Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[GrantDawg]

Let's not forget that President Roslin was just the Secretary of Education (or something) before the Cylons attacked.


That's right! And she did a good job in much rougher conditions than 9/11. I think Palin would be a good leader if the Cylons attacked Earth and we had to escape on spaceships looking for a new home.

[Kodos]

Although it should be noted that Roslin is a bit of a religious nut too.

[Arles]

I dunno, I havnt heard much "terrorist" yelled at Mccain. I know some argue 'he could die soon' which is silly but not much 'terror talk' at McCain. I havnt heard "Kill him" either at McCain
Looks like the "kill him" story was more fantasy than reality:

SCRANTON – The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Obama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him."

News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

“I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune.

He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton.

Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell “kill him.”

“We have yet to find someone to back up the story,” Slavoski said. “We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it.”

Hackett said he did not hear the remark.

Slavoski said Singleton was interviewed Wednesday and stood by his story but couldn’t give a description of the man because he didn’t see him he only heard him.

When contacted Wednesday afternoon, Singleton referred questions to Times-Tribune Metro Editor Jeff Sonderman. Sonderman said, “We stand by the story. The facts reported are true and that’s really all there is.”

Slavoski said the agents take such threats or comments seriously and immediately opened an investigation but after due diligence “as far as we’re concerned it’s closed unless someone comes forward.” He urged anyone with knowledge of the alleged incident to call him at 346-5781. “We’ll run at all leads,” he said.
Secret Service says "Kill him" allegation unfounded | Wilkes-Barre breaking news | timesleader.com - The Times Leader (http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html)

This is pretty disappointing and seems to be an example of a reporter trying to make a name for himself at the expense of McCain supporters. It's a shame these major networks couldn't have done an inch of verification before slamming the McCain supporters on one apparently mistaken account.

[Flasch186]

Arles, thanks. That is a very good revelation.

but i thought it was on a video on youtube they heard it (which couldve been edited in afterwards)?

[DaddyTorgo]

Looks like the "kill him" story was more fantasy than reality:


Secret Service says "Kill him" allegation unfounded | Wilkes-Barre breaking news | timesleader.com - The Times Leader (http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html)

This is pretty disappointing and seems to be an example of a reporter trying to make a name for himself at the expense of McCain supporters. It's a shame these major networks couldn't have done an inch of verification before slamming the McCain supporters on one apparently mistaken account.

+1

[KWhit]

I guess that's my beef. I know two people that own similar businesses, though not a plumber. One is a glass installation business and the other is an electrical installation business. Both are very similar to plumbing in that they make up a portion of the home building industry and the pay grade at the lower level is very similar. With that said, both of the people I know are in the position that Joe is in and they will both see tax increases under the Obama tax plan. It's a real situation and trivializing it as Obama did is not the right move to make.

They make over $250,000 of profit a year? That's not an average American. Or an average small business.

[molson]

This is pretty disappointing and seems to be an example of a reporter trying to make a name for himself at the expense of McCain supporters. It's a shame these major networks couldn't have done an inch of verification before slamming the McCain supporters on one apparently mistaken account.

It's really interesting to me that whether or not someone yelled something at a rally is news.

I agree that it seems to be a reporter trying to make a name for himself. What's interesting to me is why Obama supporters love to invoke this kind of stuff as somehow supportive of their candidate. You see it all over the blogs and the last few pages of this thread - trying to connect any opposition to this racist element.

Though in terms of "kill him" (though it didn't actually happen) - not sure that's necessarily racist. I've heard plenty of hippie west coast liberals yell similar (and worse) things about Bush the last 8 years, including at political rallies. Why is that not news?

[Flasch186]

exactly...YOU keep implying racism. I keep implying violence (including using the hot button and insinuating word 'terror[ist])'. Please stop blending the two for your convenience.

[molson]

exactly...YOU keep implying racism. I keep implying violence. Please stop blending the two for your convenience.

I'm not directing this at you - mostly that article a few pages back, and similar sentiment on blogs. Collecting racist misdeeds from around the country and then implicating the entire Republican party (and by looser implication, anyone who votes against Obama) to support your preferred candidate is about as low as it gets. That's all.

And the violence is based on racism anyway, isn't it?

[Flasch186]

not necessarily.

It could be but not always.

[sachmo71]

Looks like the "kill him" story was more fantasy than reality:


This is pretty disappointing and seems to be an example of a reporter trying to make a name for himself at the expense of McCain supporters. It's a shame these major networks couldn't have done an inch of verification before slamming the McCain supporters on one apparently mistaken account.

It's even more disappointing that people are making a big deal about this. Never understood the link between independent crowd behavior and a candidate. Some of the logic leaps we make when it comes to politics baffle me.

[larrymcg421]

Well, I think the claim was 1) the campaign was inciting these remarks by the nature of their attacks and 2) Palin, unlike McCain, wasn't standing up to these people.

[lordscarlet]

I guess that's my beef. I know two people that own similar businesses, though not a plumber. One is a glass installation business and the other is an electrical installation business. Both are very similar to plumbing in that they make up a portion of the home building industry and the pay grade at the lower level is very similar. With that said, both of the people I know are in the position that Joe is in and they will both see tax increases under the Obama tax plan. It's a real situation and trivializing it as Obama did is not the right move to make.

Have you been reading anything about this guy? Joe is not similar to "Joe." He does not make 250k per year, the business he may one day want to buy does not make 250k per year and anyone that does "make 250k per year" would not have increased taxes. If someone DID happen to make it over the 250k per year TAXABLE INCOME mark, it would only be the amount beyond 250k that would be subject to an increased tax.

[Flasch186]

slippery slope but you cant make this claim. At a David Duke rally youre certainly going to get behaviour even on the fringe that's different than another rally. Its the fact that the statement or rhetoric arent tamped down when visible.

[molson]

Well, I think the claim was 1) the campaign was inciting these remarks by the nature of their attacks and 2) Palin, unlike McCain, wasn't standing up to these people.

Fair enough.

I don't really evaluate Palin anymore, except in terms of entertainment value. It's just a waste of time.

[JPhillips]

"Sooner or later though, you will have to acknowledge that this “fringe” is very widespread. You’ll have to come to grips, eventually, with the fact that this “fringe” has become the very definition of the your party."

I can certainly see how a Democrat would want to spin it that way but give me a fucking break.

That's a HUGE statement and while not nearly as bad as the prior cited stuff about Obama, it goes down that road. Racism is the definition of the Republican party, got it. Does that apply to anyone who doesn't like Obama, or just anyone who votes Republican?

The point is that the party has allowed the fringe to take numerous leadership positions. Sure they're crazies on both sides, but what's distressing about the current Republican party is that the crazies are too often in charge.

The Obama bucks were sent out by the leader of a Republican Women's group.

The "Waterboard Him" page was set up by the Republican Party of Sacramento County.

The photoshopped Obama/Osama picture was sent out by the Virginia GOP.

Obama sock monkeys were sold at the Texas GOP convention.

Obama Waffles were sold at the Family Values meeting in Washington.

A minister called on God to defend his name and keep Obama from being elected as the opening prayer of a campaign rally.

We can go on if you'd like. The problem isn't that every Republican is a racist or that being against Obama is racist. The problem is that the party has largely been taken over by an angry, narrow-minded fringe. The great and noble tradition of the GOP isn't anywhere to be seen these days. The change in McCain from honorable conservative to whatever he's become is clear proof of what it takes to appeal to these folks.

I'd love to see a principled conservative party as a counter to the Democrats even though I'd largely disagree with their policy positions. The current incarnation of the Republican party, however, isn't in any way principled or conservative. If the most xenophobic and theocratic voices aren't pushed aside the Republican party runs a great risk of being little more than a Southern and Great Plains regional party for the next generation.

[molson]

The problem is that the party has largely been taken over by an angry, narrow-minded fringe.

I can certainly see why you don't like them if you believe that.

It seems like a huge exaggeration and political grandstanding though - "largely been taken over"?

Anybody can set up a "Republican women's group", or a "Family Values Meeting". If there's larger state groups doing this stuff at conventions funded by the actual GOP, I agree that's a much bigger problem and they need to take a more active stand in quashing that stuff

But they can't stop people from meeting and doing racist shit. I'm not even sure they own the name "Republican".

As the party going against an African-American presidential candidate, they're OBVIOUSLY going to attract the racist element. What do they do about it exactly? Most of the stories involving these things include a statement from a real GOP official condemning the racist sentiment.

[albionmoonlight]

scales
eyes

[larrymcg421]

Chicago Tribune endorses Obama. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story?track=email-alert-breakingnews)

First time they have ever endorsed a Democrat.

[Flasch186]

I can certainly see why you don't like them if you believe that.

It seems like a huge exaggeration and political grandstanding though - "largely been taken over"?

Anybody can set up a "Republican women's group", or a "Family Values Meeting". If there's larger state groups doing this stuff at conventions funded by the actual GOP, I agree that's a much bigger problem and they need to take a more active stand in quashing that stuff

But they can't stop people from meeting and doing racist shit. I'm not even sure they own the name "Republican".

As the party going against an African-American presidential candidate, they're OBVIOUSLY going to attract the racist element. What do they do about it exactly? Most of the stories involving these things include a statement from a real GOP official condemning the racist sentiment.

it's easy. Do what McCain did in Minny at the rally. Just a simple, "Let's tone down the rhetoric guys." or "That's unacceptable and whle we disagree with the opponent over XYZ we're all americans blah blah blah."

[Tigercat]

Chicago Tribune endorses Obama. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story?track=email-alert-breakingnews)

First time they have ever endorsed a Democrat.

That's a pretty significant endorsement. Those critical of the "Chicago Machine," of which the conservative leaning tribune is a part, have certainly been critical of Obama.

[JPhillips]

It seems like a huge exaggeration and political grandstanding though - "largely been taken over"?

After this election, the Republican party is likely to be in the worst shape nationally since 1964. They'll likely lose the White House, be outnumbered by 70-80 in the House and by 14-20 in the Senate. Much of this IMO has less to do with how great the Dems are than with people seeing what the GOP has become.

November 5th is going to be a reckoning day for the GOP. Will they further retrench around policies that only attract a regional majority or will they rebrand themselves ala Cameron in the UK?

[Tigercat]

it's easy. Do what McCain did in Minny at the rally. Just a simple, "Let's tone down the rhetoric guys." or "That's unacceptable and whle we disagree with the opponent over XYZ we're all americans blah blah blah."

The sad part is, if Palin did this she would get more center of the road support and understanding. Unfortunately for her, I don't think she is politically savvy enough to realize it, and her part of the ticket seems to be run by the attack oriented Neo-con faction of the campaign.

[Young Drachma]

What do they do about it exactly? Most of the stories involving these things include a statement from a real GOP official condemning the racist sentiment.

Condemn it and make an honest, actual effort to understand the issues of folks from those communities, in the same way the Dems have made a conscious effort to court the faith communities in this country.

There are lots of conservatives of color in the country of varying stripes, but no one wants to be part of a party that they don't feel welcome in. Maybe do more than just assume that picking someone who is black will be enough to get blacks to cross over.

I know it's hard for folks to believe in 2008, but minority (specifically, blacks) aren't a monolith.

[Klinglerware]

I know it's hard for folks to believe in 2008, but minority (specifically, blacks) aren't a monolith.

Very true. When I worked in the polling world, I was always astounded that 20% of the gay population consistently voted Republican, in spite of that party's generally hostile policies with regards to gay rights.

Voters (especially when they are talked about in terms of demographic blocs) are often more complicated than they are given credit for. At the heart, voters are issues-driven: but the issues that drive any individual voter may not be the ones you think ought to be important to them, merely based on demographic identification. For example, why would those 20% of gay voters vote Republican? Maybe there are issues more important to him or her than gay marriage, etc.

With that being said, it is often the case that a political party can do poorly with vast majorities of a demographic group, such as the Republican Party with 80% of the gay population. But the reason why party x does poorly with demographic group y isn't because of something inherent about demographic group y, it's because party x's policies are often really not in the interests of the vast majority of demographic group y.

[larrymcg421]

DC is right. We just saw in 2006 that simply presenting African-American candidates didn't translate to many votes for the GOP. Blackwell, Swann, Steele all went down. While they got a higher% of the African-American vote than usual, it was still a very low number. I think Steele had the highest and it was only around 25%.

