biden did for president.

[larrymcg421]

I thought the reference would be obvious, but I was making fun of people who ran out for the stats when that Republican said that Palin got more votes for mayor than Biden did for president.

Okay, but the difference is you can break out stats to show the Palin-Biden comment was incorrect. You cannot do that for my comment. Not to mention the fact that people ont he right believed the Palin-Biden comment, meaning it deserved to be proven wrong.

Wow, I really wish you would quit with the analogies.

[Passacaglia]

First of all, it was a joke ("OBVIOUSLY").

Also, I'd love to see how you could come up with stats to prove anything? Do you know how many conservatives said that? Seems to be that would need to be known before you could prove the statement to be incorrect. I mean, if just a few vote coutners from Florida said it at some point, then the statement is true. So let me know when you've interviewed every conservative in Florida.

Fixed. Oh yeah I went there! :p

[Passacaglia]

And I'm keeping the typo in, so suck it!

[BrianD]

I'll agree that the democrats have a perceived Hollywood problem, but I honestly don't know if makes any material difference in the election. The folks that boycott hollyweird aren't sitting on the fence in the first place.

That is probably true. I have more distaste for the celebrity who thinks they should get a national stage to talk politics than I have for the candidate they endorse.

[larrymcg421]

That is probably true. I have more distaste for the celebrity who thinks they should get a national stage to talk politics than I have for the candidate they endorse.

I don't really have a problem with that. They already have the national stage, and I admire someone for talking about what they believe in more than who designed their dress or tux. I would probably do the same.

[Arles]

IMO, 75% of celebrity endorsements are based on one of two things:

1. Guilt for being successful and wishing to show they still care about "the common man" as they go from party to part in their limo.
2. PR calculation knowing that being for a left-leaning candidate will help their status in Hollywood for future gigs.

So, I wouldn't get too carried away with the "I admire someone for talking about what they believe in" when talking about the Hollywood crowd.

[BishopMVP]

FWIW.....I think Biden is a pretty good guy, politics aside.This is one silver lining I'm actually happy about - all 4 on the tickets seem like genuinely decent people, politics aside. I didn't always feel that last couple elections with guys like Cheney and Kerry.

[sterlingice]

This is one silver lining I'm actually happy about - all 4 on the tickets seem like genuinely decent people, politics aside. I didn't always feel that last couple elections with guys like Cheney and Kerry.

I can say that about 3 out of 4 but not one of them.

SI

[BishopMVP]

IMO, 75% of celebrity endorsements are based on one of two things:

1. Guilt for being successful and wishing to show they still care about "the common man" as they go from party to part in their limo.
2. PR calculation knowing that being for a left-leaning candidate will help their status in Hollywood for future gigs.

So, I wouldn't get too carried away with the "I admire someone for talking about what they believe in" when talking about the Hollywood crowd.I think you're giving the average Hollywood celebrity wayyyyy too much intellectual credit. These people, with a few exceptions I'm sure, are the equivalent of a 12y/o in their political knowledge and beliefs.

[JPhillips]

IMO, 75% of celebrity endorsements are based on one of two things:

1. Guilt for being successful and wishing to show they still care about "the common man" as they go from party to part in their limo.
2. PR calculation knowing that being for a left-leaning candidate will help their status in Hollywood for future gigs.

So, I wouldn't get too carried away with the "I admire someone for talking about what they believe in" when talking about the Hollywood crowd.

Where do Aahnold, Fred Thompson, Reagan, Sony Bono, Charlton Heston, Clint Eastwood, Robert Duvall, Gerald Macreany, et. al. fit?

[larrymcg421]

IMO, 75% of celebrity endorsements are based on one of two things:

1. Guilt for being successful and wishing to show they still care about "the common man" as they go from party to part in their limo.
2. PR calculation knowing that being for a left-leaning candidate will help their status in Hollywood for future gigs.

So, I wouldn't get too carried away with the "I admire someone for talking about what they believe in" when talking about the Hollywood crowd.

Not sure how making a statement on a message board is getting "carried away". Also, I disagree with your reasoning for the endorsements. I simply think artistic people tend to be more liberal, and thus people in Hollywood end up supporting liberal candidates.

However, the point is I'd prefer a celebrity to talk about something that is important rather than the standard gossip/fashion/salary crap we usually get. And that goes for people like Charlton Heston, Fred Thompson, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, and Jon Voight as well.

[BrianD]

I don't really have a problem with that. They already have the national stage, and I admire someone for talking about what they believe in more than who designed their dress or tux. I would probably do the same.

But in general they can probably speak more intelligently about who designed their dress or tux. I guess I'd like to look for places where I can get some decent information and don't care to get it from random celebrities with unknown qualifications and nobody there to challenge them.

The other side of this is the Tom Cruise effect. It is harder to enjoy the work of someone who shows themselves to be a complete whackadoo.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not to mention the fact that people ont he right believed the Palin-Biden comment, meaning it deserved to be proven wrong.

Except that if it was written originally here without a typo, as governor instead of mayor, then it was correct all along. Palin did receive more votes for governor than Biden got in his brief run in 2008.

[ace1914]

IMO, 75% of celebrity endorsements are based on one of two things:

1. Guilt for being successful and wishing to show they still care about "the common man" as they go from party to part in their limo.
2. PR calculation knowing that being for a left-leaning candidate will help their status in Hollywood for future gigs.

So, I wouldn't get too carried away with the "I admire someone for talking about what they believe in" when talking about the Hollywood crowd.

God forbid, these guys are (gasp) actually Americans that are doing the same thing we are but on a bigger stage.

[larrymcg421]

Except that if it was written originally here without a typo, as governor instead of mayor, then it was correct all along. Palin did receive more votes for governor than Biden got in his brief run in 2008.

But it wasn't a typo. The whole thing started as a response to the comments made at the convention, where mayor was used. Molson said it was obviously a joke and called people stupid for thinking otherwise, but some conservatives believed it, and Vegas Vic even used it here to make a point.

[molson]

Okay, but the difference is you can break out stats to show the Palin-Biden comment was incorrect. You cannot do that for my comment. Not to mention the fact that people ont he right believed the Palin-Biden comment, meaning it deserved to be proven wrong.

Wow, I really wish you would quit with the analogies.

If you're making the statement, you're the one that should prove that it's accurate.

The fact that one has easily attaintable numbers and one doesn't is meaningless if both are jokes. And your statement surely has specific numbers too, they would just take more work to find.

And still, Biden got 0 votes for president.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But it wasn't a typo. The whole thing started as a response to the comments made at the convention, where mayor was used. Molson said it was obviously a joke and called people stupid for thinking otherwise, but some conservatives believed it, and Vegas Vic even used it here to make a point.

Lord knows that I can't find the original sidebar on that, even skimming back through something like 60 pages in the thread, but best I can recall is that:

-- the original reference must have gone right by me (if there was one before VV got involved in that portion). Or else I picked up on it when VV referenced Molson saying something about it and attributed the original comment to VV all along.

-- VV and I briefly discussed (or me & someone in the thread) that it was accurate as "governor" instead of "mayor" (which was how I had read it from the beginning). And that left me with the impression that it was a typo from the get-go.

[molson]

The reason I don't think it was a typo (at the convention) is that it was in direct response to the Obama campaign's mocking of the size of the town she was mayor of. That mocking was a theme of much of the speaches, including the "you know, except with actual responsibilites" line.

The fact that the the joke so clearly contradicts the numbers (if you consider votes for nominee a vote for president), clearly tells me that it was a joke.

But hey, I'm wrong at least half the time, if not more (unlike liberals in this thread).

[larrymcg421]

Lord knows that I can't find the original sidebar on that, even skimming back through something like 60 pages in the thread, but best I can recall is that:

-- the original reference must have gone right by me (if there was one before VV got involved in that portion). Or else I picked up on it when VV referenced Molson saying something about it and attributed the original comment to VV all along.

-- VV and I briefly discussed (or me & someone in the thread) that it was accurate as "governor" instead of "mayor" (which was how I had read it from the beginning). And that left me with the impression that it was a typo from the get-go.

Actually, I was involved in that too, and agreed with you that it was probably a typo. However, what I said was that it was a typo from the person who originally distributed the talking point, not from the person who originally posted it here. It was clearly said as Mayor at the convention.

[Kodos]

George Clooney for President!

[JonInMiddleGA]

re: the whole pig & lipstick thing (which to be honest has pretty much flown past me as anything other than a quick clip, headlines online & a sidebar issue here -- too many "have-to-deal-with-right-now" items in my life for the past few days to have paid much attention to pigs, lipstick, or anything that didn't involve an immediate threat to my health, welfare, or family)

-- It seemed obvious to me from the delivery & the response that it got at the time that this was anything other than an attempt to be clever & play to the room by Obama. I border on being flabbergasted that anyone even tries to deny that.

-- It was, at worst, an okay line to use as a pointed jab to entertain the crowd in my mind except that he didn't anticipate how it could be used against him. Personally I'd say no harm no foul in playing to your crowd as long as they're the only people who hear it. It's the last bit that creates a problem here (and having an opponent smart enough to make use of bulletin board material when it's offered).

-- How really outraged is the average member of the McCain/Palin campaign about it? Little to none would be my strong belief. But if there's mileage to be had from pretending to be, seems beyond stupid not to make the effort and get whatever benefit from it they can.

-- How really angry is the average GOP voter? Madder than the presumably thicker-skinned candidates/campaign veterans themselves would be my estimate. A case of "don't you talk about my {insert person with a relationship here}" sort of mad. I mean, a person can trashtalk their own relatives but if you do it then there's a risk you'll piss them off, even if you said the exact same thing. That's pretty knee jerk stuff but easily predictable too.

And it all leads me back to something I've wondered about from the early stages of the campaign: the quality/skill of Obama's handlers. Little things like this make me wonder whether he's slipping out of their grasp & making mistakes on his own or if they're truly clueless enough not to have anticipated how something like this could backfire.

I mean, they were capable of knocking off Hillary so there had to be some ability there somewhere no matter how much she may have mishandled her own campaign during the primaries. So why all of sudden do we get a goof like this one? Has he had any significant organizational changes that I've missed? Somebody leave, get fired, get replaced? Has the candidate gotten a little too comfortable with the spotlight & simply stopped taking advice from his own people and decided he can wing it on his own?

[Jas_lov]

New CNN/Time polls:

Michigan: Obama 49 McCain 45
Virginia: McCain 50 Obama 46
Missouri: McCain 50 Obama 45
New Hampshire: Obama 51 McCain 45

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time CNN battleground polls « - Blogs from CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/cnn-battleground-polls/)

[JonInMiddleGA]

It was clearly said as Mayor at the convention.

And see, I don't think I ever realized it was even a line from the convention until it came up here on page whatevertheheck we're up to. The first time I remember seeing/hearing it was when it came up here back everhowmany pages ago.

Stipulate that I'm innocent of any attempt spin on this sidebar, and I'll enter a nolo plea for having taken the source/context wrong for the comment from the get go.

[Flasch186]

Chris Matthews is killin' Mary Fallin (R) from Oklahoma. She tried to say that 'Obama's rotting fish comment' is targeted at McCain as him being an old fish and you shouldve seen Matthews reaction. boy does she look silly right now. She then cited Clinton as being against the 'bullying' and Matthews read her Clinton's quote to the contrary today. He is making her look like such a hypocrite....and good. Hypocrisy, no matter where, needs exposure.....

and now I saw the whole clip and he was obviously, IMO, referencing that change can be called many things but in this case, 'you can slap lipstick on a pig and its still a pig, but its still a pig' was in reference to the word change....

but I aagree with many, including Matthews, that this 'sideshow' has beomce quite the distraction and gotten more mileage than its worth. Kudos to the GOP.

[TazFTW]

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_mexico/election_2008_new_mexico_presidential_election)

Rasmussen has McCain leading Obama 49-47 in New Mexico. The last Rasmussen poll (8/20) had it at Obama 47 McCain 41.

[larrymcg421]

Polling is definitely looking good for McCain right now, but it'll be interesting to see if this is convention bounce or if it has any staying power.