As for condemning each racist thing, after a while, that's not enough. It's like the whole thing we saw with Hillary this year. Some surrogate would say something stupid and insulting. Hillary condemns it. The person apologizes and/or steps down. Another surrogate says something stupid or insulting. Hilary condemns it. Rinse and repeat. It's one of the reasons I stopped supporting Clinton and switched to Obama.

At some point, you've got to go beyond issuing one sentence condemnations to the press, or refuting some crazies at a campaign rally. There comes a time where you need to do something broad and sweeping. I haven't seen it yet. Obama gave his race speech. Maybe it's time McCain gave his.

[GrantDawg]

Very true. When I worked in the polling world, I was always astounded that 20% of the gay population consistently voted Republican, in spite of that party's generally hostile policies with regards to gay rights.

Voters (especially when they are talked about in terms of demographic blocs) are often more complicated than they are given credit for. At the heart, voters are issues-driven: but the issues that drive any individual voter may not be the ones you think ought to be important to them, merely based on demographic identification. For example, why would those 20% of gay voters vote Republican? Maybe there are issues more important to him or her than gay marriage, etc.

With that being said, it is often the case that a political party can do poorly with vast majorities of a demographic group, such as the Republican Party with 80% of the gay population. But the reason why party x does poorly with demographic group y isn't because of something inherent about demographic group y, it's because party x's policies are often really not in the interests of the vast majority of demographic group y.


One of the most conservative people I know is a lesbian. She's also a racist, so I don't know what that says.

[larrymcg421]

There's some buzz going around that Colin Powell will soon endorse Barack Obama, possibly this weekend on Meet the Press.

[Flasch186]

As an aside:

this goofball shoud be run out of town"

Rep. Mahoney admits affairs, says he broke no laws



By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press Writer Brian Skoloff, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 8 mins ago
Featured Topics:

In this Oct. 26, 2006 file photo, Democrat Tim Mahoney waits for the start of AP – In this Oct. 26, 2006 file photo, Democrat Tim Mahoney waits for the start of a debate, at a West Palm …

PALM BEACH GARDENS, Fla. – U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney, embroiled in an adultery scandal and a tight race for re-election, admitted Friday to having at least two affairs but insisted he broke no laws and will not resign. The first-term Democrat conceded that one of the affairs began as he was running on a family values platform to replace Mark Foley, a Republican who resigned amid revelations that he sent lurid Internet messages to male pages who had worked on Capitol Hill as teenagers.

Mahoney, 52, apologized to his wife, his daughter and his constituents, even as he maintained he hadn't been hypocritical.

"I can understand why people would feel that way and for those people, all I can say is, 'I'm sorry I let you down,'" Mahoney said in his first set of interviews since news broke this week that he had a sexual relationship with Patricia Allen, 50, whom he met while campaigning in 2006.

Allen went to work for Mahoney's congressional office, then his campaign. Mahoney said she was fired for performance issues, not because of the affair.

Allen threatened to sue Mahoney for sexual harassment, and they reached a settlement to avoid a public airing. Her payout came from Mahoney's personal accounts, not from campaign funds or federal dollars, he said.

Allen has not returned repeated telephone calls.

[SirFozzie]

As an aside:

this goofball shoud be run out of town"

Agreed. Step down. Not after the election, but NOW. As I said in the thread I created on this issue, is there something in the water in Florida, that makes their congressmen think with their dicks? (and their various preferences).

[Mike D]

There's some buzz going around that Colin Powell will soon endorse Barack Obama, possibly this weekend on Meet the Press.

They've had reports and buzz like this for about 6 months now. What I do know is that the GOP is a sinking ship right now and if you like politics and aren't a Democrat, there isn't really anything for you to do! So who knows.

[JPhillips]

MN Republican Michelle Bachman went crazy on Hardball. She claimed Obama is anti-American and asked for a press investigation of congress to find out which other Dems are anti-American.

This came after Palin told a NC crowd that she likes visiting the pro-America parts of the country.

And in really crazy land a few talk show hosts and a bunch of blogs spent time decrying Obama's alteration of the US flag. It appears he added an O and changed the shape. Luckily the altered flag was just the state flag of Ohio.

[Flasch186]

she really did call for investigations into who in congress is un-american. Supposedly her competitor in the MN race has seen a substantial spike in donations since it happened.

[DaddyTorgo]

she really did call for investigations into who in congress is un-american. Supposedly her competitor in the MN race has seen a substantial spike in donations since it happened.

nice!! HUACx2!!!!

[Big Fo]

she really did call for investigations into who in congress is un-american. Supposedly her competitor in the MN race has seen a substantial spike in donations since it happened.

$30,000 since she appeared on Hardball at 5pm EST.

Here's the youtube.com link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESdA52S4Dbg)

Arguably a new low for the Republicans this election season, if that's still possible.

edit: Make that $70,000

[flere-imsaho]

It would appear that the only Republicans not ashamed of the GOP brand in this election cycle are the ones who made the brand something to be ashamed of in the first place.

[GrantDawg]

MN Republican Michelle Bachman went crazy on Hardball. She claimed Obama is anti-American and asked for a press investigation of congress to find out which other Dems are anti-American.

She's riding on that train to nuts-ville.

[Arles]

Investor's business daily/TIPP poll from Thursday shows Obama 45, McCain 42. It's a phone poll of likely voters (don't know the internals though):

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/PollsPopUp.aspx?id=309042090194597

This was from the site:
In 2004, TIPP, a Division of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, came within 3/10 of 1% point of President Bush's actual margin of victory, thus winning the title of "Nation's Most Accurate Pollster."

[Big Fo]

Dang, it's weird to see Obama up in the 25-44 and 45-64 age groups while McCain is up in the 18-24 and 65+ age groups. It could be sample size related, there aren't that many 18-24 year old voters relative to the other groups.

[larrymcg421]

Investor's business daily/TIPP poll from Thursday shows Obama 45, McCain 42. It's a phone poll of likely voters (don't know the internals though):

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/PollsPopUp.aspx?id=309042090194597

This was from the site:

Today's poll from the same firm shows a 46-41 lead.

[JPhillips]

This sign was at the John McCain headquarters in Pompano Beach.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/antiobamasign-thumb.jpg

[Arles]

That's terrible. I'll be glad when this election is over. People on both sides just have too much invested in their candidates. And, whenever one is down and looks like he will lose, their side goes bananas.

[SirFozzie]

agreed Arlie. Someone called the breakdown between "hardcore Red" states and "Hardcore Blue" states a "Cold Civil War", and I'm not so sure that doesn't fit the situation.

[Flasch186]

fear.....8 years of it led us to this space were in now, IMO.

[Arles]

fear.....8 years of it led us to this space were in now, IMO.
I don't buy that. It was worse back in 2000 by both sides. You had leftist groups says black churches would burn if Bush was elected, the despicable ad showing a black man drug by chains in texas saying it would happen again if Bush was elected (because he wasn't in favor of hate crimes) and people burning signs of "Bush" after he was elected. On the right, you had the terrible claim against McCain in South Carolina about fathering a child from a black woman, Gore was going to destroy the combustible engine and kill the morality of the country because of Clinton.

Whatever season we are in always seems to be the "worst ever", but there have been some pretty terrible things done by both sides in the past 20 years. Basically, whomever is losing in the final 4 weeks goes nuts and makes all kinds of crazy claims to make up ground. In 2000 and 2004, Bush was called a terrorist, there were movies made about his assassination, the Rather made-up documents, the DUI claim, dolls of him were burned in effigy and you had signs like "kill the real terrorist - George Bush" and pictures of him with blood and knives stuck in them. 2008 is like a choir party compared to the anger/insanity against Bush four years ago.

In fairness, the right went pretty nuts against Clinton, but 2004 was about as bad as I can remember. I can't imagine what the left would do if signs were made at an event saying ""kill the real terrorist - Barack Obama" with a picture of his face with a knife in it and blood rolling down. That was par for the course against Bush in 2004.

[GrantDawg]

In fairness, the right went pretty nuts against Clinton, but 2004 was about as bad as I can remember. I can't imagine what the left would do if signs were made at an event saying ""kill the real terrorist - Barack Obama" with a picture of his face with a knife in it and blood rolling down. That was par for the course against Bush in 2004.


Yeah, you're right. We get pretty myopic around election times and forget how ugly it truly got 4 years before. The far left definitely went extreme 4 years ago, and we be seeing a lot more of that now if Obama was down. That's not to say there isn't going to be even worse things coming from the far right as we get closer to the end, and if Obama gets elected. It will probably get worse.

[Flasch186]

Im sorry Arles, when Cheney linked Iraq to 9/11 in the debates after that theory had been debunked it was a play on fear. When they played ads of wolves creeping through the forest it was a play on fear. When they said if you vote for Kerry you'll be opening our country up for attack (insinuating that a vote for W would secure our country moreso) was a play on fear. When W says the words, "Axis of Evil" it is a play on fear.

This isnt a specific claim of fear in an isolated campaign but an overall theme that the GOP has perpetrated since 9/11 and a successful one at that.

[Arles]

Im sorry Arles, when Cheney linked Iraq to 9/11 in the debates after that theory had been debunked it was a play on fear. When they played ads of wolves creeping through the forest it was a play on fear. When they said if you vote for Kerry you'll be opening our country up for attack (insinuating that a vote for W would secure our country moreso) was a play on fear. When W says the words, "Axis of Evil" it is a play on fear.

This isnt a specific claim of fear in an isolated campaign but an overall theme that the GOP has perpetrated since 9/11 and a successful one at that.
My point wasn't that the left was by far the worst. My point was that both sides have been doing this for 20 years and it always worse on the favorite. It was terrible against Carter in the early 80s, awful against Reagan, despicable against Clinton in the 90s and almost scary against Bush in 2004. The only real exception was in 2000 when there really wasn't a clear favorite and both sides went a little nuts.

But, hey, if you want to blame the terrible treatment of Reagan, Carter and Clinton on George W Bush and Dick Cheney, have at it. I'm sure it's a compelling argument.

[Buccaneer]

Whatever season we are in always seems to be the "worst ever", but there have been some pretty terrible things done by both sides in the past 20 years.

More than that. :)

Flasch, you really don't have much perspective do you? Do you realize how myopic you sound?

[ISiddiqui]

Yep, listen to the old man ;).

Really this worst ever crap gets a bit old. Something to do when you are bored is read how utterly nasty campaigns were in the 1800s, when people were accusing the other side of all sorts of shit, like fathering bastards all over Washington and things like that.

[Buccaneer]

Not to mention actual physical violence and having to put family members into hiding. Actually, I wasn't going back that far - just read about 1968. But I do agree that 2000 was much worse than 2008, except some people can't even remember back that far.

[Flasch186]

More than that. :)

Flasch, you really don't have much perspective do you? Do you realize how myopic you sound?

Well I havnt lived as long as you so I guess my opinion shouldnt count unless of course it agrees with you, than it's fine. And please find where I used the word 'ever'...I didnt. So Myopia is an absolutely ridiculous thing to debate when I wasnt comparing my statement above to anything other than my statement above but thanks for throwing that out there Bucc. You do realize how trollish you sound?

[Big Fo]

Someone posted a link to a site with that kind of stuff many pages ago, it was ridiculous.

[duckman]

You do realize how trollish you sound?
You realize how ignorant you sound?

[Flasch186]

oh look a Duckman sighting. Lets see what he has to say. And he apparently hit macro 4 on his keyboard.

[Flasch186]

the best part about Duckman's relationship to me is that it gets traced back all the way to his support for Rumsfeld (and W) and my lack of support for Rumsfeld (and W). Crazy how that transitioned out of politics and into his psyche in regards to other things involving me at FOFC (and Real Life for him). Strange to me but that's Duckman's world.

[duckman]

oh look a Duckman sighting. Lets see what he has to say. And he apparently hit macro 4 on his keyboard.
Got anymore pictures of you and your friends to show how wonderful you are?


What a giant piece of shit you are!

[duckman]

the best part about Duckman's relationship to me is that it gets traced back all the way to his support for Rumsfeld and my lack of support for Rumsfeld. Carzy how that transitioned out of politics and into his psyche. Strange to me but that's Duckman's world.
Show me a fucking quote that I explicitly supported Rumsfield, POS.

[Flasch186]

not worth my time.

[duckman]

not worth my time.
So says the hypocrite.

[Flasch186]

how are you and your friends doing on your Facebook page that has pictures on it of you and them? BTW that's not a bad thing in my opinion and Im glad you have a ton of friends who support you in your pursuit of being a teacher (there was a thread about that I think) and helping out kids.

[Flasch186]

DOLA

You know in retrospect it probably wasnt our differences on Rumsfeld (youre right), I believe it was your condonement of the behaviour(s) in Iraq and support of the war (and my attacks on the field manual in regards to torture). I think, IIRC, that to boil it down to the differences on Rumsfeld would be inaccurate and wrong but than somehow you twisted it into me being a liar and living a lie and stuff and being different on here than I am in real life. Good times.

Anyways, no need to hijack the thread as the debate about one of the worst run campaigns ever (myopic, perhaps, but W's 2 campaign's were 2 of the best run ever), Obama's patriotism, and polling....is very interesting stuff. At least more interesting than your hatred for a person youve never met.

[Crapshoot]

Flasch, you're looking stupid. I disagree with Duckman on plenty, but he's been fairly intellectually honest as long as I can recall here, and has admitted when he has been wrong on the issues.

[Flasch186]

I didnt say he's wrong, just silly for hating me for the reasons he does and pointing out the history of it which I again think is silly to actually have hatred for. Needless to add, I dont hate him by any means or anyone on the FOFC for that matter.

Edit to add: BubbaWheels did get on my nerves but i still didnt hate him.

[Flasch186]

back on track:

McCain draws bipartisan criticism for 'robo calls' - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081018/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_robo_calls)

It seems the robocalls ARE something that the parties can reach across party lines on.

LAS VEGAS – Two senators in opposing political parties asked Republican presidential candidate John McCain to stop the automated phone calls that link Democratic candidate Barack Obama to a 1960s radical.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, and Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, made separate appeals to McCain on Friday. Collins faces a tough race for re-election and serves as a co-chairwoman of his Maine campaign.

"These kind of tactics have no place in Maine politics," Collins spokesman Kevin Kelley said. "Sen. Collins urges the McCain campaign to stop these calls immediately."

In Nevada, a four-page campaign flier mailed this week by the state Republican Party also focused on Obama's past relationship with former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers, calling the college professor a "terrorist, radical, friend of Obama" and featuring several images of Obama and Ayers.

Reid told reporters at a news conference in Las Vegas that he's surprised at the "scummy" tactics employed by McCain's presidential campaign and "can't believe John McCain knows what's going on."

The McCain campaign says the calls are warranted because Obama's connection to Ayers — the two met many years after Ayers' anti-Vietnam War activities had ended — raises questions about the Democrat's judgment and record.

"This is an association that is highly questionable and not out of bounds," McCain spokesman Rick Gorka said.

The automated calls in Maine, Nevada and other states — they are commonly known as "robo calls" — say Obama "has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans." The charge is misleading: The bombings, which took place more than 35 years ago, didn't result in fatalities and the group didn't claim responsibility for the attack on the judge's home.

Obama has condemned Ayers' radical activities, which took place in the late 1960s and the 1970s, when Obama was a child. In the debate Wednesday with McCain, Obama said Ayers played no role in his presidential campaign.

Ayers, an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, lives in Obama's neighborhood in Chicago. In 1995, he hosted a meet-the-candidate session at his home as the young Harvard Law School graduate prepared to run for the Illinois Senate. The two also worked with two nonprofit charitable organizations in Chicago.

[GrantDawg]

back on track:

McCain draws bipartisan criticism for 'robo calls' - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081018/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_robo_calls)

It seems the robocalls ARE something that the parties can reach across party lines on.


I just love the whole "Obama has never answered the questions on this relationship" when he has many times and been collaborated by many sources. What they mean to say is "Obama hasn't answered the questions the way we like."

[Arles]

Yeah, McCain's on the ropes and I cringe at what the next 3 weeks will be like.

[Flasch186]

Yeah, McCain's on the ropes and I cringe at what the next 3 weeks will be like.

you and me both and you know the strangest part is that I dont think it had to be anything like this. It's as if the week in which he chose Palin was the beginning of some sort of bizarro world. His management team truly have been exposed as inept IMO and it's a shame because it truly seemed to go down a path it didn't have to for his campaign.

[rowech]

Let's say that all undecided votes go to McCain and somehow McCain wins. Or, worse yet, suppose Obama wins the popular and loses the electoral...

How bad would Obama supporters be? Will we literally see rioting throughout the country?

[Flasch186]

I hope not, my view is that whomever gets the most votes deserves to be the President (obviously I was a bit upset with how Florida turned out last time with the whole stop the count stuff) but when all is said and done and all the votes are counted (accurately) whomever wins deserves it.

[molson]

Let's say that all undecided votes go to McCain and somehow McCain wins. Or, worse yet, suppose Obama wins the popular and loses the electoral...

How bad would Obama supporters be? Will we literally see rioting throughout the country?

This came up a couple of times in this thread, but I don't think there'd be any kind of unrest if Obama wins the popular but McCain clearly wins the electorate.

However, if there's a deciding state decided by >1000 or so votes, there will be talk of things not being on the level, and that's where I think we'd see some issues in some parts of the country.

[Flasch186]

you could have mini-riots anywhere though for any reason. A convenience store runs out of a slurpee and someone could get shot, you never know these days.

[larrymcg421]

McCain is gaining some ground in the national trackers. The RCP average is now +6.5 for Obama. However, what's interesting is he hasn't made much headway in the battleground states. He's still getting hammered in PA and WI. The latest Rasmussen polls show Obama actually gaining ground in Colorado, Nevada, and Missouri.

It seems that McCain's recent strategy may only be paying off by running up the score in his solid red states. I do wonder about his strategy. He's still contesting Iowa and Pennsylvania for some reason. He's got these robocalls in Maine that were even denounced by Susan Collins. Why is he even making them in Maine in the first place?

Likewise, the GOP Senate Chair John Ensign has made some bewildering decisions. He announced they were pulling ads out of of Louisiana, then changed his mind. Then he announces they're gonna pull ads in Colorado, then changed his mind. So all he does is guarantee at least a full day's worth of bad press for his candidates that are already struggling.

[Flasch186]

Can it get any more divisive? I honestly dont understand McCain's strategy right now:
McCain aide says he's strong in 'real' Virginia - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081018/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_real_virginia#full)
McCain aide says he's strong in 'real' Virginia


By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Glen Johnson, Associated Press Writer – 3 mins ago
Featured Topics:
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., waves to supporters AP – Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., waves to supporters as he leaves his headquarters …

WOODBRIDGE, Va. – A top aide to John McCain said Saturday the Republican presidential nominee still has a strong chance of winning the state because of his support in "real Virginia," the downstate areas far removed in distance and political philosophy from the more liberal northern part of the state.

"As a proud resident of Oakton, Va., I can tell you that the Democrats have just come in from the District of Columbia and moved into northern Virginia," McCain senior adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer said on MSNBC. "And that's really what you see there. But the rest of the state, real Virginia, if you will, I think will be very responsive to Sen. McCain's message."

Program host Kevin Corke asked Pfotenhauer if she wanted to retract the comment, prompting her to reply, "I mean 'real Virginia' because northern Virginia is where I've always been, but 'real Virginia' I take to be the — this part of the state that is more Southern in nature, if you will. Northern Virginia is really metro D.C."

Earlier this month, McCain's brother, Joe, told those at an event for the Republican nominee that two Democratic-leaning areas in Northern Virginia, Arlington and Alexandria, were "communist country." He quickly apologized and called the remark a joke.

The senator's campaign headquarters is in Arlington, as is the home he uses while in Washington. McCain also attended high school in Alexandria.

Northern Virginia is the most populous in the state, so if McCain considers it enemy territory, he would have to run up large margins in the Hampton Roads and less populated areas of Virginia to win on Election Day. During a rally in the Washington suburb of Woodbridge, Va., on Saturday, McCain noted that his first posting in the Navy was in coastal Norfolk.

Democrats not only control the Virginia governor's office, but Democrat Jim Webb succeeded in 2006 in ousting Republican Sen. George Allen. Veteran Sen. John Warner, R-Va., is retiring this year and former Democratic Gov. Mark Warner is vying with former Republican Gov. Jim Gilmore to succeed him.

The popularity of Mark Warner has led some to suggest he may boost Democrat Barack Obama's chances, rather than the opposite.

One recent poll showed McCain trailing Obama by up to 8 percentage points in the Old Dominion, but political analysts believe the race may be closer. McCain was making a push to hold onto Virginia, which President Bush won in 2004.

Besides his rally in Woodbridge, McCain's campaign was launching a downstate bus tour on Sunday with Todd Palin, the husband of his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

One of those attending McCain's rally said she wasn't sure about the geographical split of the state.

"I just hope that the state of Virginia will continue to support and continue to be a red state," said 45-year-old Diane Fuller of Manassas.

[Daimyo]

Palin's been using "real" as well... are they trying to bait the race-card to be played?

[Flasch186]

dunno, im baffled.

[larrymcg421]

Not only have they been saying "real Virginia", but Palin was recently talking about "pro-America" parts of the country. Glad the "OMG the other side is unpatriotic" crap we've had to endure the last 8 years from Bush is going to continue if McCain gets elected.

[JPhillips]

Got my first polling call of the season. It came out of Princeton for "a major newspaper". My guess is USA Today. The demo questions that I'm sure were geared towards the likely voter screen were interesting. There was also a section of religious questions that included asking the religion of Obama that included Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Christian.

[Tigercat]

There was also a section of religious questions that included asking the religion of Obama that included Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Christian.

They will never get accurate answers if three of the options mean the same thing.

[Young Drachma]

Sarah Palin On SNL With Tina Fey, Weekend Update's Alaska Rap, Baldwin And Wahlberg (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/18/sarah-palin-on-snl-with-t_n_135887.html)

Amy Poehler did good work in video 2.

[Flasch186]

Sarah Palin did a very good job!

Those were great and Palin dancing is a classic moment on SNL. If on ly they could get us to watch the whole show.

[JPhillips]

Damn.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama reports raising more than $150 million in September in an unprecedented eruption of political giving.

[Big Fo]

More W.Va. voters say machines are switching votes

WINFIELD, W.Va. -- Three Putnam County voters say electronic voting machines changed their votes from Democrats to Republicans when they cast early ballots last week.

This is the second West Virginia county where voters have reported this problem. Last week, three voters in Jackson County told The Charleston Gazette their electronic vote for "Barack Obama" kept flipping to "John McCain".

...

WVGazette.com (http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200810180251)
Things might turn ugly on Election Day. In Wisconsin it already has:

Obama Campaign Worker Allegedly Attacked

CALEDONIA, Wis. -- Police in Caledonia are investigating the assault of a campaign volunteer as she was canvassing for Senator Barack Obama Saturday afternoon.

In an exclusive interview with 12 News, 58 year-old Nancy Takehara of Chicago says she was going door-to-door when she came across a disgruntled homeowner.

“The next thing I know he’s telling us we’re not his people, we’re probably with ACORN, and he started screaming and raving,” Takehara said. “He grabbed me by the back of the neck. I thought he was going to rip my hair out of my head. He was pounding on my head and screaming. The man terrified me.”

...

wisn.com (http://www.wisn.com/politics/17754232/detail.html)

Assaulting a 58 year old woman... wow. Unlike the Republicans' economic policies it looks like their hate-filled rhetoric does have a trickle-down effect.

[Jas_lov]

Colin Powell is supposed to announce that he's endorsing Barack Obama on MTP today.

[Big Fo]

It happened a few minutes ago for those on the East Coast.

[Flasch186]

Boo yah, Game set match:

Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama for president


By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer – 19 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president, describing the Illinois senator as a "transformational figure."

Powell says both Obama and Republican John McCain are qualified to be commander in chief. But, in an interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," he said Obama is better suited to handle the nation's economic problems as well as help improve it's standing in the world.