[CamEdwards]

Chris Matthews is killin' Mary Fallin (R) from Oklahoma. She tried to say that 'Obama's rotting fish comment' is targeted at McCain as him being an old fish and you shouldve seen Matthews reaction. boy does she look silly right now. She then cited Clinton as being against the 'bullying' and Matthews read her Clinton's quote to the contrary today. He is making her look like such a hypocrite....and good. Hypocrisy, no matter where, needs exposure.....

and now I saw the whole clip and he was obviously, IMO, referencing that change can be called many things but in this case, 'you can slap lipstick on a pig and its still a pig, but its still a pig' was in reference to the word change....

but I aagree with many, including Matthews, that this 'sideshow' has beomce quite the distraction and gotten more mileage than its worth. Kudos to the GOP.

You agree with a talk show host who calls the issue a "sideshow" and yet spends precious minutes of airtime talking about it? Isn't Matthews being more than a bit hypocritical?

[Flasch186]

sure but as he said on Morning Joe this morning, ALL cable news is a 500lb guy looking for a 100lb burrow. Its 100% consistent with what I ssaid a few pages ago...TV news has a bias...a bias for RATINGS and if its the issue du jour, he has to ride that...You gotta ride it till the next burrow comes along to relieve the first one. Disgusting and reflective of the state of America but very very true, IMO.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Polling is definitely looking good for McCain right now, but it'll be interesting to see if this is convention bounce or if it has any staying power.

My own suspicion is that stuff like this are people just moving themselves from "undecided" (whether they'll vote or not moreso than who they'll vote for) to the camp they were in all along.

[JonInMiddleGA]

sure but as he said on Morning Joe this morning, ALL cable news is a 500lb guy looking for a 100lb burrow.

And with that, Matthews will probably draw the ire of 500 pound voters on both ends of the political spectrum ;)

[Flasch186]

i hope theyre taping.

[larrymcg421]

My own suspicion is that stuff like this are people just moving themselves from "undecided" (whether they'll vote or not moreso than who they'll vote for) to the camp they were in all along.

I don't think that's it, because the undecideds have stayed pretty much the same (ranging between 4-6%). McCain is clearly taking from Obama's numbers. We'll see if it holds.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't think that's it, because the undecideds have stayed pretty much the same (ranging between 4-6%). McCain is clearly taking from Obama's numbers.

{scratches head}
{looks at most recent polling post again}

Rasmussen has McCain leading Obama 49-47 in New Mexico. The last Rasmussen poll (8/20) had it at Obama 47 McCain 41.

Umm ... Obama had 47% on 8/20, he has 47% now. What did McCain take from his numbers?

Or were you talking generally/nationally, instead of just the New Mexico numbers (which I thought you were initially commenting on since your post I replied to was immediately after the NM numbers were posted).

[ace1914]

The polls have a margin of error of 2-5%. It doesn't show any real movement.

[Flasch186]

...and theyre rolling averages.

[SFL Cat]

Well, this is interesting. :popcorn:

Biden: Hillary May Have Been Better VP Pick « FOX Embeds « FOXNews.com (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/10/biden-on-hillary-may-have-been-better-vp-pick/)

Early indicator that Biden drops out and Hillary takes his place?

[ace1914]

...and theyre rolling averages.


They have been averaging an even campaign for about a month now.

[ace1914]

Well, this is interesting. :popcorn:

Biden: Hillary May Have Been Better VP Pick « FOX Embeds « FOXNews.com (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/10/biden-on-hillary-may-have-been-better-vp-pick/)

Early indicator that Biden drops out and Hillary takes his place?

Easily amused, I see.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Early indicator that Biden drops out and Hillary takes his place?

I can't imagine Hillary would be dumb enough to take the spot now. She's going to do just enough to stay in the good graces of the Dem masses and otherwise hope to run again in four years either against Palin or some other GOP'er (because I don't see McCain seeking a second term).

Pretty good foot in mouth from Biden though.

[Flasch186]

at least he put a disclaimer on his post with the popcorn guy...I wish their was a spin doctor emoticon.

[ace1914]

I can't imagine Hillary would be dumb enough to take the spot now. She's going to do just enough to stay in the good graces of the Dem masses and otherwise hope to run again in four years either against Palin or some other GOP'er (because I don't see McCain seeking a second term).

Pretty good foot in mouth from Biden though.

Much ado about nothing. But hey, that's Fox "Fair and Balanced" News.

[SFL Cat]

Easily amused, I see.


Then why would Biden publically admit he might not have been the best choice for Veep? Surely the disconnect between brain and mouth isn't that great. :)

[SFL Cat]

Maybe you Fox-phobes will like this link better

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Biden: Hillary might have been better VP pick « - Blogs from CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/10/biden-hillary-might-have-been-better-vp-pick/)

[ace1914]

Then why would Biden publically admit he might not have been the best choice for Veep? Surely the disconnect between brain and mouth isn't that great. :)

He did it so SFLCat's around the world could post it on their favorite message boards.

[SFL Cat]

He did it so SFLCat's around the world could post it on their favorite message boards.

Well then...THANKS JOE!!!! :D

[JPhillips]

It's good to know that no one has ever complemented or flattered someone without being 100% sincere.

[ace1914]

Maybe you Fox-phobes will like this link better

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Biden: Hillary might have been better VP pick « - Blogs from CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/10/biden-hillary-might-have-been-better-vp-pick/)

Thanks. I love your bipartisan approach to politics today.

[larrymcg421]

{scratches head}
{looks at most recent polling post again}



Umm ... Obama had 47% on 8/20, he has 47% now. What did McCain take from his numbers?

Or were you talking generally/nationally, instead of just the New Mexico numbers (which I thought you were initially commenting on since your post I replied to was immediately after the NM numbers were posted).

Yeah I meant nationally. But even in New Mexico, I doubt all 8% of that is from undecideds. I think he picked up some undecideds and stole some from Obama. Nationally it appears to be mostly the latter taking place, but who knows what it could be in New Mexico.

I am wondering if McCain's bounce is coming bigger in red states than in battleground states (the Palin factor). This would explain the massive change in the NC numbers, but not such a wide change elsewhere. For instance, Florida is curiously dead even.

[ace1914]

It's good to know that no one has ever complemented or flattered someone without being 100% sincere.

You gotta give spinsters like SFLCat credit, though. Spinning is a tough job. You twist and turn an issue and eat a lot of popcorn afterwards.:D

[SFL Cat]

Thanks. I love your bipartisan approach to politics today.

Actually, I tried to find a link for this at MSNBC, but they didn't have anything about it on the web site.

[molson]

It's good to know that no one has ever complemented or flattered someone without being 100% sincere.

Do you seriously think you wouldn't have scrambled to FOFC to tell all of us how Palin said that there's a more qualified VP out there than her? Seriously?

[ace1914]

Do you seriously think you wouldn't have scrambled to FOFC to tell all of us how Palin said that there's a more qualified VP out there than her? Seriously?

Uh no, don't think I would've. Not that enamored with the woman. Don't go out and try to find an issue where someone gives another a genuine complement and try to spin it to say "wrong pick." That's silly.

[Flasch186]

Actually, I tried to find a link for this at MSNBC, but they didn't have anything about it on the web site.

because you took it and spun it...like the lipstick shit.

[larrymcg421]

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_mexico/election_2008_new_mexico_presidential_election)

Rasmussen has McCain leading Obama 49-47 in New Mexico. The last Rasmussen poll (8/20) had it at Obama 47 McCain 41.

Maybe it's just me, but Rasmussen seems to be saying two different things in that link. The chart shows Obama with a 47-41 lead in August, but the article says he had a 48-44 lead.

[SFL Cat]

because you took it and spun it...like the lipstick shit.

By asking if this could be a set-up for Biden withdrawing allowing Obama to name Hillary as his new Veep choice?

[Flasch186]

Do you seriously think you wouldn't have scrambled to FOFC to tell all of us how Palin said that there's a more qualified VP out there than her? Seriously?

not in that context. Read the damn article, He was being complimentary to her! SFL is just not being an honest person, a spin doctor and I'm sorry, but I hold honesty and truthfulness to a high accord and he obviously doesnt and I think he is nothing more than a troll. Ive at least seen MBBF thaw out and now look, were having healthy debates, but since SFL got smacked down about 15 pages ago and said he'd seen the light and would try to have intelligent banter he has done nothing but spout drivel and propogate the lies and mistruths and ignores intelligent challenges to instead lie on the side of garbage rhetoric. Truly a shame.

SFL - post 4118 showed through.

[JPhillips]

Do you seriously think you wouldn't have scrambled to FOFC to tell all of us how Palin said that there's a more qualified VP out there than her? Seriously?

Based on what was in the story, no. There's no hint that it's anything other than flattery.

[ace1914]

By asking if this could be a set-up for Biden withdrawing allowing Obama to name Hillary as his new Veep choice?

Because he said she was a as qualified candidate as a rebuttal to an audience member trying to put her down? SPIN.

[SFL Cat]

Read the damn article, He was being complimentary to her! SFL is just not being an honest person, a spin doctor and I'm sorry, but I hold honesty and truthfulness to a high accord and he obviously doesnt and I think he is nothing more than a troll.

SFL - post 4118 showed through

If that was the point he was trying to make, then he made it very poorly.

[ace1914]

not in that context. Read the damn article, He was being complimentary to her! SFL is just not being an honest person, a spin doctor and I'm sorry, but I hold honesty and truthfulness to a high accord and he obviously doesnt and I think he is nothing more than a troll. Ive at least seen MBBF thaw out and now look, were having healthy debates, but since SFL got smacked down about 15 pages ago and said he'd seen the light and would try to have intelligent banter he has done nothing but spout drivel and propogate the lies and mistruths and ignores intelligent challenges to instead lie on the side of garbage rhetoric. Truly a shame.

SFL - post 4118 showed through

LOL. SFL is who he is. I actually think its pretty funny. He's probably a secret Obama supporter that likes to stir up trouble. :eek:

[SFL Cat]

If it's any consolation, after breaking the scandal about John Edwards, I hear the National Enquirer is ready to launch its expose on the Palin family warts.

[larrymcg421]

Anyone can tell he was clearly just defending Clinton. It certainly wasn't the best choice of words and may be used as a soundbite later. Still, it's pretty stupid to suggest this is some sort of setup for him to withdraw and for Hillary to slide in.

[Flasch186]

If it's any consolation, after breaking the scandal about John Edwards, I hear the National Enquirer is ready to launch its expose on the Palin family warts.

...and Im not for that either. and had you made the post about Biden's quote and said instead of, "this is interesting, blah blah blah" something along the lines of, "Biden's compliment could get him in trouble later" it wouldve looked like you were coming across as truly looking for discussion. Instead you spin it like a top and stand in the corner and cry, "What? What I do?"

[ace1914]

If it's any consolation, after breaking the scandal about John Edwards, I hear the National Enquirer is ready to launch its expose on the Palin family warts.


LOL. SFL is who he is. I actually think its pretty funny. He's probably a secret Obama supporter that likes to stir up trouble. :eek:

Mystery solved.

[SFL Cat]

Actually, I think that would be an interesting development. Obviously, it would have to be Biden who falls on the sword, because if Obama "fires" him and tags Hillary he gets the "see, he's not ready to be CIC because he should have selected Hillary in the first place."

I simply think the timing of Biden's comments is interesting, given how things have gone for the Obama campaign the past couple of weeks.

I'm with Jon, though, at this point, I think Hillary would stay on the sideline.

[Flasch186]

...but that's not what you said originally. You threw it out with the spin of a top. Use 4141 type talk going forward and perhaps the debate you'll get will be more fulfilling but i honestly dont think you give two shits and the spin is the point.

[ace1914]

I do have one question for the spinsters, though. Where did this "messiah figure" description(about Obama) come from? I've ask because I'm watching Glen Beck(I love to watch both sides spin stories) and though I've heard it before, I never knew where it originated.

[TazFTW]

Maybe it's just me, but Rasmussen seems to be saying two different things in that link. The chart shows Obama with a 47-41 lead in August, but the article says he had a 48-44 lead.

You can click on the 8/20 date in the chart to go to the article about that poll. It is 48-44 if they included "leaners", so I would assume the 47-41 and 49-47 do not include these people; "Leaners are those who don’t initially express a preference for one of the major candidates. But, when asked a follow-up question, they do." - quote from the 8/20 poll.

[larrymcg421]

Trying to get this back on track. I find it curious that people are acting like Obama is having some kind of Dukakis-esque free fall. Here's a look at some national polls pre-convention and today...

Gallup (Then) - McCain 46, Obama 44
Gallup (Now) - McCain 48, Obama 43
Result: McCain +3

Rasmussen (Then) - Obama 46, McCain 46
Rasmussen (Now) - Obama 47, McCain 46
Result: Obama +1

CNN (Then) - Obama 47, McCain 47
CNN (Now) - Obama 48, McCain 48
Result: Wash

FOX News (Then) - Obama 42, McCain 39
FOX News (Now) - McCain 45, Obama 42
Result: McCain +6

So if you combine the 4 polls, McCain has an average gain of 2 points over the whole convention period, and we're still only a few days removed from the conventions. It will be interesting to see where things are at next week.

[CamEdwards]

I do have one question for the spinsters, though. Where did this "messiah figure" description(about Obama) come from? I've ask because I'm watching Glen Beck(I love to watch both sides spin stories) and though I've heard it before, I never knew where it originated.

Well, you had Oprah calling him "The One". You had the Rolling Stone cover

http://www.foliomag.com/files/images/rolling_stone_obama.jpg

You had Chris Matthews saying of Obama "[he] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament."

You had the will.i.am video and the new "American Prayer" song. You had Halle Barry say ""I would walk ahead of him picking up garbage to clear his path if he asked me."

There was the columnist in San Francisco who called Obama a "lightworker" and compared him to people like Ghandi.

And then there's the artwork like this: Manifest Hope (http://pol.moveon.org/mh/gallery/)

http://pol.moveon.org/images/mh/finalists/24497036_1_Yearning.jpg

I'm sure there are other examples, but there are a few.

[ace1914]

Well, you had Oprah calling him "The One". You had the Rolling Stone cover

I'm sure there are other examples, but there are a few.

Wow. Lotta stuff. Although, that Rolling Stone cover makes him look pretty cool. So nothing other than being a black guy with an actual chance for president? Dammit I took the wrong path. Should've chosen the red pill.

[Flasch186]

jump ball!

[CamEdwards]

Wow. Lotta stuff. Although, that Rolling Stone cover makes him look pretty cool. So nothing other than being a black guy with an actual chance for president? Dammit I took the wrong path. Should've chosen the red pill.

What on earth does Obama's skin color have to do with anything that was posted? You asked a question, I answered it. Why do you feel the need to be a sarcastic jackass?

[molson]

That Rolling Stone cover is hillarious.

[ace1914]

What on earth does Obama's skin color have to do with anything that was posted? You asked a question, I answered it. Why do you feel the need to be a sarcastic jackass?

Ok......what are YOU talking about?

I just said that was a lot of stuff I didn't know about and didn't do anything special really and got a lot of attention. Now I know how SFLCat feels....:lol:

[larrymcg421]

Trying to get this back on track.

So much for that.

[molson]

Ok......what are YOU talking about?

I just said that was a lot of stuff I didn't know about and didn't do anything special really and got a lot of attention. Now I know how SFLCat feels....:lol:

"So nothing other than being a black guy with an actual chance for president?"

Nothing posted had anything to do with being an black guy with an actual chance for president. It all addresses, however, the question you posed: Where does this Obama/Messiah thing come from?

[ace1914]

So much for that.

Sorry.

[ace1914]

"So nothing other than being a black guy with an actual chance for president?"

Nothing posted had anything to do with being an black guy with an actual chance for president. It all addresses, however, the question you posed: Where does this Obama/Messiah thing come from?


Right. So he didn't do anything special. OMFG. What is wrong with you guys? So gotdamn highstrung on politics. Sorry. I'll stay on message from here on out.

Just shows how you can't say "black," "minority" or "woman" without everyone having a cow. No wonder there's no real debates.

[lungs]

How can a Muslim be a Messiah? Isn't that blasphemy?

A prophet at best.

[Groundhog]

You crazy sonsa' bitches went through like 3 pages in 12 or so hours? Politics are the new werewolf.

[ISiddiqui]

How can a Muslim be a Messiah? Isn't that blasphemy?

A prophet at best.

1) Muslim Messiah
2) ???
3) Profit!!

Though having a Christ be the Messiah is kind of blasphemous for Jews :D.

[SFL Cat]

Ok......what are YOU talking about?

I just said that was a lot of stuff I didn't know about and didn't do anything special really and got a lot of attention. Now I know how SFLCat feels....:lol:

bah...you're a rookie! You're not even close. :)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DcNUx0-XEfw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DcNUx0-XEfw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[CamEdwards]

Right. So he didn't do anything special. OMFG. What is wrong with you guys? So gotdamn highstrung on politics. Sorry. I'll stay on message from here on out.

Just shows how you can't say "black," "minority" or "woman" without everyone having a cow. No wonder there's no real debates.

I owe you an apology. I took the "So nothing other than being a black guy with an actual chance to be president" line as you saying that what I had posted was just about a "black guy with an actual chance to be president", as opposed to what I think your intention was, which is that all the Messiah-talk stems from him being "a black guy with an actual chance to be president".* I think I'm on the same page now, and I apologize. There's been so much sarcasm in this thread it's kinda hard to tell when someone's being sincere or not. Hey, it's life imitating politics! :p


*I still think it's more than just skin color that has some folks so enthralled. I think it's the whole package. Frankly, I think many see him not as the Obamessiah, but the 2nd Coming of John F. Kennedy. I have no doubt that if Obama wins, we'll start seeing stories about the New Camelot.

[Arles]

The last 5-6 pages from all posters involved (save maybe Cam) are represented here:

http://sp1.yt-thm-a02.yimg.com/image/25/m3/2513116284

Figured I'd save Flasch and ace1914 the trouble of replying to every post and saying "SPIN!" like the Puritans during the witch hunts.

Back to subject where I left it earlier, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that only 33% of North Carolina is registered republican and yet W got 56% of the state's vote in 2004. That's nothing short of amazing and you'd think it is something only a Messiah could accomplish ;)

[ISiddiqui]

I call dibs on being Michael J. Fox, pre Parkinsons, yo!

[CamEdwards]

The last 5-6 pages from all posters involved (save maybe Cam) are represented here:

http://sp1.yt-thm-a02.yimg.com/image/25/m3/2513116284

Figured I'd save Flasch and ace1914 the trouble of replying to every post and saying "SPIN!" like the Puritans during the witch hunts.

Back to subject where I left it earlier, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that only 33% of North Carolina is registered republican and yet W got 56% of the state's vote in 2004. That's nothing short of amazing and you'd think it is something only a Messiah could accomplish ;)

It's even more amazing when you consider that North Carolina has a Democratic governor, who (at least back in 2004) was pretty damn popular. In fact he got 56% in HIS re-election bid that year.

And thanks for the kind words, though I don't think I deserve them after my "sarcastic jackass" outburst a few minutes ago. :)

[sterlingice]

1) Muslim Messiah
2) ???
3) Profit!!

Though having a Christ be the Messiah is kind of blasphemous for Jews :D.

I LOL'd :D

SI

[sterlingice]

I think the next couple of news cycles will be interesting. If there's no new news (9/11's anniversary is only one day), I think "lipstick-gate" backfires on McCain.

After having 18 hours to digest it, the evil, liberal mainstream media has started working on their new topics about the politics of distraction and taking a closer look at the claims made by McCain and Palin. You cry wolf too many times and there's a backlash danger.

The previously mentioned minefield lacks infallibility if you don't play it right.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Back to subject where I left it earlier, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that only 33% of North Carolina is registered republican and yet W got 56% of the state's vote in 2004.

Maybe this will help ... The percentage of voters in NC not registered as Democrats, i.e. GOP + unaffiliated + all 984 registered Libertarians = 54.6% of their current registered voters. Back in 2004 it was 53.22%.

Bush got 1.96 million votes in '04 and NC had 1.903 million registered Republicans, as well as 1.02 million unaffliated voters. There were 2.582 million registered Dems but Kerry managed only 1.525 million votes.

In other words, it's a combination of turnout by party plus what I imagine are a large number of unaffliated voters who trend GOP. Best I could tell from looking at their state voter registration stuff, there's no penalty to being registered unaffliated as you can still choose to vote in either party primary or a truly unaffiliated ballot which include only non-partisan races during primary season.

[Flasch186]

Figured I'd save Flasch and ace1914 the trouble of replying to every post and saying "SPIN!" like the Puritans during the witch hunts.



thank you

[Flasch186]

The previously mentioned minefield lacks infallibility if you don't play it right.

SI

it seems most strategies have the capability to backfire in this run.

[JPhillips]

Some of the NC discrepancy boils down to the fact that in national elections Southerners tend to vote for more "rural" candidate. Being Southern certainly makes it easier to pull that off, (Clinton, Carter), but being able to convince people that you're "rural" works too(Bush, Reagan). This is the big advantage in the south for Palin IMO. At the state level the historical Democratic superiority can still come into play.

When I lived in Mississippi I always felt like the big issue wasn't as much North vs. South as country vs. city even when we lived in Mississippi's largest city.

[SFL Cat]

The last 5-6 pages from all posters involved (save maybe Cam) are represented here:

http://sp1.yt-thm-a02.yimg.com/image/25/m3/2513116284

Figured I'd save Flasch and ace1914 the trouble of replying to every post and saying "SPIN!" like the Puritans during the witch hunts.

Back to subject where I left it earlier, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that only 33% of North Carolina is registered republican and yet W got 56% of the state's vote in 2004. That's nothing short of amazing and you'd think it is something only a Messiah could accomplish ;)

A+ for use of visual aide.

[SFL Cat]

Growing up in my home state of Kentucky, first time I registered, it was as a Democrat. The Republican party in Kentucky was a non-factor at the time. I've never officially changed my party affiliation though I haven't voted Democrat in a national election since 1984 (voted for Reagan twice in the presidential races). Still vote for a few Democrats locally, but then I don't think party affiliation is such a big deal at that level and most don't make a big deal about it in the campaigns.

[Buccaneer]

It's amusing to see Damon referring to actuary tables for a president/candidate. The last two presidents to pass away were:

Ford - age 93
Reagan - age 93

and two of the older living presidents are:

Carter - age 84
Bush1 - age 84

I think presidents/senators do get good health care, ensuring a longer life span than normal, don't you think?

[Subby]

That Rolling Stone cover is hillarious.
Couple that with what Wenner did to Palin and her baby on the cover of US Weekly and it's enough to make you ill.

[larrymcg421]

http://www.mediacurves.com/pdf/ReportJ7002.pdf

Interesting focus group study of the McCain Lipstick ad. It somewhat increased the perception that Obama has a gender bias (23%-36%), but had very little effect on voting decisions.

[Arles]

http://www.mediacurves.com/pdf/ReportJ7002.pdf

Interesting focus group study of the McCain Lipstick ad. It somewhat increased the perception that Obama has a gender bias (23%-36%), but had very little effect on voting decisions.
Nice study and an interesting read. I don't think any one comment (esp one that's not a complete disaster) impacts votes. But, what it does is put a campaign on the defensive and create missed opportunities for them on other issues. The only way it impacts votes is if a pattern of similar comments pop up along a 2-3 weeks period.

[adubroff]

It's amusing to see Damon referring to actuary tables for a president/candidate. The last two presidents to pass away were:

Ford - age 93
Reagan - age 93

and two of the older living presidents are:

Carter - age 84
Bush1 - age 84

I think presidents/senators do get good health care, ensuring a longer life span than normal, don't you think?

Not that anyone wants anybody to pass on, but I think that your sample size is much too small to make any kind of conclusion. Damon's actuary tables are more relevant than your 4 off hand examples, because they are based on reasonable sample sizes.