Powell expressed disappointment in the negative tone of McCain's campaign, as well as in his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential nominee. Powell says he does not believe Palin is ready to take over as president, if necessary.

Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama for president - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081019/ap_on_el_pr/powell)

I sincerely hope that this moment, which I think is a game changer, allows McCain (Palin) to run a campaign that takes a positive tone until the end (whatever the end is). I hope but I know I may be naiive.

[GrantDawg]

It happened a few minutes ago for those on the East Coast.


Unless you're in Atlanta I guess. It still has 10 minutes before coming on. Thanks for the spoiler. Gosh! :D

[Big Fo]

Huh, I thought Meet the Press was 9 a.m. local time across the country. Anyway it's all over the cable networks and internet by now.

The Drudge Report is so subtle:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v63/Madridexpo/Misc/powellendor.jpg

[sachmo71]

Things might turn ugly on Election Day. In Wisconsin it already has:



Assaulting a 58 year old woman... wow. Unlike the Republicans' economic policies it looks like their hate-filled rhetoric does have a trickle-down effect.

more likely you will run into these isolated cases as the "get out the vote" continues. more door to door = more exposure to crazies in their lairs. it's hard to blame either party for the actions of one person.

[Buccaneer]

more likely you will run into these isolated cases as the "get out the vote" continues. more door to door = more exposure to crazies in their lairs. it's hard to blame either party for the actions of one person.

But they do it all of the time. It's so easy to stand apart and point a finger at a bad action and say "see, that's what all of you are like".

By the way, I can see Powell's reasons being persuasive.

[Big Fo]

But they do it all of the time. It's so easy to stand apart and point a finger at a bad action and say "see, that's what all of you are like".

By the way, I can see Powell's reasons being persuasive.

I never implied that all Republicans are hate-mongers that assault 58 year old women.

[Buccaneer]

I never implied that all Republicans are hate-mongers that assault 58 year old women.

I did not imply that you did. Sach was just making a general observation that I agree with.

[CamEdwards]

Assaulting a 58 year old woman... wow. Unlike the Republicans' economic policies it looks like their hate-filled rhetoric does have a trickle-down effect.

Pajamas Media » Obama Supporter Assaults Female McCain Volunteer in New York (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-supporter-assaults-female-mccain-volunteer-in-new-york/)

Looks like a middle aged female McCain supporter was attacked by an Obama supporter. Too bad it happened in New York City, far away from the networks and major media outlets that could report on such a story. :p

There are nutjobs on both sides... in fact, isn't that part of the problem these days? Too many nutjobs in general? :)

[SirFozzie]

Obama campaign to announce that they raised over $150 million in September Holee shit. The previous high was like $87 million in one month.

[GrantDawg]

Huh, I thought Meet the Press was 9 a.m. local time across the country. Anyway it's all over the cable networks and internet by now.

The Drudge Report is so subtle:



I was joking about the spoiler. I have no idea why Atlanta has it on later.

[Buccaneer]

I would think all that money being raised by the political parties could go to better use instead of paying for commercials and buy time that everyone is sick of (not to mention the junk mail), as well as to bribe the population to do their duty. But money talks and all is fair in the war for political supremacy.

[Flasch186]

isnt it possible neither were attacked actually?

[sachmo71]

isnt it possible neither were attacked actually?

of course it is, but I don't doubt this will happen. The fact is, as far as politics, it should be irrelevant. unfortunately, it won't be.

[Flasch186]

BTW in agreement of Bucc somewhat I wonder if the long Obama TV "ad" could result in a bit of fatigue. The whole ROI theory which truly was proven by Palin in this campaign as valid. If the 'ad' isnt done well it could result in a bit of that 'Im sick of this crap already' attitude.

[Buccaneer]

I actually go one step further in saying the better use should not go to political campaigning but to the many needs in this country and world.

[Big Fo]

Pajamas Media » Obama Supporter Assaults Female McCain Volunteer in New York (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-supporter-assaults-female-mccain-volunteer-in-new-york/)

Looks like a middle aged female McCain supporter was attacked by an Obama supporter. Too bad it happened in New York City, far away from the networks and major media outlets that could report on such a story. :p

There are nutjobs on both sides... in fact, isn't that part of the problem these days? Too many nutjobs in general? :)

Yeah, we've some some crazies too, no shocker there.

I love that website by the way, it's very entertaining. Some of the people commenting on articles make Sean Hannity look like a Daily Kos poster. I'll definitely bookmark that one for Election Night and the aftermath.

[Flasch186]

I actually go one step further in saying the better use should not go to political campaigning but to the many needs in this country and world.

I buy that but until someone is elected im not sure either campaign can see beyond that.

[Young Drachma]

The stakes are too high for people to vote for McCain simply because of Obama fatigue. These guys have been hitting it out of the park for months now more often than not, I think the ad is high risk, high reward but...surely they need to have someone planned to put a coda on this presidential race.

[Young Drachma]

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/48fb65f4ef2d7cb4/48fb147f2d4fd647/df53a618/-cpid/7e6914e1d1abfb67/clipID/773781/video_title/Saturday+Night+Live+-+Update%3a+Palin+Rap?storeInPid=true" id="W4727a250e66f972348fb65f4ef2d7cb4" width="384" height="283"><param name="movie" value="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/48fb65f4ef2d7cb4/48fb147f2d4fd647/df53a618/-cpid/7e6914e1d1abfb67/clipID/773781/video_title/Saturday+Night+Live+-+Update%3a+Palin+Rap?storeInPid=true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /></object>

[Flasch186]

But Obama doesnt need high risk/reward right now. Steady and slow wouls suffice if the polls are true.

[Young Drachma]

Polls are not reflective of the generational shift and so, I'm inclined not to believe them. Especially not this year.

[sachmo71]

Polls are not reflective of the generational shift and so, I'm inclined not to believe them. Especially not this year.

I'm in that camp too. I keep thinking the election will be closer than people think, but some of the things i hear about the groundswell of Obama support with the young voters make me think that there will be a lot of "we didn't expect that" from the experts after it's over.

[Buccaneer]

Should they only poll those of a particular generation or should they stick with a representative sample of all likely voters? Besides, there was one poll that showed McCain doing well with the 18-24 group.

[Schmidty]

A ton of yard signs, window signs and bumper stickers endorsing McCain have been spray-painted, ripped apart, and defaced in other ways around here. Vehicles have been dented and painted too. That just goes to show you how mature and open-minded liberals around here are.

I'm not voting for either candidate, I'm voting for crazy-ass Ron Paul, but I hope Obama fucking loses. He, and his supporters are beyond obnoxious. It's like a communist revolution around (and I assume other places as well).

[GrantDawg]

A ton of yard signs, window signs and bumper stickers endorsing McCain have been spray-painted, ripped apart, and defaced in other ways around here. Vehicles have been dented and painted too. That just goes to show you how mature and open-minded liberals around here are.

I'm not voting for either candidate, I'm voting for crazy-ass Ron Paul, but I hope Obama fucking loses. He, and his supporters are beyond obnoxious. It's like a communist revolution around (and I assume other places as well).

How about a bit of racism? I had the distinct displeasure yesterday of witnessing a bit of the right-wing anger. A man's truck parked in his driveway, vandalized with the N-word and "NObama" all over it. *sigh*

A bit of vandalizing idiots on both sides.

[GrantDawg]

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/48fb65f4ef2d7cb4/48fb147f2d4fd647/df53a618/-cpid/7e6914e1d1abfb67/clipID/773781/video_title/Saturday+Night+Live+-+Update%3a+Palin+Rap?storeInPid=true" id="W4727a250e66f972348fb65f4ef2d7cb4" width="384" height="283">



</object>


Just watched the episode. Just classic.

[Big Fo]

Following up from a post a few pages back, Democratic House nominee El Tinklenberg has now raised $450,000 in 24 hours since incumbent Michelle Bachmann's McCarthyist rant on Hardball, exceeding what he had raised in the past three months and making up nearly a third of his total fund-raising to date.

He's down a few points in the polls, I'd love seeing that woman voted out of office.

St. Cloud Times (http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081019/NEWS01/110180039&s=d&page=#pluckcomments)

[molson]

A bit of vandalizing idiots on both sides.

True, which makes it so irritating when either side tries to paint the opposition with the brush of the extreme. We see more liberals doing that in this thread, just because there's more liberals here, I guess.

[ISiddiqui]

I really don't understand why Powell endorsing Obama was supposed to be a big deal. He's been supposed to have done it for months.

The Chicago Tribune's endorsement of Obama, OTOH, is far more significant.

[Buccaneer]

If the Tribune hadn't, they may have been faced with even more declining subscriptions and revenues.

[larrymcg421]

I really don't understand why Powell endorsing Obama was supposed to be a big deal. He's been supposed to have done it for months.

The Chicago Tribune's endorsement of Obama, OTOH, is far more significant.

The Chicago Tribune's endorsement is significant insofar as it is the first time they've endorsed a Dem (they even endorsed Ike against Adlai). However, it is unlikely that it will translate to many votes. Not many people will know this fact. The few that pass by an article mentioning this will see "Chicago" and assume it was a given.

The Powell endorsement may have been rumored for a while, but rumors certainly don't translate to votes as much as an official endorsement that will be talked about in the press all week long. Given that Virginia and Florida are two big swing states, if this endorsement dips into McCain's advantage among the military voters just a little bit, it could be significant.

[JPhillips]

It's not so much Powell's endorsement as the way he tore down the McCain campaign and the current Republican establishment. The question is whether Powell's critique of what McCain has become will resonate with swing voters.

[Flasch186]

The Chicago Tribune's endorsement is significant insofar as it is the first time they've endorsed a Dem (they even endorsed Ike against Adlai). However, it is unlikely that it will translate to many votes. Not many people will know this fact. The few that pass by an article mentioning this will see "Chicago" and assume it was a given.

The Powell endorsement may have been rumored for a while, but rumors certainly don't translate to votes as much as an official endorsement that will be talked about in the press all week long. Given that Virginia and Florida are two big swing states, if this endorsement dips into McCain's advantage among the military voters just a little bit, it could be significant.

bullseye

[DaddyTorgo]

just watched MTP...Powell absolutely eviscerated the Republican party -- pretty shocking for someone who was widely talked about as a potential candidate 2 elections ago, and someone who was a key member of the administration as recently as 3 years ago

[rowech]

just watched MTP...Powell absolutely eviscerated the Republican party -- pretty shocking for someone who was widely talked about as a potential candidate 2 elections ago, and someone who was a key member of the administration as recently as 3 years ago

As I've said elsewhere in this thread...the Republican party, simply put, isn't the Republican party as it should be.

[JonInMiddleGA]

someone who was widely talked about as a potential candidate 2 elections ago

Which was something that found bewildering at the time and why this endorsement really doesn't come as any particular surprise.

[DaddyTorgo]

Which was something that found bewildering at the time and why this endorsement really doesn't come as any particular surprise.

to you. but i think you are vastly more intelligent and well-informed than the people whose eyebrows this endorsement might raise.

[JonInMiddleGA]

to you. but i think you are vastly more intelligent and well-informed than the people whose eyebrows this endorsement might raise.

Heh, while that sounds nice & I appreciate it and all, I'm not sure how much intelligence would be needed to anticipate this move. A little common sense maybe but that's about it I think.

[DaddyTorgo]

Heh, while that sounds nice & I appreciate it and all, I'm not sure how much intelligence would be needed to anticipate this move. A little common sense maybe but that's about it I think.

believe me, i don't think the endorsement itself is worth much, but if the whole interview gets playing time on the news, or in obama-commercials, i think there are some pretty good soundbites

[JonInMiddleGA]

believe me, i don't think the endorsement itself is worth much, but if the whole interview gets playing time on the news, or in obama-commercials, i think there are some pretty good soundbites

You could be right but at this point it seems to be little more than a small dab of icing on a fairly large cake.

[Flasch186]

just watched MTP...Powell absolutely eviscerated the Republican party -- pretty shocking for someone who was widely talked about as a potential candidate 2 elections ago, and someone who was a key member of the administration as recently as 3 years ago

eh, just a disgruntled ex-employee like all the rest.

[Flasch186]

Heh, while that sounds nice & I appreciate it and all, I'm not sure how much intelligence would be needed to anticipate this move. A little common sense maybe but that's about it I think.

say this to yourself and give the Jon response please lest we all be disappointed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

say this to yourself and give the Jon response please lest we all be disappointed.

Huh?

[Flasch186]

you make a comment about people having 'common sense' and I expected if you'd read that typed out from me you wouldve had some witty sharp tongued comment. I fed it back to you on a platter and want to see you hit it out of the park...I mean it is your sweet spot :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

you make a comment about people having 'common sense' and I expected if you'd read that typed out from me you wouldve had some witty sharp tongued comment. I fed it back to you on a platter and want to see you hit it out of the park...I mean it is your sweet spot :)

Flasch, you're babbling. Let me see if I can help though, what the hell, the bandwidth cost is minimal.

Anybody paying the slightest bit of attention should have seen this coming, just by applying a little common sense; i.e. in this case take the evidence at hand and see how it might be applied to a given question.

Powell was always a RINO at most (would have been a good philosophical running mate for McCain ironically enough). His endorsement of Obama was predictable enough and by the time we reached this stage the only suspense was whether or not he wanted to have a few more minutes of attention. Obviously he did so he publicly jumped on the bandwagon as it passed by (or before it passed him by).

I don't particularly go for the "disgruntled ex-employee" theory though. He never should have been (as SOS) an employee in the first place - he knew that and most people on the inside seem to have known that (albeit later than they should have figured it out). I don't think he's any less "gruntled" today than he was yesterday, or now versus a year ago, or since he was fired versus before he was fired. In other words, I don't think this has anything to do with his ex-employee status (as disgruntled ex-employee would imply), he was never gruntled in the first place.

[Buccaneer]

When Powell was mentioned was a presidential candidate a few years ago, there were much discussions as to which party. Don't you guys remember that at all?

[GrantDawg]

When Powell was mentioned was a presidential candidate a few years ago, there were much discussions as to which party. Don't you guys remember that at all?


I do. He picked Republican as his party at that time, but he was far from a classic Republican. This really isn't that big a shock.

[Arles]

Jan 7, 2008:
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell praised Barack Obama on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, crediting the Illinois Senator for breaking barriers while running as "an American man" who can represent the entire nation. In an interview with PBS host Tavis Smiley, Powell said he was "taking joy" in Obama's rise and he said citizens across the country can "enjoy this moment

403 Forbidden (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=267470)

June, 2008:
VANCOUVER -- Colin Powell, the former Republican secretary of state, says he is not ruling out a vote for Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee for president.While Mr. Powell served in the administrations of two Republican presidents, he suggested yesterday his support for presumed Republican nominee John McCain is not a forgone conclusion.

globeandmail.com: National (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20080613.BCPOWELL13%2FTPStory%2FNational&ord=16497967&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true)

This about as shocking as Joe Liebermann announcing he's voting for McCain. The only thing real surprising is how Powell (who's been "anti-political" for 8 years) is allowing himself to be used as a political pawn this late in the game. Still, it's his right - you just have to wonder if he decided to vote for Obama before the summer but was convinced to hold his endorsement until the final weeks as an "ace in the hole". Given his comments on the republican party, I think this is probably the case. And while some of his comments have merit, the timing causes me to lose some respect in Powell.

[Swaggs]

I think the significance of Powell's endorsement is that it will probably drive the news cycle for the next 2-3 days (giving McCain that much less time to earn any gamechanging/substantial press). It will probably also give some folks that were up in the air feel like it is okay to trust Obama, since Powell is pretty well-respected.

[SirFozzie]

Next time some one brings up ACORN to me, this is what I'll respond with

GOP voter registration fraud case leads to arrest - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fraud20-2008oct20,0,3842357.story)

SACRAMENTO -- The owner of a firm that the California Republican Party hired to register tens of thousands of voters this year was arrested in Ontario late last night on suspicion of voter registration fraud.

State and local investigators allege that Mark Jacoby fraudulently registered himself to vote at a childhood California address where he no longer lives so he would appear to meet the legal requirement that signature gatherers be eligible to vote in California.

Jacoby's arrest by state investigators and the Ontario Police Department comes after dozens of voters said they were duped into registering as Republicans by his firm, Young Political Majors, or YPM. The voters said YPM tricked them by saying they were signing a petition to toughen penalties against child molesters. The firm was paid $7 to $12 for every Californian it registered as a member of the GOP.

Several agencies had launched investigations into Jacoby's activities, including the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, which issued the warrant for his arrest earlier this month on felony charges of voter registration fraud and perjury.

Efforts to reach Jacoby were unsuccessful.

[Buccaneer]

Prediction: The biggest issue on election day will not be voter fraud but polls needing to close and people not getting to vote for various reasons (long lines, running out of supplies, malfunctions, inadequate id, etc.).

[Crapshoot]

I think the significance of Powell's endorsement is that it will probably drive the news cycle for the next 2-3 days (giving McCain that much less time to earn any gamechanging/substantial press). It will probably also give some folks that were up in the air feel like it is okay to trust Obama, since Powell is pretty well-respected.

Bingo.

And if anyone thinks this wasn't timed, have a look at where Obama was today right near Fort Braggs.

[sterlingice]

I would think all that money being raised by the political parties could go to better use instead of paying for commercials and buy time that everyone is sick of (not to mention the junk mail), as well as to bribe the population to do their duty. But money talks and all is fair in the war for political supremacy.

Dumb question- would you be in favor of publicly funded campaigns?

SI

[sterlingice]

Prediction: The biggest issue on election day will not be voter fraud but polls needing to close and people not getting to vote for various reasons (long lines, running out of supplies, malfunctions, inadequate id, etc.).

I think there will be a fraud angle to this, still. Again, there are voting machine issues as well as your usual smattering of voter disenfranchisement.

SI

[Buccaneer]

Dumb question- would you be in favor of publicly funded campaigns?

SI

No, not in favor of government subsidization, especially for a fundamental right as free speech. In some states, public funding laws only enforces a two-party system and make it hard for minority or independent parties to gain a foothold. My comment was based on the candidates and their organizations/parties begging for money that, in part, goes for TV commercials (ugh) and junk mail. And to the voters encouraging this process, which just feeds the downward spiral. It wasn't that long ago in which candidates did not start campaigning until the beginning of the election year. Now it's a continuous cycle (for both president and Congress) that the next election/re-election campaign starts when the current one is over. Such a waste of time and money that goes towards selfishness and greed.

[ISiddiqui]

Given that Virginia and Florida are two big swing states, if this endorsement dips into McCain's advantage among the military voters just a little bit, it could be significant.

Yeeeah... I think this late in the game, it'll really have little to no effect on election day.

[larrymcg421]

This about as shocking as Joe Liebermann announcing he's voting for McCain.
The only thing real surprising is how Powell (who's been "anti-political" for years) is allowing himself to be used as a political pawn this late in the game. Still, it's his right - you just have to wonder if he decided to vote for Obama before the summer but was convinced to hold his endorsement until the final weeks as an "ace in the hole". Given his comments on the republican party, I think this is probably the case. And while some of his comments have merit, the timing causes me to lose some respect in Powell.


Arles, this doesn't really make sense, and is a little insulting to Powell. I mean, if he was just being used as an "ace in the hole", wouldn't he have announced this endorsement after the GOP convention when everyone was ethusiastic about Palin and you guys were having alot of fun with how bad
the Obama campaign was being run? That certainly would've blunted some of Palin's momentum and stopped Obama's slide in the polls.

Maybe he did decide a while ago, but was uncertain if he wanted to make it public because he really respected McCain. Maybe he wanted to wait and make sure he could speak eloquently on the matter so people wouldn't think he was doing it just because of race. Or maybe he really did decide recently. Some of his reasons included stuff that happened recently. Sure, he could be lying through his teeth, but I'd think if anyone deserves the benefit of the doubt when it comes to honesty and integrity, it is Colin Powell.

[larrymcg421]

Yeeeah... I think this late in the game, it'll really have little to no effect on election day.

Polls still show the one weakness Obama has among voters (and the only thing McCain leads him on) is foreign policy. I don't see how you could say that one of the most famous military leaders in recent American history endorsing a candidate like that wouldn't have an effect on election day. That truly baffles me. But I've been wrong before.

[ISiddiqui]

Polls still show the one weakness Obama has among voters (and the only thing McCain leads him on) is foreign policy. I don't see how you could say that one of the most famous military leaders in recent American history endorsing a candidate like that wouldn't have an effect on election day. That truly baffles me. But I've been wrong before.

You don't think that two weeks before election day the vast majority of military people have made up their minds on this issue? They aren't going to magically change as a result of Powell endorsing Obama. Who exactly is it swaying this late in the game? I doubt the few undecideds were going to be swayed by an endorsement.

Hell, I don't think people are going to believe Obama is better on foreign policy just because Powell says so!

Something like the Tribune has a much greater effect because its far more deeply Republican than Powell was thought to be. Now, one could say that it is because they know Obama is going to win and win big, but that hasn't swayed them before.

[larrymcg421]

And here it comes...

I figured this was gonna happen. The race to discredit Colin Powell has started, and the first to line up is Rush Limbaugh

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/Limbaugh_Where_are_the_inexperienced_white_liberals_Powell_has_endorsed.html?showall

Rush Limbaugh said Colin Powell's decision to get behind Barack Obama appeared to be very much tied to Obama's status as the first African-American with a chance to become president.

"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race," Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail. "OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."

As for Powell's statement of concern this morning about the sort of Supreme Court justices a President McCain might appoint, Limbaugh wrote: "I was also unaware of his dislike for John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. I guess he also regrets Reagan and Bush making him a four-star [general] and secretary of state and appointing his son to head the FCC. Yes, let's hear it for transformational figures."

A couple things I want to note here. Limbaugh is clearly an idiot. Powell is pro-choice. That is well known. Therefore, I don't see why it is surprising that he would not want to see conservative justices appointed.

What does the Reagan stuff have to do with anything? Is Rush suggesting you can't be an admirer of Reagan and dislike the current direction of the GOP? There are several conservative writers that have recently suggested otherwise.

Also, I certainly don't think McCain agrees with this, and he gave what I thought was a dignified response to the announcement. But I fear that Rush's statement here isn't going to be the last we hear of this from the far right wing.

[Arles]

You don't think that two weeks before election day the vast majority of military people have made up their minds on this issue? They aren't going to magically change as a result of Powell endorsing Obama. Who exactly is it swaying this late in the game? I doubt the few undecideds were going to be swayed by an endorsement.

Hell, I don't think people are going to believe Obama is better on foreign policy just because Powell says so!

Something like the Tribune has a much greater effect because its far more deeply Republican than Powell was thought to be. Now, one could say that it is because they know Obama is going to win and win big, but that hasn't swayed them before.
The Tribune endorsement is simply about economics. About 80% of their readers are for Obama (greater Chicago area) and there would be a pretty big outcry if they endorsed McCain. I have a ton of family in the Chicago area and all are for Obama and very edgy about the election right now. There's a ton invested in him in the Chicago area and anything even remotely critical about him is getting lambasted. If Obama was from Pennsylvania instead of Illinois, I doubt the Trib would have endorsed him.

[Neon_Chaos]

Just an foreigner's view of the race...

Can anyone, in good conscience, vote for McCain and not fear the fact that there is a high likelihood that Sarah Palin could be the next President of the United States?

It's funny how McCain has been attacking Obama's inexperience in foreign affairs and military matters when he chose Palin as his VP.

I can't help but feel that the world will be a better place with Obama and the democrats in power.

[ISiddiqui]

The Tribune endorsement is simply about economics. About 80% of their readers are for Obama (greater Chicago area) and there would be a pretty big outcry if they endorsed McCain. I have a ton of family in the Chicago area and all are for Obama and very edgy about the election right now. There's a ton invested in him in the Chicago area and anything even remotely critical about him is getting lambasted. If Obama was from Pennsylvania instead of Illinois, I doubt the Trib would have endorsed him.