[ISiddiqui]

Nice study and an interesting read. I don't think any one comment (esp one that's not a complete disaster) impacts votes. But, what it does is put a campaign on the defensive and create missed opportunities for them on other issues. The only way it impacts votes is if a pattern of similar comments pop up along a 2-3 weeks period.

Indeed... it's past of a larger strategy.

[BrianD]

Much ado about nothing. But hey, that's Fox "Fair and Balanced" News.

Not to pick on you too much, but I get a chuckle out of someone "mocking" the "Fair and Balanced" tag. I always got the feeling that Fox doesn't even pretend to be fair and balanced and they use the tag line as a sarcastic joke. Anyone that actually tries to call them on it gives a feeling of being a new guy who hasn't caught on to the joke yet. :D

Maybe it is just me.

[larrymcg421]

Indeed... it's past of a larger strategy.

Okay, but to employ said strategy McCain will be missing the same opportunities on the issues as Obama will. Not to mention the fact that this study was done without people hearing Obama's response. It's possible that the ad could actually be backfiring.

[JPhillips]

Lying about everything is actually working very well for McCain. Until he starts getting called on it by the media I see no reason for him to stop.

[ISiddiqui]

Okay, but to employ said strategy McCain will be missing the same opportunities on the issues as Obama will. Not to mention the fact that this study was done without people hearing Obama's response. It's possible that the ad could actually be backfiring.

If you keep hitting at something that has a perceptible effect, even if some of the hits don't hit their mark, it most likely will stick. Especially when you keep your opponent on the defensive.

Also, McCain has been behind for most of the campaign and Obama's main push was a different kind of politics. If McCain can drag Obama into the muck, that is marginalized and helps bring him down in the polls.

[molson]

Couple that with what Wenner did to Palin and her baby on the cover of US Weekly and it's enough to make you ill.

Ya, I saw that. I also saw the previous edition of US that featured a cover story on how much Obama loved his wife.....I mean for god's sake.

[Arles]

Okay, but to employ said strategy McCain will be missing the same opportunities on the issues as Obama will. Not to mention the fact that this study was done without people hearing Obama's response. It's possible that the ad could actually be backfiring.
I agree on this lipstick issue. No reason for McCain to push it or he could face the same backlash that Obama got. IMO, they will drop it as of tomorrow and even the cable news will move on to something else. McCain-Palin has played the victim very well the past few weeks, they need to tread carefully when pushing things like this.

[flere-imsaho]

So much for that.

I appreciated your post. I think I posted, pre-convention, that it would be interesting to see how the polls shook out, post-conventions, but wasn't really sure what the timing of that would be. However, we're now almost a week past the RNC, and it's definitely interesting to see we're basically back where we started.

I'm going to imagine that, big scandals aside, we won't see more real movement until the debates at this point.

[Glengoyne]

Lying about everything is actually working very well for McCain. Until he starts getting called on it by the media I see no reason for him to stop.

I see this as a huge step toward open mindedness.

[Glengoyne]

On the Lipstick thing...I heard them playing the Obamma quote on NPR this morning, and said to myself "Hey is that a turn on the Palin lipstick comment?"...And then I heard the commentary on the story where McCain was outraged by the attack on Palin. I'm sorry John, I've always been a fan, but I'm losing almost as much respect for you pulling crap like this as I did for Joe Lieberman when he was carrying the water for Gore in the 2000 election aftermath.

[Mike D]

Not to pick on you too much, but I get a chuckle out of someone "mocking" the "Fair and Balanced" tag. I always got the feeling that Fox doesn't even pretend to be fair and balanced and they use the tag line as a sarcastic joke. Anyone that actually tries to call them on it gives a feeling of being a new guy who hasn't caught on to the joke yet. :D

Maybe it is just me.

To be fair though.

"CNN--the most trusted name in news".

Fox News has a primarily conservative pov. It's okay to admit it. I don't understand why the left is so afraid to admit the same thing.

[DaddyTorgo]

i honestly don't see how anyone in their right mind could connect obama using a common country-esque saying talking about policies and think it had any connection to the single line that palin used in her speech (not like she's the only woman that wears lipstick either). It's even more egregious when you consider that McCain used the line MULTIPLE times to comment on Hillary's healthcare policies. And now all of a sudden it's a gender-based attack?? Yeah sure, that makes sense.

it's the fact that actual voters are swayed by this type of non-substantial bullshit that makes me think we need an IQ-test (or at least a common-sense test) for voting. Call me an intellectual-snob if you want, but when things like this actually have an impact on elections, I actually do think that.

[Arles]

I was talking to a buddy and he said "How do you think the left would have reacted if Palin would have said Obama was 'like the pot calling the kettle black' on an issue." That made me think that we are in a pretty politically-charged time and all four of these candidates better be pretty darn careful with their wording from here on out.

Is it how I would like the campaigns to be? No, but it's the reality. And any comment with any remote connotation to race or sex should be avoided at all cost. It sucks, but that's the climate we live in right now.

If you don't think the left will be parsing every word by Palin or McCain for a similar "gotcha" over the next two weeks, you are kidding yourself. I could see this really getting unbearable by the time we get to the debates (by this, I mean feigned outrage by both sides at somewhat innocent comments).

[DaddyTorgo]

Arles - I honestly think if Palin had said that nobody would make a big deal out of it (neither the media nor Obama's campaign). Maybe I'm delusional though.

I do agree with the rest of your post about the current campaign - and I hope it doesn't get to that point. Obama seems to have indicated that he doesn't want that kind of campaign pretty explictly, so I don't think we'll see much if any of that coming from his campaign.

[Jas_lov]

Nothing more of this trash will be said tomorrow because it's 9/11. Both candidates will appear in New York together. Obama was on Letterman tonight and he told a story about shrunken heads but didn't say much else. In other news, 538 updated and McCain now has a better chance of winning. Liberals must be sweating like pigs.

[digamma]

I do have one question for the spinsters, though. Where did this "messiah figure" description(about Obama) come from? I've ask because I'm watching Glen Beck(I love to watch both sides spin stories) and though I've heard it before, I never knew where it originated.


He also healed people in Texas, so that lends some credibility to the whole phenomenon:

AUSTIN, TX--Ginny McCallum, 43, who has been confined to a wheelchair for much of her adult life, came to hear presidential candidate Barack Obama speak at the University of Texas. Afterward she found herself in a wheelchair access breezeway as Obama and his entourage exited the arena. The candidate spotted her, came over, grabbed her hand and pulled her up. She found herself standing for the first time in eleven years.
http://www.larknews.com/march_2008/images/01_inside2.jpg "He smiled at me and said, ‘Yes, you can,’" she says. "I was so stunned I didn’t know what to do."
McCallum is among hundreds of people who say they have been healed by the Democratic candidate, in one of the most surprising and little-acknowledged aspects of his campaign. Reporters have shied away from the story, chalking it up to "Obama-mania" and people’s feelings of elation.
"We don’t talk about it a lot, but yeah, it does happen," says one staffer who says he has seen multiple people healed on a rope line. "We don’t know exactly how or why it’s happening, and the Senator won’t talk about it. He usually insists that people keep it quiet and just report it to their pastor or priest."
Greeting supporters after a rousing speech in Houston, Obama stepped into the dense crowd and spontaneously began touching people: a legally blind woman, a man deaf in one ear, a cancer sufferer and a lame man.
"Yes, you can," Obama said as he laid hands on afflicted bodies.
http://www.larknews.com/march_2008/images/01_inside1.jpgThe people’s reactions were so joyous as to be almost frightening. They jumped and shouted and wept. Before they could thank or embrace the candidate he was well down the rope line healing others. Their excitement was lost in the general din of the crowd.
Aides acknowledge that the phenomenon is occurring with greater frequency.
"His power goes beyond simple inspiration," says one aide. "There is something developing here that I’m not sure any of us fully understands."

[GrantDawg]

If I could just touch, the hem of his Armanti suit
If I could touch, the hem of his clothes

[Toddzilla]

It's even more amazing when you consider that North Carolina has a Democratic governor, who (at least back in 2004) was pretty damn popular. In fact he got 56% in HIS re-election bid that year.A nifty analysis over at fivethirtyeight shows that "A lot of the Democrats not for Obama are also not for Kay Hagan. Elizabeth Dole has a 41-37 lead among them. But they are for Walter Dalton, Roy Cooper, Janet Cowell, Beth Wood, Elaine Marshall, and other Democrats. Just more evidence that this is the persistent problem of folks who identify as Democrats overall casting their ballot one way for who they send to Raleigh and another way for why they send to Washington."

He also mentions that only about 4% of the people who will vote for Hagan will not vote for Obama, so there is very little apparent "sexism/racism" involved.

[Butter_of_69]

If I could just touch, the hem of his Armanti suit
If I could touch, the hem of his clothes

http://blog.mlive.com/wolverines/2007/09/medium_070109umfootball39.jpg

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

In regards to the Biden comment concerning Hillary's VP qualifications (CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Political Ticker AM « - Blogs from CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/10/biden-hillary-might-have-been-better-vp-pick/)), this just continues to illustrate how careful you have to be in the current political universe. I don't think Biden meant to disqualify himself in any way, but politicians really need to have much better peripheral vision in regards to what they say and how it will be perceived. You just can't say things like that. I think McCain has done a much better job of avoiding soundbites in recent weeks that could prove helpful to the other ticket.

I also think that there's something to be said for knowing the strengths of your personality. Obama's strength is speaking somewhat as a motivator. He can paint a view of how the country should be under his administration. He can turn heads of voter by creating an idealistic vision that people can believe in. That's where he got his quick rise in the polls. But in recent weeks, he's moved to a much different tone in his appearances. He's speaking in much more negative tones about just how out of touch McCain/Republicans are. He's also tried to copy the witty attacks similar to the Palin convention speech, but he's done so with much less success. Her comments were rehearsed and written by a speech writer, which allow for a much better delivery. Obama's trying to do the same thing in public appearances, but the timing is terribly off and just doesn't flow nearly as well.

Obama has been dragged into trench war by the Republican ticket because they know that he doesn't do as well in that arena. The problem is that negative attacks work and as long as the Republicans stay on the offensive in that regard, Obama is going to have a tough time moving back into the positive rhetoric where he feels more comfortable and can really shine.

Obama is currently the nice guy in a reality show. While people root for him and his good intentions, the rest of the players in the game are scheming and stabbing him in the back. We know who usually end up on top in this scenario.

[Flasch186]

but on the other hand people are arguing that if the Dems dont get 'equally' nasty they'll lose that trench war which means they could lose the full war.

I hate it on both sides and most of the news shows that show an opinion are making fun of both sides in their frivolous debate about the 'lipstick' etc. while the economy continues to spiral downward and other things seem to be quite taut (USSR).

The Republicans have played their cards right and the minefield seems to have been laid with deliberation while the Dems have been reeling, at least in the media which creates a view for the 15 second Americans.

I find it interesting that since Palin has garnered so much time on Tv (rightfully so since it gets ratings) I havnt heard much of the same whining from those that used to about lack of coverage. How easily the memory fades.

Saw Obama on Letterman and while he seemed to be the same Obama that you'd expect to see they didnt touch on anything really controversial and it almost seemed like a day off for Barack. He took one sideways swipe at the GOP ticket in that he commented that he didnt really have much to say about Palin since they havnt spoken much but when she begins to do some interviews they'll be able to learn more about where she stands on things.

[molson]

He took one sideways swipe at the GOP ticket in that he commented that he didnt really have much to say about Palin since they havnt spoken much but when she begins to do some interviews they'll be able to learn more about where she stands on things.

Kind of funny. Though I think if there's one thing we know about Palin, it's where she stands on things.

Meanwhile, the meltdown continues:

SC Dem Party Chairwoman says Palin's "primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion." (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trailtruth11-2008sep11,0,4218667.story)

Now when a Democrat says stuff like this, do they think they're tempting even one person to vote for Obama? What's the motivation? I think a lot of times they're just venting to each other, but they do it publicly for some reason. Elections are won and lost on likeability. The Dems are so good at being unlikeable. They're dangerously close to a jump the shark moment. Maybe, "A vote for McCain is a vote for racism", or something like that.

[SFL Cat]

Awwwww, cute picture.

The Democratic Party | PartyBuilder | Elizabeth Berry's Blog: McCain's Selection of Palin is Lipstick on a Pig (http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/elizabethberry/Cgsq)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

but on the other hand people are arguing that if the Dems dont get 'equally' nasty they'll lose that trench war which means they could lose the full war.

I disagree with that. I think the Democratic core is pressuring their ticket to go negative out of concern for the slide in polling numbers. I think it's the wrong move, but it appears to be their panic button reaction move. I'm also floored that McCain continues to get a free pass from the Democrats, thanks to Palin.

Like it or not, the Democrats are still trying to figure out if they made the right decision. Should Hillary have received the nod over Obama? Should she have received the nod over Biden? Every bit of negative news that creeps in appears to deflate the Democrats even more, knowing that they would have won without question had they played their cards right, both from a strategic and selection standpoint.

The articles are now starting to leak out regarding Democrat concerns about the race. You know things are going the wrong direction when you here these words out of a key Democrat fundraiser......

“I’m so depressed. It’s happening again. It’s a nightmare.”

Politico Article (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13357.html)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaWaPymjJ3rk&refer=worldwide

[Subby]

I think the Republicans are coming dangerously close to becoming the whining victims that they so often seemed to accuse the Clinton campaign of being. Every perceived slight now is quickly turned around as an outrage.

Enough with the cries of sexism and ageism and all of the politically correct horseshit that the GOP seems to revile.

Issues, people!

[astrosfan64]

Kind of funny. Though I think if there's one thing we know about Palin, it's where she stands on things.

Meanwhile, the meltdown continues:

SC Dem Party Chairwoman says Palin's "primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion." (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trailtruth11-2008sep11,0,4218667.story)

Now when a Democrat says stuff like this, do they think they're tempting even one person to vote for Obama? What's the motivation? I think a lot of times they're just venting to each other, but they do it publicly for some reason. Elections are won and lost on likeability. The Dems are so good at being unlikeable. They're dangerously close to a jump the shark moment. Maybe, "A vote for McCain is a vote for racism", or something like that.

The funny thing is her quote is correct. (in the view of the christian right)

[molson]

I think the Republicans are coming dangerously close to becoming the whining victims that they so often seemed to accuse the Clinton campaign of being. Every perceived slight now is quickly turned around as an outrage.

Enough with the cries of sexism and ageism and all of the politically correct horseshit that the GOP seems to revile.

Issues, people!

SNL did a pretty funny skit, either around '00 and '04, highlighting why "the issues" are so overrated in an presidential election.

There was an undecided voter who couldn't figure out who to vote for, so he stated what was important to him, which was basically the democratic party platform. He said he had no clue who to vote for. It was a town hall debate skit, Gore (I think) said, "well, it sounds like you agree with me", and Bush concurred that the questioner should vote for Gore.

Don't we know the issues at this point? The country is so divided upon party lines.

Execution of issues might be another story - discussion about how the candidates will bring about their visions, and how successful they might be at doing so. That's the only "issue" left - how well will these guys actually do at the job?

Obama still gets shit about people "not knowing where he stands", but I don't think that's really true. We all know where he stands. We don't know if he can what he promies. It's like there's no way to really know. So people will vote for the person who doesn't piss them off.

[molson]

The funny thing is her quote is correct. (in the view of the christian right)

FYI, None of the other Republican VP candidates have had abortions either.....

[Flasch186]

I think the 'moment' seems to be falling down partisan lines, Molson thinks the Dems are close to the 'moment', while the Dems see the McCain camp as close to the 'moment'. Therefore we're probably all wrong/right at some point.

I havnt a clue but I think if the media had a liberal bias the 'whining' would be painted as 'whining' when it's not being painted that way by the mainstream media. **Because it's getting ratings...racism, sexism...its the goose that keeps on giving.**

Anyways, we shall see but that might be a decent strategic play by the Dems if they can paint the GOP as whiny in the same vein that Kerry was painted, or Hillary when she whined about Obama's coverage.

Who knows, somebody's gonna be right as the sun shines on somebody's ass sometime during the day.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Issues, people!

In all seriousness, is there really some issue that you don't know relatively where the two stand?

And I say relatively because the odds of either getting spot on with what any of us wants on say 10 key issues seem pretty remote. That leaves us to look for the best choice relative to our own positions and which one comes closer to that benchmark. And I'm genuinely perplexed that anyone paying attention doesn't know which candidate that is at this point.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Anyways, we shall see but that might be a decent strategic play by the Dems if they can paint the GOP as whiny in the same vein that Kerry was painted, or Hillary when she whined about Obama's coverage.

That would be a much better strategy than the current reactionary strategy that the Dems are using. They should go on the offensive with the point that the Republicans are going to whine about everything to earn votes, so they'll just say 'the hell with it' and say what they want to say.

The constant tactic of saying something stupid from a political standpoint and then retract it that we've seen in recent days by Democrats show weakness more than anything else. They need to stop apologizing. If they didn't mean it, they wouldn't say it.

[SFL Cat]

Domestically, I don't think McCain and Obama will be that different other than Obama will be quicker on the trigger to raise taxes and increase entitlements. Whoever gets in will make noise about fixing social security, but nothing will get done. No one will touch those sacred cows until they are totally broke and then everything will go into crisis mode.

I give McCain major advantage in foreign policy. I think Obama will be very Jimmy Carter-esque in that regard...and even then...Carter could claim military service that Obama can't. Even if elected I don't think Obama immediately pulls us out of Iraq like all his 'bots seem to think he will. I think we're there in force for at least another 2-3 years.

Plus I *heart* Sarah, so I'd vote for McCain just for amazing me with his selection of her as his veep.

[JPhillips]

The constant tactic of saying something stupid from a political standpoint and then retract it that we've seen in recent days by Democrats show weakness more than anything else. They need to stop apologizing. If they didn't mean it, they wouldn't say it.

On this we agree. Don't ever apologize, don't ever admit you're wrong. I'd like to see Obama and Biden start calling McCain a liar and using very specific language, "When he says I'll raise taxes on the middle class, he's lying..." Just keep pounding that theme specifically using the words lying and liar. Force the media to debate whether or not McCain is a liar. It's classic Rove, attack your opponent's strength, it just happens to also be true.

[Subby]

In all seriousness, is there really some issue that you don't know relatively where the two stand?

And I say relatively because the odds of either getting spot on with what any of us wants on say 10 key issues seem pretty remote. That leaves us to look for the best choice relative to our own positions and which one comes closer to that benchmark. And I'm genuinely perplexed that anyone paying attention doesn't know which candidate that is at this point.
That's an absolutely valid point. I just think the Republicans are better off staying on message and leaving the victimization card to the Democrats.

[JPhillips]

Funny how the major criticism of Obama just a couple of weeks ago was that he didn't tell us about policy.

Celebrity was bad, but now is good

Policy was good, but now is bad

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

On this we agree. Don't ever apologize, don't ever admit you're wrong. I'd like to see Obama and Biden start calling McCain a liar and using very specific language, "When he says I'll raise taxes on the middle class, he's lying..." Just keep pounding that theme specifically using the words lying and liar. Force the media to debate whether or not McCain is a liar. It's classic Rove, attack your opponent's strength, it just happens to also be true.

If you make a politically incorrect statement and then stand behind it, at worst you're only going to get accused of one screw up and your voting base likely won't even think you even made a mistake. If anything, it may even embolden your base that you stand up to the opposition.

When you make a 'lipstick-esque' comment and then apologize for it or say it was taken out of context, it's almost like a double negative. You made the initial screw up and then either try to spin it away or just outright apologize. It shows tremendous weakness. People don't want a president or Congress who feels the need to apologize for their actions. It's better to make a bold stand and be wrong than to never make a stand at all.

[molson]

Funny how the major criticism of Obama just a couple of weeks ago was that he didn't tell us about policy.

Celebrity was bad, but now is good

Policy was good, but now is bad

Big reach even for you.

Celebrity is still a detriment for him. What's changed there?

Nobody's going to criticize him for being clear about his policy. It would just be more helpful from him to focus on the "how" instead of the "what". (and even being more likeable) But even the "what" isn't bad for him, nobody's saying it's bad.

Catchy saying though.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Funny how the major criticism of Obama just a couple of weeks ago was that he didn't tell us about policy.

Celebrity was bad, but now is good

Policy was good, but now is bad

It's an interesting point. This may be the first election I've seen where a losing side took the talking points of the winning side, molded them into their own image, and then implemented that strategy better than the original campaign did. It's the last thing anyone expected, which is perhaps why it worked so well.

FWIW.....I know you intended to portray it as a negative, but I find it to be an amazing chess-like move.

[Flasch186]

It's better to make a bold stand and be wrong than to never make a stand at all.

I couldnt agree with you more

:)

[albionmoonlight]

McCain now leads at 538.com. Some of that is convention bounce, but, as I said before, a lot of it is support that was always going to come to him and just waited until Palin to do so.

The 538 guy also pointed out that the map is starting to become pretty boring. After all of the shouting, it will come down, again, to two or three states. At least Virginia, Colorado, and Michigan are new this year.

[DaddyTorgo]

I give McCain major advantage in foreign policy. I think Obama will be very Jimmy Carter-esque in that regard...and even then...Carter could claim military service that Obama can't. Even if elected I don't think Obama immediately pulls us out of Iraq like all his 'bots seem to think he will. I think we're there in force for at least another 2-3 years.



curious why you give McCain/Palin a major advantage in foreign policy over Obama/Biden??

Are you planning on signing up and going to fight in one of the myriad of conflicts that McCain's hair-trigger temper will likely get us into?

When it comes to foreign policy the key ingredient you want is someone who isn't quick to anger and take offense, someone who doesn't jump into the pool without testing the water (so to speak). And I don't see in any way how you can possibly give McCain the advantage there.

And spare me the "he's a vet/he was a POW" argument. The homeless guy on the street corner is a vet, does that automatically make him more qualified in the field of foreign policy than Barak Obama, or even me? Bullshit. McCain wasn't even a high-ranking vet. He was what...4th from the bottom of his class at the academy, and we can all be sure that daddy's name+rank helped grease the wheels for him.

[SFL Cat]

On this we agree. Don't ever apologize, don't ever admit you're wrong. I'd like to see Obama and Biden start calling McCain a liar and using very specific language, "When he says I'll raise taxes on the middle class, he's lying..." Just keep pounding that theme specifically using the words lying and liar. Force the media to debate whether or not McCain is a liar. It's classic Rove, attack your opponent's strength, it just happens to also be true.

Heh! Risky proposal, and it didn't work so well for Bob Dole against Bill Clinton, even though Dole probably could make a stronger case.

[sterlingice]

Kind of funny. Though I think if there's one thing we know about Palin, it's where she stands on things.

Really? We do? No, we don't. She hasn't said a darn thing.

Then again, she's the VP so it's not as if she would do much but sit in a big office going "say, has the old man kicked off yet?"

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

:)

I can't disagree with that comparison. It's one of the main reasons I'd still support Dubya if he was up for re-election this year. Dubya had some screw-ups without question. But one thing I never questioned was exactly where he stood on the various issues, especially foreign policy. I feel the same way about McCain. I know exactly what he would do for the most part, mainly because he's a military man and his record is pretty clear. I don't agree with all of his policies, but at least I know what I'm getting into if he's elected.

There's nothing that concerns me more than a president who makes me wonder how he would react in regards to foreign policy. I felt that way about Gore, Kerry and now Obama. This after voting for Clinton in '92 and '96. Perhaps Obama would do just fine, but I'd personally rather deal with a known commodity.

[JPhillips]

Big reach even for you.

Celebrity is still a detriment for him. What's changed there?

Nobody's going to criticize him for being clear about his policy. It would just be more helpful from him to focus on the "how" instead of the "what". (and even being more likeable) But even the "what" isn't bad for him, nobody's saying it's bad.

Catchy saying though.