Frankly, I think that's BS. It may fly if the paper had a different history, but it has NEVER endorsed Democrat for President prior to this year. Even Adlai Stevenson, who was a native of Illinois, didn't get the nod. The Trib is well known to be a Republican paper, so if they endorsed McCain, no one would even bat an eye.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Just as an aside to my rants on polling weights, I noticed that Zogby polling uses voter weighting in their polls that mirrors party turnout from the previous elections. As of the latest polls, Zogby shows roughly a 3 point Obama lead while the rest of the polls show a 6-8 point lead. Zogby should show a pretty good indicator of whether Democratic turnout increases in this election and what the results will be if they don't turn out in record numbers as Democratic pundits will have you believe.

I do think there are a couple of developments over the weekend that could have some effect on the election from a race standpoint. First, there's a column out of Illinois reporting that Obama is demanding that an African-American be his replacement if he wins.

Who would replace Obama's Senate seat? :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Michael Sneed (http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/1226714,CST-NWS-SNEED17.article)

Second, Obama was endorsed by Powell. On its face, it's certainly not a surprise as he's always been considered to be similary to Liberman, except in reverse. With that said, some of his comments and his endorsement could lead to a backlash against Obama. There could be a perceived notion that African-Americans are trying to pull the political rug out from under the established powers in the U.S. There are still a lot of people that will vote out of ignorance on both sides of the issue. Obama needs to tread as lightly as he can to avoid a race backlash. The move to make sure an African-American takes his seat would not be a good first step.

[sterlingice]

Just an foreigner's view of the race...

Can anyone, in good conscience, vote for McCain and not fear the fact that there is a high likelihood that Sarah Palin could be the next President of the United States?

It's funny how McCain has been attacking Obama's inexperience in foreign affairs and military matters when he chose Palin as his VP.

I can't help but feel that the world will be a better place with Obama and the democrats in power.

I think there are two camps on that issue and, frankly, that's why she was brought in.

The first is those more towards the center who like McCain and what a lot of us refer to as "the old John McCain"- all the cliches about him being a maverick, reaching across party lines, and doing things for the good of the country. They are scared to death of a Palin presidency, along the lines of someone asking Joe Lieberman about her choice as VP and him saying something to the tone of "John just better not die".

Then there are those within the more conservative branches of the GOP who would almost welcome Palin. They see McCain as a RINO (Republican in Name Only) who really doesn't represent their views but he's better than the Democrat alternative. Palin is a lot like a female version of Dubya- except instead of faslely claiming to be a uniter across party lines, she claims to be a maverick. Instead, both are just intellectually uncurious power hungry and power expanding idealogues from off the deep end of their party. Those are your core voters in the GOP who would prefer that approach.

As to the last part about the world being a better place with the Dems in power. Well, that's going to illicit all sorts of responses ;)

SI

[flere-imsaho]

This came up a couple of times in this thread, but I don't think there'd be any kind of unrest if Obama wins the popular but McCain clearly wins the electorate.

However, if there's a deciding state decided by >1000 or so votes, there will be talk of things not being on the level, and that's where I think we'd see some issues in some parts of the country.

:+1:

If the stuff already reported in West Virginia (the machines "switching" the votes) is more widespread on election day, there could be problems. Of course, whatever the result I'm sure there will be some hooligans somewhere who decide to trash some things.

There are nutjobs on both sides... in fact, isn't that part of the problem these days? Too many nutjobs in general? :)

I blame talk radio. :p

If the Tribune hadn't, they may have been faced with even more declining subscriptions and revenues.

I think you greatly misunderstand the readership of the Chicago Tribune (and especially its editorial page).

The Tribune endorsement is simply about economics. About 80% of their readers are for Obama (greater Chicago area) and there would be a pretty big outcry if they endorsed McCain.

You too.


The Powell endorsement is far more important. As others have noted, when there was talk about Powell as a candidate, he was mostly being touted as a "Centrist" Republican, with socially liberal, fiscally conservative and strong defense views. Which group is McCain reaching out to right now? Yeah, the "disenfranchised GOP", those who are socially moderate and fiscally conservative. Powell's just told these people, in eloquent terms, not only why it's safe to vote for Obama, but why they shouldn't vote for McCain.

If people don't think that's worth a lot especially at this point in the campaign (with early voting underway in many states and starting, for instance, today in Florida), then I don't know what to say....

[Big Fo]

Second, Obama was endorsed by Powell. On its face, it's certainly not a surprise as he's always been considered to be similary to Liberman, except in reverse. With that said, some of his comments and his endorsement could lead to a backlash against Obama. There could be a perceived notion that African-Americans are trying to pull the political rug out from under the established powers in the U.S. There are still a lot of people that will vote out of ignorance on both sides of the issue. Obama needs to tread as lightly as he can to avoid a race backlash. The move to make sure an African-American takes his seat would not be a good first step.

That's impressive man, you spin even better than Rush Limbaugh. That's the first thing I've seen anywhere on the Internet suggesting that the Powell endorsement could hurt Obama.

And don't cling onto your Zogby poll too hard, Obama's now up 5.4%, rising from yesterday's 2.7%.

Obama now leads McCain 49.8% to 44.4%. McCain trailed Obama by 2.7 points in polling released yesterday.

...

Obama’s gain to nearly 50% support is the highest level of support he has received since the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking began two weeks ago.

This three-day rolling average of telephone polling now includes a sample taken entirely after the final presidential debate last Wednesday.

Zogby International (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1598)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

:...... then I don't know what to say....

I think I speak for the masses when I say I've never seen you at a loss for words, and I don't expect it now either. :)

[flere-imsaho]

It was a figure of speech, bucko. :p

[Fidatelo]

Neon_Chaos got me thinking: if we were to do an FOFC poll where only non-US citizens could vote, and that poll asked "who would you vote for US President if you were allowed to vote", what would the percentage of votes for each candidate be?

And assuming the rest of the world is as pro-Obama as my gut tells me it would be, what does that mean? Does it mean we foreigners feel the world would be better off with Obama, or that America would be better off with Obama? Are those two ideas really very different? If so, is a vote for McCain a vote for US self-interest? Or does it mean the rest of the world is simply more liberal minded than the US? And if that's true, what does that mean?

I think I could go on with questions for awhile, but the thing that fascinates me is my impression (assuming Obama would be the heavy favorite that I suspect) that everyone from the 'outside' seems to view the choice as somewhat obvious, while internally in the US it is a pretty tight race, and what the implications of that difference in opinion are.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

That's impressive man, you spin even better than Rush Limbaugh. That's the first thing I've seen anywhere on the Internet suggesting that the Powell endorsement could hurt Obama.

And don't cling onto your Zogby poll too hard, Obama's now up 5.4%, rising from yesterday's 2.7%.

Certainly, some silly partisan statements here. First, I think it's naive at best to assume that there aren't a substantial number of deeply ignorant people who are just looking for a reason to find that racial motivation isn't involved in Powell's endorsement. I'm a fan of Powell as I tend to be in the middle politically, but I don't think there's any question that race is a motivating factor in his decision. I think generally that the younger the voter is, the more likely that they dismiss race as being a factor. I sincerely hope that's an indicator that future generations will be come less preoccupied with race as we move forward.

Second, I'm certainly not 'clinging' onto Zogby. My only point was that the final results will likely show which polling method was more accurate. If we see a result where Zogby ends up most accurate (as it was in 2004), I think we can start dismissing the Democratic claims of 'record turnout' in future elections as nothing more than a PR attempt to drive up the vote. If we see a higher turnout, it will become much more common to base these polls on party claims of increased/decreased voter turnout rather than historic precedent.

[Young Drachma]

Just as an aside to my rants on polling weights, I noticed that Zogby polling uses voter weighting in their polls that mirrors party turnout from the previous elections. As of the latest polls, Zogby shows roughly a 3 point Obama lead while the rest of the polls show a 6-8 point lead. Zogby should show a pretty good indicator of whether Democratic turnout increases in this election and what the results will be if they don't turn out in record numbers as Democratic pundits will have you believe.

I do think there are a couple of developments over the weekend that could have some effect on the election from a race standpoint. First, there's a column out of Illinois reporting that Obama is demanding that an African-American be his replacement if he wins.

Who would replace Obama's Senate seat? :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Michael Sneed (http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/1226714,CST-NWS-SNEED17.article)

Second, Obama was endorsed by Powell. On its face, it's certainly not a surprise as he's always been considered to be similary to Liberman, except in reverse. With that said, some of his comments and his endorsement could lead to a backlash against Obama. There could be a perceived notion that African-Americans are trying to pull the political rug out from under the established powers in the U.S. There are still a lot of people that will vote out of ignorance on both sides of the issue. Obama needs to tread as lightly as he can to avoid a race backlash. The move to make sure an African-American takes his seat would not be a good first step.

I love how the only time anyone brings this stuff up is when so-called ethnic folks choose "one of their own kind." No one suggests that Lieberman picked McCain because he wanted a white guy in the White House.

It's so frustrating that people still think so monochromatically, ESPECIALLY when you consider how much of a nuanced argument that Powell made for why he decided to go in this direction.

RINO or not, the guy went to the GOP convention in 2000 and made an emphatic case for the Bush/Cheney ticket and so, if nothing else, he was a member of the team in some form or fashion.

That said, he speaks for a lot of disaffected former moderate members of the party who won't take the extreme step of voting Democrat (it just doesn't make any sense to me), but who are choosing to sit this one out. Maybe the wingnuts who run the party and who consider it their birthright to run the party with their intolerance and lack of nuance on issues are banking on that, but I'm convinced that we're not the voters you want to suppress. Because there are far many others who feel the need to vote the other way to make a statement about their unhappiness about the current state of the GOP and feel this is just the sort of medicine folks need to get the party back to being an open tent again. (as if it ever was...)

There could be a perceived notion that African-Americans are trying to pull the political rug out from under the established powers in the U.S.

Translated: Upsetting the natural order of things.

[Neon_Chaos]

As to the last part about the world being a better place with the Dems in power. Well, that's going to illicit all sorts of responses ;)

SI

:)

To put it simply, to most of my generation of foreigners, the Republican Party IS George W Bush.

I don't know, but the world just can't have eight more years of that... :)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Neon_Chaos got me thinking: if we were to do an FOFC poll where only non-US citizens could vote, and that poll asked "who would you vote for US President if you were allowed to vote", what would the percentage of votes for each candidate be?

And assuming the rest of the world is as pro-Obama as my gut tells me it would be, what does that mean? Does it mean we foreigners feel the world would be better off with Obama, or that America would be better off with Obama? Are those two ideas really very different? If so, is a vote for McCain a vote for US self-interest? Or does it mean the rest of the world is simply more liberal minded than the US? And if that's true, what does that mean?

I think I could go on with questions for awhile, but the thing that fascinates me is my impression (assuming Obama would be the heavy favorite that I suspect) that everyone from the 'outside' seems to view the choice as somewhat obvious, while internally in the US it is a pretty tight race, and what the implications of that difference in opinion are.

It would definitely be a pro-Obama vote from the rest of the world. With that said, the U.S. trust has been burned previously by other countries during much of the 1900s. U.S. residents are smart enough to know that there's a reason we're the sole superpower and it's not because we spent a lot of time listening to what other countries thought was best for our country. I don't think the French or British would like the direction that the U.S. would like their government to go either.

[Flasch186]

Certainly, some silly partisan statements here. First, I think it's naive at best to assume that there aren't a substantial number of deeply ignorant people who are just looking for a reason to find that racial motivation isn't involved in Powell's endorsement. I'm a fan of Powell as I tend to be in the middle politically, but I don't think there's any question that race is a motivating factor in his decision. I think generally that the younger the voter is, the more likely that they dismiss race as being a factor. I sincerely hope that's an indicator that future generations will be come less preoccupied with race as we move forward.

Second, I'm certainly not 'clinging' onto Zogby. My only point was that the final results will likely show which polling method was more accurate. If we see a result where Zogby ends up most accurate (as it was in 2004), I think we can start dismissing the Democratic claims of 'record turnout' in future elections as nothing more than a PR attempt to drive up the vote. If we see a higher turnout, it will become much more common to base these polls on party claims of increased/decreased voter turnout rather than historic precedent.

then wouldnt you put a lot of creedance in the polls from the past that were most accurate or does the credibilty gain only start in this election?

[flere-imsaho]

Prediction: Powell's endorsement will be electorally significant, perhaps the most electorally significant endorsement of this campaign.