Listen to and read what conservatives are saying about Palin. Every day there's talk about the size of the crowd, the wait time to see her, how amazing it is just to hear and see her. It's almost exactly the same things that the same people were criticizing Obama for just two weeks ago.

At that same time the message from McCain was that Obama was just an empty suit that wouldn't or couldn't tell America what he was going to do as President. Now McCain's campaign advisor says the election isn't about issues. It's remarkably cynical.

In the end this cynicism is what bother's me most about the Republican campaign. There are a lot of legitimate issues to discuss, and a lot of passionate disagreements that could arise. However, the majority of what McCain and some of his supporters have decided to be passionate about, they don't even believe. It's just a way to win the news cycle. It's effective as politics, but it's certainly not the campaign of an honorable man.

I liked the 2000 McCain and given the chance I might have voted for him, but the 2008 McCain is so different that I barely recognize him.

[Subby]

Really? We do? No, we don't. She hasn't said a darn thing.

Then again, she's the VP so it's not as if she would do much but sit in a big office going "say, has the old man kicked off yet?"

SI
Hard to say after Cheney. The precedent has certainly been set for an activist VP.

[JPhillips]

Heh! Risky proposal, and it didn't work so well for Bob Dole against Bill Clinton, even though Dole probably could make a stronger case.

It's only risky if it's too general, "McCain is lying when he says I won't defend America."

If Obama sticks to specifics, the tax issue, the Bridge to Nowhere, etc. there's zero risk. At worst that will make McCain have to get nuanced to defend his positions and that's a defensive posture.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Are you planning on signing up and going to fight in one of the myriad of conflicts that McCain's hair-trigger temper will likely get us into?

This is another case of fear-mongering, much like the birth control and book burning argument made earlier in the thread. There's no doubt that McCain is more of a hawk than most politicians, but he still has to get past the Dem-lead Congress and the public to do that, especially after the flimsy reasoning behind the Iraq war has been discussed thoroughly over the past few years.

Quebec doesn't have to be concerned that McCain will pull a Putin and attempt to annex them anytime soon.

[Passacaglia]

It's amusing to see Damon referring to actuary tables for a president/candidate. The last two presidents to pass away were:

Ford - age 93
Reagan - age 93

and two of the older living presidents are:

Carter - age 84
Bush1 - age 84

I think presidents/senators do get good health care, ensuring a longer life span than normal, don't you think?

I don't know who Damon is, but a lot of that depends on what table is used. Daily Kos gives McCain a 68% probability of living through two terms in this article Daily Kos: State of the Nation (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/32755/2087/846/579879) which uses this table Actuarial Life Table (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html) -- so the most likely scenario does have him living through both terms.

[DaddyTorgo]

This is another case of fear-mongering, much like the birth control and book burning argument made earlier in the thread. There's no doubt that McCain is more of a hawk than most politicians, but he still has to get past the Dem-lead Congress and the public to do that, especially after the flimsy reasoning behind the Iraq war has been discussed thoroughly over the past few years.

Quebec doesn't have to be concerned that McCain will pull a Putin and attempt to annex them anytime soon.


I don't think he has to "get past" the Congress in order to get us in trouble. Be that due to "non-declared" wars, or just interpersonal issues (I can see him losing his cool with a foreign leader much more easily than Obama).

And I take offense at the charge it's fear-mongering. If anything it's concern for my cousin who's in the Army, and all the men+women wearing the uniform who could potentially give their lives because somebody didn't explore all the options before deciding to commit troops.

[sterlingice]

In all seriousness, is there really some issue that you don't know relatively where the two stand?

And I say relatively because the odds of either getting spot on with what any of us wants on say 10 key issues seem pretty remote. That leaves us to look for the best choice relative to our own positions and which one comes closer to that benchmark. And I'm genuinely perplexed that anyone paying attention doesn't know which candidate that is at this point.

Agreed 100% on that. Heck, looking at my post history, I've already said it twice (once in April and here (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1813682&postcount=1027) about a month ago). But people like to pretend they are undecided for whatever reason- the illusion of neutrality, the celebrity of being catered to, not paying attention at all to anything.

I've said it at least once more- if you can't figure out who you are lining up with right now, then you don't deserve to be able to vote because you haven't been paying enough attention. And, again, this isn't to say you can't change your mind- maybe someone unveils a new issue that tips the scales, maybe someone does something you really like, maybe someone gets caught in a closet with a 12 year old- I'm not talking about that. But you should easily be able to answer the question "If the election were held today, who would I vote for".

SI

[Butter_of_69]

I liked the 2000 McCain and given the chance I might have voted for him, but the 2008 McCain is so different that I barely recognize him.

+2

[sterlingice]

I liked the 2000 McCain and given the chance I might have voted for him, but the 2008 McCain is so different that I barely recognize him.

+3

SI

[sterlingice]

Hard to say after Cheney. The precedent has certainly been set for an activist VP.

That would require a near-puppet or asleep-at-the-wheel President and ultra strong VP (I mean, really, this is the guy who was tasked with finding a VP during the 2000 Bush campaign and his answer was "me") and I don't think they have that relationship.

SI

[CamEdwards]

I don't think he has to "get past" the Congress in order to get us in trouble. Be that due to "non-declared" wars, or just interpersonal issues (I can see him losing his cool with a foreign leader much more easily than Obama).

And I take offense at the charge it's fear-mongering. If anything it's concern for my cousin who's in the Army, and all the men+women wearing the uniform who could potentially give their lives because somebody didn't explore all the options before deciding to commit troops.

McCain and Palin both have children currently serving in the military. So while you're concerned about your cousin, they're concerned about their own kids.

Additionally, while you may view military service as no big deal (hey, even the homeless have done it!), it seems pretty obvious to me that a guy who spent years as a POW would have a pretty good idea of the horrors of war. It doesn't mean, however, that the same guy will believe war is never necessary.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I don't think he has to "get past" the Congress in order to get us in trouble. Be that due to "non-declared" wars, or just interpersonal issues (I can see him losing his cool with a foreign leader much more easily than Obama).

And I take offense at the charge it's fear-mongering. If anything it's concern for my cousin who's in the Army, and all the men+women wearing the uniform who could potentially give their lives because somebody didn't explore all the options before deciding to commit troops.

If you think that McCain will start a war based on 'interpersonal issues', we have little to discuss. In the wake of the Iraq war, there's no way in hell that he could get away with that. It would be political suicide for not just McCain, but the entire party.

You can take offense all you want. I have multiple members of my family overseas. Most all of us know someone involved in the multiple war fronts we're currently engaged in. Concern for loved ones doesn't chance what the U.S. has to deal with regarding foreign policy.

We're getting out of Iraq soon. We'll likely intensify our Afghanistan campaign to expidite its finish. We're entering another Cold War with Russia. Iran is intent on pissing everyone off. The threat of war always exists, but the cost of war is fresh in everyone's minds. We won't be starting any new battles anytime soon unless there's a damn good reason.

[BrianD]

Agreed 100% on that. Heck, looking at my post history, I've already said it twice (once in April and here (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1813682&postcount=1027) about a month ago). But people like to pretend they are undecided for whatever reason- the illusion of neutrality, the celebrity of being catered to, not paying attention at all to anything.

I've said it at least once more- if you can't figure out who you are lining up with right now, then you don't deserve to be able to vote because you haven't been paying enough attention. And, again, this isn't to say you can't change your mind- maybe someone unveils a new issue that tips the scales, maybe someone does something you really like, maybe someone gets caught in a closet with a 12 year old- I'm not talking about that. But you should easily be able to answer the question "If the election were held today, who would I vote for".

SI

I think there is some amount of the population that declares themselves undecided because the don't like who they are going to vote for. Based on the issues and what we've seen so far...if I have to vote today I'm voting for McCain. I don't feel particularly good about that vote though.

I don't consider myself undecided, but I can see people keeping themselves on the fence holding out against hope that a better option will present itself.

[Fighter of Foo]

McCain and Palin both have children currently serving in the military. So while you're concerned about your cousin, they're concerned about their own kids.


Like their kids are ever going to come near a combat zone! Come on.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Like their kids are ever going to come near a combat zone! Come on.

Just like McCain, right?

Minimizing the service of McCain's, Biden's, or Palin's sons in that manner is a lousy form of reasoning. They all deserve respect for defending your right to post stupid comments like that.

[JPhillips]

There's really no value in a debate on whether or not McCain is a war-monger, IMO. I don't think it's at all fair to portray him as indifferent to the dangers of war.

Through his statements and actions, he does, though, see the military as an effective means to achieve our interests. At various times he's advocated or threatened military options for Syria, Iran, and North Korea. He called for ground troops in Serbia and called for invading Iraq just a few weeks after 9/11.

There's a pretty good article in The Atlantic that tries to get to the bottom of McCain's foreign policy thoughts.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810/mccain

[Fighter of Foo]

Just like McCain, right?

Minimizing the service of McCain's, Biden's, or Palin's sons in that manner is a lousy form of reasoning. They all deserve respect for defending your right to post stupid comments like that.

Well if McCain or Palin has any respect for the horrors of war, there's no way they'd allow their kids anywhere near it. If they would, then they don't. It's really not complicated.

Also, respect is earned, not deserved.

[CamEdwards]

Well if McCain or Palin has any respect for the horrors of war, there's no way they'd allow their kids anywhere near it. If they would, then they don't. It's really not complicated.

Also, respect is earned, not deserved.

I'd like to hear more. You just gave me at least a half hour's worth of show material!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Well if McCain or Palin has any respect for the horrors of war, there's no way they'd allow their kids anywhere near it. If they would, then they don't. It's really not complicated.

Also, respect is earned, not deserved.

They haven't earned your respect for putting their life on the line in the service of their country? If we use your line of reasoning, what was your aunt and uncle thinking by letting your cousin enlist in the military knowing that war was a possibility? I personally think it's a ludicrous argument, but it appears that you find it to be valid reasoning.

Perhaps you can ask the country of Georgia how democracy works when little or no military force is available to defend that freedom against a military power.

[SFL Cat]

It's only risky if it's too general, "McCain is lying when he says I won't defend America."

If Obama sticks to specifics, the tax issue, the Bridge to Nowhere, etc. there's zero risk. At worst that will make McCain have to get nuanced to defend his positions and that's a defensive posture.

Obama has already said he's going to raise taxes on the rich -- which is standard Democrat rhetoric, although lately he's been saying he might wait until we're out of the bad economic cycle. McCain could probably put that one out of the park by saying something like, "It's going to take American businesses to pull us out of the economic downturn we're in, and Mr. Obama plans on rewarding them by raising their taxes."

Kind of risky if you ask me. Talking taxes is usually a no win scenario.

[Jas_lov]

Qunnipac-

FL- McCain 50 Obama 43
OH- Obama 49 McCain 44
PA- Obama 48 McCain 45

PPP-

CO- Obama 47 McCain 46

[SFL Cat]

Well if McCain or Palin has any respect for the horrors of war, there's no way they'd allow their kids anywhere near it. If they would, then they don't. It's really not complicated.

Also, respect is earned, not deserved.

You do realize that a lot of people have had to endure the horrors of war in the past so that you can enjoy your current lifestyle, correct?

[DaddyTorgo]

If you think that McCain will start a war based on 'interpersonal issues', we have little to discuss. In the wake of the Iraq war, there's no way in hell that he could get away with that. It would be political suicide for not just McCain, but the entire party.

You can take offense all you want. I have multiple members of my family overseas. Most all of us know someone involved in the multiple war fronts we're currently engaged in. Concern for loved ones doesn't chance what the U.S. has to deal with regarding foreign policy.

We're getting out of Iraq soon. We'll likely intensify our Afghanistan campaign to expidite its finish. We're entering another Cold War with Russia. Iran is intent on pissing everyone off. The threat of war always exists, but the cost of war is fresh in everyone's minds. We won't be starting any new battles anytime soon unless there's a damn good reason.

i didn't say "start a war based on interpersonal issues." but he could certainly make things more difficult when dealing with say Russia, or Iran, due to interpersonal issues (armed conflict aside).