Reminder: Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Powell, as do 81% of unaffiliated voters and 77% of Democrats. Eighty-two percent (82%) of white voters and 72% of African-Americans share that view. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/42_see_powell_endorsement_of_obama_as_possible)

First, I think it's naive at best to assume that there aren't a substantial number of deeply ignorant people who are just looking for a reason to find that racial motivation isn't involved in Powell's endorsement.

I'm sure race is a factor in Powell's endorsement. I'm also sure it's a very, very small factor. Powell gave his reasons (http://www.groundreport.com/Politics/Powell-Endorses-Obama-Criticizes-McCain-VP-Pick-Ca) for endorsing Obama, and he barely talks about race there. So you either take him at his word or you don't.

I know both of these individuals very well. I’ve known John for 25 years, as your set-up said, and I’ve gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past 2 years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president.

I have said to Mr. McCain that I admore all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years it has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that’s a choice the party makes.

And I’ve said to Mr. Obama, you have to pass a test of ‘do you have enough experience?’ And do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president.

And I’ve watched them over the past two years frankly, and I’ve had this conversation with them.

I have especially watched over the last 6 or 7 weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we’re in and coming out of the conventions.

And I must say that I’ve gotten a good measure of both, and in the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to how to deal with the economic problems that we were having. And almost every day there was a different approach to the problem.

And that concerned me, sensing that he did not have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She’s a very distinguished woman, and she’s to be admired, but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don’t believe she’s ready to be President of the United States, which is the job of the Vice President.

And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.

On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama, and I watched him during this 7-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge, and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a Vice President that I think is ready to be president on day one, and also in, not just jumping in and changing every day, but show intellectual vigor. I think that he has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.

I also believe that on the Republican side, over the last 7 weeks the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama at the same time has given us some more broader inclusive reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He’s crossing lines-- ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He’s thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values. And I’ve also been disappointed frankly by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign has, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that’s been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign, but Mr. McCain says he’s a washed out terrorist—well, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that because of this very, very limited relationship, that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, now Mr. Obama is tainted. What they’re trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings, and I think that’s inappropriate.

Now I understand what politics is all about, I know how you can go after one another. And that’s good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrower. It’s not what the American people are looking for.

And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me.

And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that’s what we would be looking at in a McCain administration.

I’m also troubled by…what members of the party say, and is permitted to be said, such things as, ‘Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.’ Well, the correct answer is, 'He is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian, he’s always been a Christian.'

But the really right answer is, 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?'

The answer’s 'No, that’s not America.'



Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he’s a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture, at the tail end of this photo essay, was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave, and as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards, purple heart, bronze star, showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death, he was 20 years old, and then at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have a Star of David, it had a crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Ushad Sultan Khan. And he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11. And he waited until he could go serve his country, and he gave his life.

Now we have got to stop polarizing ourselves in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know, but I’m troubled about the fact that within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

So when I look at all of this and I think back to my army career, we’ve got two individuals. Either on of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I’ve come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities, as well as his substance, he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president being an exceptional president, I think he is a transformational figure, he is a new generation, coming onto the world stage, the American stage,

And for that reason, I will be voting for Barack Obama.

[Fidatelo]

It would definitely be a pro-Obama vote from the rest of the world. With that said, the U.S. trust has been burned previously by other countries during much of the 1900s. U.S. residents are smart enough to know that there's a reason we're the sole superpower and it's not because we spent a lot of time listening to what other countries thought was best for our country. I don't think the French or British would like the direction that the U.S. would like their government to go either.

So does this boil down to citizens of the rest of the world generally would always want the 'weaker' candidate of pretty much any other country to win, because that would serve our own self interest more?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I love how the only time anyone brings this stuff up is when so-called ethnic folks choose "one of their own kind." No one suggests that Lieberman picked McCain because he wanted a white guy in the White House.

Translated: Upsetting the natural order of things.

You're definitely incorrect in regards to your first statement. I don't think there's any question that one of the main reasons that Lieberman endorsed McCain was because he knew McCain would support Israel's aggressive stance towards its neighbors. They may be both white, but there's still a bias involved.

Your translation is spot-on. I noted that they were 'deeply ignorant' with good reason. But that doesn't change the fact that their vote counts the same as anyone else. Assuming that this is a political discussion rather than a 'how I feel' discussion, the mention of that group of voters and their effect on the election is very relevant.

[Flasch186]

Obama: Powell will have a role in adminstration - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_el_pr/obama)

Obama: Powell will have a role in adminstration


By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer Laurie Kellman, Associated Press Writer – 12 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Colin Powell will have a role as a top presidential adviser in an Obama administration, the Democratic White House hopeful said Monday.

"He will have a role as one of my advisers," Barack Obama said on NBC's "Today" in an interview aired Monday, a day after Powell, a four-star general and President Bush's former secretary of state, endorsed him.

"Whether he wants to take a formal role, whether that's a good fit for him, is something we'd have to discuss," Obama said.

Being a top presidential adviser, especially on foreign policy, would be familiar ground to Powell on a subject that's relatively new to the freshman Illinois senator. Obama has struggled to establish his foreign policy credentials against GOP candidate John McCain, a decorated military veteran, former prisoner of war and ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In the NBC interview, Obama said Powell did not give him a heads-up before he crossed party lines and endorsed the Democratic presidential candidate on the network's "Meet the Press" a day earlier.

In that interview, Powell called Obama a "transformational figure" in the nation's history and expressed disappointment in some of McCain's campaign tactics. But, Powell said, he didn't plan to hit the campaign trail with Obama before the Nov. 4 election.

"I won't lie to you, I would love to have him at any stop," Obama said with a grin Monday. "Obviously, if he wants to show up he's got an open invitation."

Powell's endorsement came just hours after Obama's campaign disclosed that it raised $150 million in September — obliterating the old record of $66 million it had set only one month earlier.

He expressed disappointment in the negative tone of McCain's campaign, his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a running mate and their decision to focus in the closing weeks of the contest on Obama's ties to 1960s-era radical William Ayers, saying "it goes too far."

McCain, meanwhile, seemed dismissive of Powell's endorsement, saying it wasn't a surprise, that the two share mutual respect and are longtime friends.

The Republican from Arizona pointed out on Sunday that he had support from four other former secretaries of state, all veterans of Republican administrations: Henry Kissinger, James A. Baker III, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig.

At a boisterous rally Sunday, Obama said McCain was "out of ideas and almost out of time."

He and his aides appear so confident of his prospects that apart from a brief stop in Madison, Wis., next Thursday, Obama currently has no plans during the next 10 days to return to Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Hampshire or any other state that voted for John Kerry in 2004.

Instead, he intends to spend two days this week in Florida, where early voting begins on Monday, and travel to Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico and possibly Nevada and Indiana. Those states hold 97 electoral votes combined, and Bush won all in 2004.

Obama also may stop in West Virginia, where his campaign recently bought statewide television advertising in a late attempt to put the state's five electoral votes into serious contention.

[flere-imsaho]

Apparently the details of Obama's $150 million fundraising month in September include roughly 600,000 new donors.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So does this boil down to citizens of the rest of the world generally would always want the 'weaker' candidate of pretty much any other country to win, because that would serve our own self interest more?

I wouldn't go that far. I don't think they want the 'weaker' candidate as much as they want the candidate that will further their self-interests. I think they likely see Obama as the candidate that they can manipulate if they need to increase their influence on global policy. McCain is definitely more like Dubya in regards to foreign policy, as he'll be much more selfish to look out for the U.S. before considering other avenues overseas. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's definitely a difference in attitude in regards to foreign relations.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Obama: Powell will have a role in adminstration - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_el_pr/obama)

I'm sure that everyone in the thread is floored by that revelation, much like the Lieberman in a McCain administration situation.

[Fidatelo]

I wouldn't go that far. I don't think they want the 'weaker' candidate as much as they want the candidate that will further their self-interests. I think they likely see Obama as the candidate that they can manipulate if they need to increase their influence on global policy. McCain is definitely more like Dubya in regards to foreign policy, as he'll be much more selfish to look out for the U.S. before considering other avenues overseas. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's definitely a difference in attitude in regards to foreign relations.

I think we are saying the same thing then, because your description basically sums up what I would consider the 'weaker' candidate. Basically, the guy that poses less of a threat, or that could be pushed around.

This brings up another interesting thought: if we did that world-wide poll I suggested above, but at the same time did a poll of the same people in regards to who they voted for in their home country's most recent election, and then cross-referenced the ideologies of their home candidate versus the US candidate they support, would those ideologies mostly match up? Or would we see a lot of people who vote for their own country's version of McCain yet want the US's leader to be someone like Obama?

[ISiddiqui]

Prediction: Powell's endorsement will be electorally significant, perhaps the most electorally significant endorsement of this campaign.

Nate Silver of 538 seems to think it'll be minor at best:

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: General Powell Endorses Obama (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/general-powell-endorses-obama.html)

In a race like Obama-McCain, on the other hand, you already have all the information you could ever want, and probably have established a fairly strong preference for yourself.

Powell's endorsement might play especially well among the defense and military communities in Northern Virginia, which just so happens to be perhaps the most important swing region in the election.

Between this and Obama's $150 million fundraising haul (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/obama-raised-record-150-million-in-september/?hp), however, the sense of inevitability may creep in again. Contrary to some observers, I think that there is far more downside to the Republicans in resignation, fatalism and low morale than there is to the Democrats in complacency.

Basically he thinks the greatest effect it may have is to make Republican voters believe it is all over and depress their turnout (I'd have to say most Republicans already thought it was all over before the Powell endorsement).

[Neon_Chaos]

I wouldn't go that far. I don't think they want the 'weaker' candidate as much as they want the candidate that will further their self-interests. I think they likely see Obama as the candidate that they can manipulate if they need to increase their influence on global policy. McCain is definitely more like Dubya in regards to foreign policy, as he'll be much more selfish to look out for the U.S. before considering other avenues overseas. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's definitely a difference in attitude in regards to foreign relations.

Actually, I think we would like the candidate who doesn't love to go to war a lot.

But that's just me.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

then wouldnt you put a lot of creedance in the polls from the past that were most accurate or does the credibilty gain only start in this election?

Yes, I believe that is my point. I believe the Zogby method of polling weight to be the better method as it has been spot-on in the past. We'll see whether that trend holds in this election.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Actually, I think we would like the candidate who doesn't love to go to war a lot.

But that's just me.

I think you're being a bit general in that comment. War is part of being who we are. If your statement read that you would like the candidate that didn't go to war when it was not fully justified, then I agree. Stating that we shouldn't got to war a lot just for the sake of not going to war a lot isn't a valid choice. Afghanistan was perfectly justifiable. Iraq was more iffy.

[Big Fo]

My impression has always been that the USA is very conservative compared to most of the other wealthy western democracies. The Democrats, although center-right compared to the parties in those countries, are at least in the same ballpark with their political beliefs while the Republicans are way out in crazy land.

Plus as Neon Choas says, some are scared by the thought of angry, old man McCain and his hawkish buddies in charge of foreign policy.

[Kodos]

Iraq was not iffy. It was a definite "no". Bush's administration just mislead us to make it look like it was necessary.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Iraq was not iffy. It was a definite "no". Bush's administration just mislead us to make it look like it was necessary.

In hindsight, it was a no. I agree with that.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't think they want the 'weaker' candidate as much as they want the candidate that will further their self-interests.

Having lived overseas for a number of years, I'd say that most citizens of the world understand the power the U.S. has to involve itself in world affairs and prefers a U.S. President who's less likely to be disruptive and unilateral on the world stage.

I think they likely see Obama as the candidate that they can manipulate if they need to increase their influence on global policy. McCain is definitely more like Dubya in regards to foreign policy, as he'll be much more selfish to look out for the U.S. before considering other avenues overseas.

Arguably, Bush has been highly manipulated on the global stage, having been goaded into the Iraq misadventure and employing ham-handed diplomatic efforts elsewhere.

Nate Silver of 538 seems to think it'll be minor at best:

Basically he thinks the greatest effect it may have is to make Republican voters believe it is all over and depress their turnout (I'd have to say most Republicans already thought it was all over before the Powell endorsement).