[DaddyTorgo]

There's really no value in a debate on whether or not McCain is a war-monger, IMO. I don't think it's at all fair to portray him as indifferent to the dangers of war.

Through his statements and actions, he does, though, see the military as an effective means to achieve our interests. At various times he's advocated or threatened military options for Syria, Iran, and North Korea. He called for ground troops in Serbia and called for invading Iraq just a few weeks after 9/11.

There's a pretty good article in The Atlantic that tries to get to the bottom of McCain's foreign policy thoughts.

The Wars of John McCain (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810/mccain)

The PNAC-idiots who got us deeply embroiled in this current mess would have more influence in a Republican-administration (being Republicans themselves) and they do far more harm than good.

And McCain has a demonstrated history of losing his temper (hell, he even admits it). Not really a man I want in command of the armed forces and the missiles with the ability to extinguish life on this planet.

Do I think that would happen, no. Do I think he'd get us into a war because somebody cracked a joke on him, no. But do I think he'd likely continue the foreign policies of the Bush administration which have seen us alienate traditional allies and essentially isolate ourselves with fewer friends in an era of increasing globalization, hell yes. Perhaps not INTENTIONALLY, but as a result of his personality and the Bush-appointees who would continue to wield power under his administration, yes.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

But do I think he'd likely continue the foreign policies of the Bush administration which have seen us alienate traditional allies and essentially isolate ourselves with fewer friends in an era of increasing globalization, hell yes. Perhaps not INTENTIONALLY, but as a result of his personality and the Bush-appointees who would continue to wield power under his administration, yes.

Once again, a vast overgeneralization of the situation overseas that has little basis in fact. We had some allies who raised a pretty big fuss over the Iraq situation, and rightfully so, especially in hindsight. With that said, all of those allies are still allied with us and would be the first ones to jump to our aid if a true problem, here or overseas, were to occur. Don't confuse disagreement with allegiance. We still have a wide base of support and we still return that favor in kind. The U.S. and all our traditional allies in Europe along with some of the newer nations are still on the same page when it comes to defense of any of those countries.

[DaddyTorgo]

eh. didn't say that they weren't our allies anymore. Or maybe it came off that way, but I didn't intend for it too.

Was just saying that instead of acting aloof and apart from the international community and expecting them to follow our lead and kowtow to us because we are the United States, we should be acting in concert WITH the international community, as a member of the community of nations, rather than as the leader and freelancing it.

Notable instances where we haven't: the Kyoto Protocol, the International Court of Justice (to name two).

But I'm sure that type of thinking won't be popular here on this board - but that's my opinion.

And it's also my opinion (and judgement) that we have a better chance of at least paying lip-service to that idea and possibly achieving some measure of it under a President Obama then we do under a President McCain.

[larrymcg421]

Qunnipac-

FL- McCain 50 Obama 43
OH- Obama 49 McCain 44
PA- Obama 48 McCain 45

PPP-

CO- Obama 47 McCain 46


PPP is a (D) polling firm, so that should be taken with a grain of salt, although it does fall in line with recent polls in CO.

The Ohio number is very good for Obama. Florida is not so good and PA is too close for comfort.

[Passacaglia]

Just saw this link in one of the comments on fivethirtyeight:

Michigan Messenger » Lose your house, lose your vote (http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote)

[Fighter of Foo]

They haven't earned your respect for putting their life on the line in the service of their country? If we use your line of reasoning, what was your aunt and uncle thinking by letting your cousin enlist in the military knowing that war was a possibility? I personally think it's a ludicrous argument, but it appears that you find it to be valid reasoning.


There's no military conflict we're currently engaged in that's in defense of our country. It's all offense.

If it were my kid, I'd be strongly opposed to their joining up RIGHT NOW. I'd also recognize they're adults and can make their own decisions.

I'm also not a politician and have no influence as to where my kid would go, unlike McCain and Palin. I have all the respect in the world for the people who are actually working. The one giving the orders and/or taking cushy jobs, not so much.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Qunnipac-

FL- McCain 50 Obama 43
OH- Obama 49 McCain 44
PA- Obama 48 McCain 45


That OH result is interesting. Most of the OH polls over the past few days have shown a dead heat or a point or two for McCain. I'd be interested to see the party weight in that poll.

[miked]

Just saw this link in one of the comments on fivethirtyeight:

Michigan Messenger » Lose your house, lose your vote (http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote)

LOL, that could be a disaster. Why can't people just respect people's right to vote; it's fairly doubtful that people who are being foreclosed on will be hopping from county to county to vote multiple times. I wonder if there are systematic approaches that democrats try to keep people from voting...maybe all-day wine and cheese parties at local art galleries?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm also not a politician and have no influence as to where my kid would go, unlike McCain and Palin. I have all the respect in the world for the people who are actually working. The one giving the orders and/or taking cushy jobs, not so much.

McCain, Biden, and Palin have absolutely no control over where their kids go. The military may decide that their kids could be strategic targets and move them to a different group to avoid increased danger for their fellow soldiers (see Prince Harry), but you can be sure that they don't have any control over where they are deployed.

As far as cushy jobs or the one giving orders, I wouldn't wish the job of president on my worst enemy. The weight of the world is on your shoulders and all you have to do is look at pictures of presidents entering office and the pictures of them leaving when their term is complete to see what it does to you from a mental and physical standpoint. It's a heavy burden to bear for one individual.

[larrymcg421]

Just saw this link in one of the comments on fivethirtyeight:

Michigan Messenger » Lose your house, lose your vote (http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote)

Lovely.

I'm sure 2000 McCain is going to denounce the hell out of this. It's too bad nobody knows where he went.

[DaddyTorgo]

Just saw this link in one of the comments on fivethirtyeight:

Michigan Messenger » Lose your house, lose your vote (http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote)

fuckin dirtbags:rant:

stop tryin to disenfranchise people (and yes i am equal-opportunity hater on that - if the Dems do it too, I blast the hell out of them).

You know my retort too - the simple solution would be: "one person, one vote." None of this electoral college BS that has outlived its usefulness.

[Big Fo]

Why can't people just respect people's right to vote

Because it's the Republican party.

[Fighter of Foo]

McCain, Biden, and Palin have absolutely no control over where their kids go. The military may decide that their kids could be strategic targets and move them to a different group to avoid increased danger for their fellow soldiers (see Prince Harry), but you can be sure that they don't have any control over where they are deployed.


Bullshit. How naive are you?

[CamEdwards]

Bullshit. How naive are you?

One of McCain's sons has already served in Iraq. Palin's oldest kid is being deployed to Iraq. I suppose if they're not killed or injured, you'll just claim that it's proof they weren't put in harm's way.

What was it Lincoln said? Better to be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt, I think it was.

[Fighter of Foo]

One of McCain's sons has already served in Iraq. Palin's oldest kid is being deployed to Iraq. I suppose if they're not killed or injured, you'll just claim that it's proof they weren't put in harm's way.

Why would I do that?

[ISiddiqui]

Bullshit. How naive are you?

Wait, so since McCain's father was a very high up Admiral, he wasn't put in harm's way during Vietnam?

[ace1914]

Wait, so since McCain's father was a very high up Admiral, he wasn't put in harm's way during Vietnam?

Didn't McCain get shot down going somewhere he wasn't supposed to be?

[Fighter of Foo]

If McCain's dad wasn't OK with him being there he wouldn't have been. That goes for anyone with money and/or influence. How is this hard to understand?

[ace1914]

Came across this in my internet travels:

McCain Released as POW (http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22584&a=1243689&lid=puff_1243756&lpos=rubrik)
Damn look at that limp. Tough dude. Not automatically ready to lead because of it, but I respect him.

[molson]

If McCain's dad wasn't OK with him being there he wouldn't have been. That goes for anyone with money and/or influence. How is this hard to understand?

What's your point? People without money or influence don't have to go to war either.

The whole "kids in the military" thing is silly on both sides. Like when McCain/Palin "send their kids off to war" (as if it's something we shold praise them for), or when Michael Moore challenges congressmen to "sign their kids up for war" in that awful movie (as if they have the authority to do that).

[molson]

Didn't McCain get shot down going somewhere he wasn't supposed to be?

No idea - but it's not like it was his first misson.

Here's a handful of his war exploits from wiki:

-two and a half years of training at Pensacola as a naval aviator
-The planes he was flying crashed twice and once collided with power lines, but he received no major injuries
-By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967, when he was near the center of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments. The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control
-He was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi

Also, an interesting quote there regarding some of the critisims of Bush's handlings of the Iraq War:

"In all candor, we thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots who didn't have the least notion of what it took to win the war"

We obviously would still be in Iraq if McCain were preisdent in 2000, but I'm guessing the war would have went a lot better.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

If McCain's dad wasn't OK with him being there he wouldn't have been. That goes for anyone with money and/or influence. How is this hard to understand?

So you decided to back up one baseless claim with another baseless claim? There's absolutely nothing to back that up. Obviously, you've altered your argument from 'they aren't even in a combat zone' to 'they wouldn't be there if their parents didn't want them there'. Both arguments fail miserably.

McCain's father actually made the decision to carpet bomb the city that his son was being held hostage in, fully knowing that it may end up killing his son. You want to explain to me how that shows that he had his son's interests as a priority?

Didn't McCain get shot down going somewhere he wasn't supposed to be?

He was on a bombing run over enemy territory. I'm sure the North Vietnamese didn't think he was where he was supposed to be.

[DaddyTorgo]

No idea - but it's not like it was his first misson.

Here's a handful of his war exploits from wiki:

-two and a half years of training at Pensacola as a naval aviator
-The planes he was flying crashed twice and once collided with power lines, but he received no major injuries


sounds like he was an epic failure as a pilot. two and a half years of training and he crashed twice AND collided with power lines?? yikes!

[Fighter of Foo]

So you decided to back up one baseless claim with another baseless claim? There's absolutely nothing to back that up. Obviously, you've altered your argument from 'they aren't even in a combat zone' to 'they wouldn't be there if their parents didn't want them there'. Both arguments fail miserably.

You're the one doing all the twisting. OK so their kids are actually in Iraq. I'm wrong there. My second argument is spot on. All you've shown is McCain's dad had an enormously difficult decision to make. Why was he put in such a position? That's horribly reckless.

Situations like McCain's could be completely avoided if we weren't so busy fighting offensive wars as people such as yourself tend to advocate.

[larrymcg421]

Too bad we got distracted from the GOP attack on people whose homes are being foreclosed.

Anyways, that NC poll that showed McCain with a huge lead appears to be a huge outlier, because RCP has a poll from a Republican polling firm showing McCain with only a 3 point lead.

[Deattribution]

This thread is like the ultimate exercise in futility. Combing two of the stupidest things you can do - arguing on the internet, and talking politics with people you can't rationalize with.

Throw in some keyboard jockeys discussing how the war really should have went while they sit in the comfort of their homes, and what soldiers are epic failures and you have a real treat.

[BrianD]

This thread is like the ultimate exercise in futility. Combing two of the stupidest things you can do - arguing on the internet, and talking politics with people you can't rationalize with.

Throw in some keyboard jockeys discussing how the war really should have went while they sit in the comfort of their homes, and what soldiers are epic failures and you have a real treat.

Don't forget the on-lookers taking shots at the "logic" on both sides. :)

[st.cronin]

I have not read the whole thread but I am still an enthusiastic supporter of McCain.

[Jas_lov]

Sarah Palin warns that war may be necessary if Russia invades another country according to abc news. The 1st part of Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin will air tonight.

[Big Fo]

They just read some of that interview on MSNBC, Palin has been well-coached in the last eleven days.

[Vegas Vic]

They just read some of that interview on MSNBC, Palin has been well-coached in the last eleven days.

And if you listen to her gubernatorial debates, she was well coached for them, also.

[Vegas Vic]

Sarah Palin warns that war may be necessary if if Georgia were to join NATO and be invaded by Russia.

FYP.

[Jas_lov]

Hey, that's just what abc news reported on their website under breaking news so blame them not me.

[molson]

Sarah Palin warns that war may be necessary if Russia invades another country according to abc news. The 1st part of Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin will air tonight.

The odds of Russia invading Georgia (or any neighbor) are SO much lower under a McCain/Palin US.

[cartman]

The odds of Russia invading Georgia (or any neighbor) are SO much lower under a McCain/Palin US.

Even lower than a Bush/Cheney administration?

[larrymcg421]

The odds of Russia invading Georgia (or any neighbor) are SO much lower under a McCain/Palin US.

I'd like to hear the reasoning behind this.

[molson]

I'd like to hear the reasoning behind this.

McCain is more hawkish than Obama, by a landslide.

As a foreign trouble-maker, you're much more likely to see Obama as an opportunity to cause trouble and increase your influence.

And I'm not just talking military action. I don't see Obama has being particularly tough in terms on foreign policy, but maybe I'm just confusing him with many of his supporters who would call for unanimous world approval before they did anything.

And I'm not saying there isn't potential downsides to McCain in this context. But Putin would be much more reluctant to invade with a hawkish angry vet like McCain running the show. The perception is that Obama would send kisses and fruit baskets and try to work thing out over coffee. (Though I'd love to see him at least talk tough during the debates, if only to neuter this perception of him in the world, for our own security)

[st.cronin]

I don't get the impression that Putin thinks on that level.

[molson]

Even lower than a Bush/Cheney administration?

Yes. Putin knew that Bush/Cheney had already blown their foreign intervention wad for the administration, they're not going to do anything particularly bold for the rest of the term (despite all the liberals telling be a vote for Bush was a vote for an Iran war back in '04)

[JPhillips]

She didn't seem to make any obvious game-changing quotes, but it was pretty obvious why she's been on lock-down. I'm not at all thrilled with what ABC aired, though. I really hate it when answers are edited. Even under the best of circumstances editing answers changes what happened. Jump from question to question all you want, but candidates should be given their full answer.

[larrymcg421]

McCain is more hawkish than Obama, by a landslide.

As a foreign trouble-maker, you're much more likely to see Obama as an opportunity to cause trouble and increase your influence.

And I'm not just talking military action. I don't see Obama has being particularly tough in terms on foreign policy, but maybe I'm just confusing him with many of his supporters who would call for unanimous world approval before they did anything.

Yeah, that's just not true at all and is a complete bastardization of the issues over the last 8 years.

And I'm not saying there isn't potential downsides to McCain in this context. But Putin would be much more reluctant to invade with a hawkish angry vet like McCain running the show. The perception is that Obama would send kisses and fruit baskets and try to work thing out over coffee. (Though I'd love to see him at least talk tough during the debates)

You seem to be suggesting diplomacy can't work. I think that's where our disagreement comes from, and our hawkish current President didn't deter Putin this time. I'd suggest that Putin might be more reluctant because Obama would have more support globally to put pressure on him to withdraw.

[molson]

You seem to be suggesting diplomacy can't work. I think that's where our disagreement comes from, and our hawkish current President didn't deter Putin this time. I'd suggest that Putin might be more reluctant because Obama would have more support globally to put pressure on him to withdraw.

Diplomacy doesn't work without some kind of implied threat (either military or otherwise). Diplomacy didn't work for Georgia - because they're no threat to Russia.

If you have a president that's not perceived as a threat, that's a problem

I'm not saying Obama can't necessarily be that "threat" - I'd just like to see that side of him. The way some of his supporters portray him is a little frightening.

[larrymcg421]

Today's National Polls

McCain 48, Obama 44 (Gallup)
McCain 46, Obama 44 (Hotline/FD)
McCain 46, Obama 46 (InsiderAdvantage)
McCain 46, Obama 46 (Rasmussen)

[Klinglerware]

McCain is more hawkish than Obama, by a landslide.

As a foreign trouble-maker, you're much more likely to see Obama as an opportunity to cause trouble and increase your influence.

And I'm not just talking military action. I don't see Obama has being particularly tough in terms on foreign policy, but maybe I'm just confusing him with many of his supporters who would call for unanimous world approval before they did anything.

And I'm not saying there isn't potential downsides to McCain in this context. But Putin would be much more reluctant to invade with a hawkish angry vet like McCain running the show. The perception is that Obama would send kisses and fruit baskets and try to work thing out over coffee. (Though I'd love to see him at least talk tough during the debates, if only to neuter this perception of him in the world, for our own security)

Doubtful. If you take a look at the timing of incidents caused by "foreign trouble-makers" in the post World War II period, you'd probably see the incidence-rate to be about the same regardless of who the American president was. I am not saying that the ideology of the sitting president doesn't matter--but it is vastly overstated...

[lungs]

Considering Russia was right, I found McCain's reaction quite concerning. On the other hand, so was Obama's changing his tune on the issue.

I guess candidates have to pander to American's illogical fears of Russian power that stem from the Cold War.

[molson]

Considering Russia was right

There were errors on both sides but many Georgian civilians were slaughtered. I encourage you to read up on what happened and you'll learn why Russia was condemned by ALL world leaders.

[lungs]

There were errors on both sides but many Georgian civilians were slaughtered. I encourage you to read up on what happened and you'll learn why Russia was condemned by ALL world leaders.

Trust me, I've read up plenty about it. Check the thread on the subject.

I still feel Russia was justified.

[molson]

I still feel Russia was justified.

Even the part about slaughtering civilians after the military objectives were reached?

And you're an Obama supporter???? (i.e. think that we should deal in diplomacy but not any other country??)

Does not compute...I'll drop it though

[Flasch186]

i saw the Palin interview (or a clip of it) and given, I dont like the editing of answers, it seems that she answered the question correctly:

If country X is a member of the union and that member is attacked would the union be obliged to attack...

the correct answer is "yes"

now is it that black and white? no, but she answered the question correctly in my view.

[Groundhog]

Trust me, I've read up plenty about it. Check the thread on the subject.

I still feel Russia was justified.

Those two paragraphs read together make it very difficult to believe that you have.

[larrymcg421]

I agree that it sounds like she answered it correctly, but as we've already talked about here, perceptions are what matters. This is a headline I've already sene:

Palin leaves open option of war with Russia (http://www.yahoo.com/s/951923)

I wonder how that's going to play amongst the voter base.

[Flasch186]

I agree that it sounds like she answered it correctly, but as we've already talked about here, perceptions are what matters. This is a headline I've already sene:

Palin leaves open option of war with Russia (http://www.yahoo.com/s/951923)

I wonder how that's going to play amongst the voter base.

but i do NOT agree that that is an accurate headline and it is spun. Again, I dont care the spin...spin is bad and the truth is what matters. Its as if the Bizarro SFL wrote that headline :)

[larrymcg421]

but i do NOT agree that that is an accurate headline and it is spun. Again, I dont care the spin...spin is bad and the truth is what matters.

No, I agree with you. I'm just saying it could look bad, right or wrong.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I wonder how that's going to play amongst the voter base.

Her (well, the GOP) existing base? Or the group of likely voters as a whole (regardless of whom they're going to voter for)?

It'll play well with the hawks, poorly with the doves, and I would hope it would be understood as appropriate by whatever middle isn't one or the other.

It's always an option. Whether it's the best option, a reasonable option, an unreasonable option, or whatever else you might qualify it with, it's still "an option".

[Buccaneer]

Re: Age of death/life expectancy.

You guys were missing the point. The health care provided to presidents/and other mucky-mucks blow the normal charts out of the water. You don't use normal actuaries for presidents, which was all of them since FDR (except for JFK of course) lived or will live to an extraordinary old age.

[sterlingice]

On the forum for national service, they weren't exactly lobbing up softballs. McCain wasn't being grilled but there were some questions that the moderators pressed decently on.

SI

[Vegas Vic]

On the forum for national service, they weren't exactly lobbing up softballs. McCain wasn't being grilled but there were some questions that the moderators pressed decently on.

It's good to see that it's on a neutral site, with a neutral crowd.

[TazFTW]

Too bad we got distracted from the GOP attack on people whose homes are being foreclosed.

Anyways, that NC poll that showed McCain with a huge lead appears to be a huge outlier, because RCP has a poll from a Republican polling firm showing McCain with only a 3 point lead.

RCP just put up a Research 2000 poll that has McCain +17 (McCain 55 Obama 38). Something funky is going on with polling in NC.

[Flasch186]

Ok, so in the interview she obviously danced around the "bush Doctrine" question and apparently the Dems are going to hammer home the fact that she didnt know the definition of the Bush Doctrine is...

I dont know, that most people even know what it is, anymore, at least on Main Street. I guess her handlers may have missed this one but if it were golf, it would be the slightest slice and the ball still landed on the fairway. If anything I didnt like the fact that she squirmed in the chair when thinking about it but otherwise I think it's silly and I hope the Dems realize that. They probably wont.

Alright but her spin of the comment that she made in her church about the "Iraq mission from god" is absolutely ridiculous. she said it was a repeat of an Abraham Lincoln statement and that she wouold never presume to know God's motivations. Garbage. She spun it and she meant it when she said it in her church.

Im trying to find out if it was a lie when Palin answered Gibson's question about if she'd met a foreign head of state with 'many Vice President's hadn't met foreign heads of state' is true because Anderson Cooper cited Factcheck.org in saying that she was very wrong. I cant find the information to prove her right or wrong, anyone?

[JPhillips]

She came off as a first time job interviewee IMO. Like I said earlier, I don't think she said anything particularly noteworthy, but she's clearly not ready to handle the press on her own let alone be VP.

[Galaril]

The odds of Russia invading Georgia (or any neighbor) are SO much lower under a McCain/Palin US.

Are you fucking kidding? The Russians don't nor have they have cared what the fuck we think. Believe that I am sure they would have qualms calling Palin's bluff and thus resolve on that one.

[Galaril]

Even the part about slaughtering civilians after the military objectives were reached?

And you're an Obama supporter???? (i.e. think that we should deal in diplomacy but not any other country??)

Does not compute...I'll drop it though

Like bombing entire city blocks where civilians are? Yeah Russia is the only one in war who kill innocents.

[Flasch186]

yup, they couldnt give 2 shits who the Pres is...it had much more to do with their speculation on the strength/weakness of our military and the resolve of the American people to go to (another) war at this time.

[Galaril]

yup, they couldnt give 2 shits who the Pres is...it had much more to do with their speculation on the strength/weakness of our military and the resolve of the American people to go to (another) war at this time.

Agreed.

[lungs]

Even the part about slaughtering civilians after the military objectives were reached?

And you're an Obama supporter???? (i.e. think that we should deal in diplomacy but not any other country??)

Does not compute...I'll drop it though

I'll concede the Russians went too far, but the original scope of the mission and the annexation of Georgian territory was completely justified in my mind.

Perhaps Georgia should have chosen the diplomacy route since they were the ones that initiated the aggression and paid a very steep price.

Being an Obama supporter doesn't have much to do with this. I'm admittedly biased towards the Russians, and I also find Vladimir Putin to be a very compelling figure, for a variety of reasons that work very well for Russia, but not here in the United States.

And I'll also shutup about this conflict since we've discussed it plenty in the other thread and it doesn't have any place in this thread besides my belief that both candidates are wrong. But being right in my mind would likely be close to political suicide here.

[SFL Cat]

You need both carrots and sticks, folks.

Look at how Kennedy defused the missile crisis. Talk tough to the world, bargain and make nice behind the scenes.

You can say what you want, but that was as close as we've ever come to getting into a shooting war with Russia...including the time when Reagan was president, at least according to a golfing buddy of my boss who was career Air Force.

[Vegas Vic]

RCP just put up a Research 2000 poll that has McCain +17 (McCain 55 Obama 38). Something funky is going on with polling in NC.

That one must be another outlier, along with the other one just released that had McCain up by 20.

[SFL Cat]

No worries for the Obamamaniacs...McCain mumbled something about appointing Obama to his cabinet today.

[Vegas Vic]

One thing that I find fairly surprising is that Obama and McCain are both at about +20 in their favorable vs. unfavorable ratings. In fact, Biden and Palin also have a higher favorable vs. unfavorable ratings. I don't know if this has happened before, but it certainly hasn't happened over the last few election cycles.