Well, minor can be important in a close election. If the bulk of undecideds are moderate "fomer-GOPers" who hold Powell and high regard, and a couple of percentage points of them come over to Obama as a result, that's going to be pretty significant for Obama.

So, I'm not saying this is going to net Obama 10 percentage points or anything like that. However, this endorsement could have the result (combined with the timing) of "drying-up" the undecideds in the middle. If that happens, and Obama picks up a point or two, then we're basically looking at stasis for the next 2.5 weeks, with an Obama lead. Thus, afterward one would say that the Powell endorsement was basically the final nail in the coffin that ended McCain's chance at the Presidency.

Powell's endorsement, then, obviously isn't anywhere near as important, electorally, as the financial meltdown has shown to be, but out of all the endorsements we've seen, it's probably going to be the most significant. That's all I'm saying.

[sterlingice]

U.S. residents are smart enough to know that there's a reason we're the sole superpower and it's not because we spent a lot of time listening to what other countries thought was best for our country.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Ok, I got that out of my system. America is strong because the electorate is smart. That's a good one. Granted, we're a bit more self selective since we have low turnout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout) compared to a lot of other countries. But, c'mon, we're all laughing at the undecided mouthbreathers which ultimately decide who is our leader.

I'm pretty sure we're strong because we were the only first world country that wasn't completely devistated by a World War which set every other "civilized country" back 30-40 years in terms of economy. And why is that? Because we were lucky enough to be on the other side of the world from the fighting.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Well, minor can be important in a close election.

Highlighted by me.

So, what effect does it have on this one?

[JPhillips]

What's up with the FL GOP? I haven't been following, but this decision to save 2 mil seems like a big negative for McCain.

In Florida, the differences between Gov. Charlie Crist's state party and the McCain campaign have for weeks been an open secret among the political class.

Now comes word, via the St. Pete Times' Adam Smith, that the Florida GOP is holding back some of its money for the next cycle.

"State party officials announced to their state executive committee Saturday that they expect to carry over at least $2 million into 2009, rather than spend all their money on this election."

The news came on the same day that Crist was explaining why he hadn't appeared in any ads for McCain in the state.

''I haven't been asked,'' Crist explained to the Miami Herald's Mary Ellen Klas.

[albionmoonlight]

What's up with the FL GOP? I haven't been following, but this decision to save 2 mil seems like a big negative for McCain.

McCain's interests and the Florida GOP's interests are not the same. They both want McCain to win, but this (and re-election if he wins) is McCain's last competitive election. He has every incentive to spend every cent and every waking hour on trying to win.

The Florida GOP wants him to win. But, whether he wins or loses, they have elections coming up in two years. And they are looking beyond the next two weeks.

Not good news for McCain. But not the end of the world either. I can't imagine that $2,000,000 will really make or break his chances in Florida. Apparently, he still has $47,000,000 left to spend in two weeks.

[Passacaglia]

Just as an aside to my rants on polling weights, I noticed that Zogby polling uses voter weighting in their polls that mirrors party turnout from the previous elections. As of the latest polls, Zogby shows roughly a 3 point Obama lead while the rest of the polls show a 6-8 point lead. Zogby should show a pretty good indicator of whether Democratic turnout increases in this election and what the results will be if they don't turn out in record numbers as Democratic pundits will have you believe.

I do think there are a couple of developments over the weekend that could have some effect on the election from a race standpoint. First, there's a column out of Illinois reporting that Obama is demanding that an African-American be his replacement if he wins.

Who would replace Obama's Senate seat? :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Michael Sneed (http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/1226714,CST-NWS-SNEED17.article)

Second, Obama was endorsed by Powell. On its face, it's certainly not a surprise as he's always been considered to be similary to Liberman, except in reverse. With that said, some of his comments and his endorsement could lead to a backlash against Obama. There could be a perceived notion that African-Americans are trying to pull the political rug out from under the established powers in the U.S. There are still a lot of people that will vote out of ignorance on both sides of the issue. Obama needs to tread as lightly as he can to avoid a race backlash. The move to make sure an African-American takes his seat would not be a good first step.

Just an FYI -- Sneed is a gossip columnist.

[Klinglerware]

Having lived overseas for a number of years, I'd say that most citizens of the world understand the power the U.S. has to involve itself in world affairs and prefers a U.S. President who's less likely to be disruptive and unilateral on the world stage.



Arguably, Bush has been highly manipulated on the global stage, having been goaded into the Iraq misadventure and employing ham-handed diplomatic efforts elsewhere.





Yeah, if you are talking about regular people's opinions, I don't really buy the whole "weaker candidate/self interest" argument. If anything, one can argue that the unilateralism of recent American foreign policy has actually been a net positive for rival powers: the economic burdens associated with American unilateral use of military power plus the disuse of diplomatic linkages (either through inability or lack of will) has given budding rivals the opportunity to build their relative capabilities relative to the US.

But in terms of regular people, to echo flere's point--they probably want a US administration that isn't too disruptive in their everyday lives...

[flere-imsaho]

Highlighted by me.

So, what effect does it have on this one?

Good point. I still think it's close. Obama's aggregate lead is still only somewhere between 5 and 7 points, and given the MoE, it could be closer than that, and we still have 3 weeks to go.

[ISiddiqui]

Personally, I think this election is done and has been done ever since the bottom fell out of the market.

[Kodos]

Count me among those who don't think this election is in the bag yet for Obama. I certainly **hope** it is, but until he is declared the winner on election day, I am not counting my chickens.

[larrymcg421]

Just as an aside to my rants on polling weights, I noticed that Zogby polling uses voter weighting in their polls that mirrors party turnout from the previous elections. As of the latest polls, Zogby shows roughly a 3 point Obama lead while the rest of the polls show a 6-8 point lead. Zogby should show a pretty good indicator of whether Democratic turnout increases in this election and what the results will be if they don't turn out in record numbers as Democratic pundits will have you believe.

But Zogby's poll released earlier this morning shows a 6 point spread.

I do think there are a couple of developments over the weekend that could have some effect on the election from a race standpoint. First, there's a column out of Illinois reporting that Obama is demanding that an African-American be his replacement if he wins.

Who would replace Obama's Senate seat? :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Michael Sneed (http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/1226714,CST-NWS-SNEED17.article)

"Sneed hears" is not very convincing to me.

Second, Obama was endorsed by Powell. On its face, it's certainly not a surprise as he's always been considered to be similary to Liberman, except in reverse. With that said, some of his comments and his endorsement could lead to a backlash against Obama. There could be a perceived notion that African-Americans are trying to pull the political rug out from under the established powers in the U.S.

I'm doubting people that could think this are on the fence right now.

There are still a lot of people that will vote out of ignorance on both sides of the issue. Obama needs to tread as lightly as he can to avoid a race backlash. The move to make sure an African-American takes his seat would not be a good first step.

First of all, we still don't know he has done this, or will do it. And even if an African-American was appointed, then we don't know why that was why it was done.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Any thoughts on Biden's latest comments today? I'm somewhat confused that Biden is the one saying this as commonly held thought is that Obama is the choice of foreign nations.......

Political Radar: Biden to Supporters: "Gird Your Loins", For the Next President "It's Like Cleaning Augean Stables" (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/biden-to-suppor.html)

Biden to Supporters: "Gird Your Loins", For the Next President "It's Like Cleaning Augean Stables"

October 20, 2008 7:35 AM

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe Reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, Biden warned, but also with the current economic crisis.

"Gird your loins," Biden told the crowd. "We're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy."

The Delaware lawmaker managed to rake in an estimated $1 million total from his two money hauls at the downtown Sheraton, the same hotel where four years ago Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., clinched the Democratic nomination. Despite warning about the difficulties the next administration will face, Biden said the Democratic ticket is equipped to meet the challenges head on.

"I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it," the Senate Foreign Relations chairman said of Obama. "This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."

Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of particular concern, with Osama bin Laden "alive and well" and Pakistan "bristling with nuclear weapons."

"You literally can see what these kids are up against, our kids in that region," Biden said in recalling when his helicopter was forced down due to a snowstorm there. "The place is crawling with al Qaeda. And it's real."

"We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes," he cautioned. "It's so much more important than that. It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it."

After speaking for just over a quarter of an hour, Biden noticed the media presence in the back of the small ballroom.

"I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here," he joked.

"All kidding aside, these guys have left us in a God-awful place," he then said of the Bush regime, promptly wrapping up his remarks. "We have the ability to straighten it out. It's gonna take a little bit of time, so I ask you to stay with us. Stay with us."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

But Zogby's poll released earlier this morning shows a 6 point spread.

LOL.....once again you miss the point in the interest of trying to further a partisan viewpoint. The spread from day to day is irrelevant. The point is not what happens from day to day. The point is which polling method best mirrors what happens on the election day.

[albionmoonlight]

No matter your politics:

Government providing money and/or services to people who aren't you = pork and/or socalism and/or welfare.

Government providing money and/or services to you = good government.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Any thoughts on Palin's latest comments today? I'm somewhat confused that Palin is saying that Obama's tax plan is socialist while the bailout is not.......

Obama fends off Palin charge of 'socialist' tax plan - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/20/campaign.wrap/index.html)

Most people would disagree with that. Both the bailout and Obama's tax plan are socialist in nature.

[Young Drachma]

I'm not a liberal (Scripting News) (http://www.scripting.com/stories/2008/10/19/imNotALiberal.html)

[larrymcg421]

LOL.....once again you miss the point in the interest of trying to further a partisan viewpoint.

Um, you've glommed on to every pro-McCain poll that's been out there, even one that turned out to be a telephone poll that was almost a week old.

The spread from day to day is irrelevant. The point is not what happens from day to day. The point is which polling method best mirrors what happens on the election day.

The point is that despite Zogby's partisan weighting, they actually have the largest spread of the major polls that have been released today.

[Flasch186]

Any thoughts on Biden's latest comments today? I'm somewhat confused that Biden is the one saying this as commonly held thought is that Obama is the choice of foreign nations.......

Political Radar: Biden to Supporters: "Gird Your Loins", For the Next President "It's Like Cleaning Augean Stables" (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/biden-to-suppor.html)

thoughts? yes, thank god when it occurs we could have a president with a temprement to be thoughtful and predictive of the possibilities and ramifications of our actions. thank god we will have a president that is surrounded by experts in their field and be able to advise the next president on what is hopefully the best course of action.

[cartman]

MBBF,

Let me break down this election cycle in terms that maybe you can understand. Based on your comments, many points seem to be going over your head.

Obama=Colt McCoy
McCain=Chase Daniels

or how about this more in depth:

Obama=Wii (big numbers, sets sales/donations records)
Biden=Xbox 360 (does crazy stuff (RROD/Puts foot in mouth) but most people look past that)
McCain=PS3 (low numbers, but eventually hopes to catch the Wii/360. If he were the PS2 of 8 years ago, would be in the lead)
Palin=Sega Genesis (first console with games accessible to women. Lots of excitement generated, but fizzled out soon after release)

[Flasch186]

although I couldnt see myself doing my sega genesis :)

[sterlingice]

MBBF,

Let me break down this election cycle in terms that maybe you can understand. Based on your comments, many points seem to be going over your head.

Obama=Colt McCoy
McCain=Chase Daniels

or how about this more in depth:

Obama=Wii (big numbers, sets sales/donations records)
Biden=Xbox 360 (does crazy stuff (RROD/Puts foot in mouth) but most people look past that)
McCain=PS3 (low numbers, but eventually hopes to catch the Wii/360. If he were the PS2 of 8 years ago, would be in the lead)
Palin=Sega Genesis (first console with games accessible to women. Lots of excitement generated, but fizzled out soon after release)

I admit, I LOL'd :D

SI

[larrymcg421]

Good news for McCain from Rasmmussen and Suffolk:

Rasmussen has narrowed to a 4 pt national lead for Obama.
Suffolk puts him up by 1 pt in Missouri.


Incredibly fucking bad news for McCain from Rasmussen and Suffolk:

Suffolk has him down 9 pts. in Ohio.
Rasmussen has him down 10 pts. in Virginia.

[SirFozzie]

Ohio has to be an outlier. The last poll I saw had McCain +1

[larrymcg421]

Ohio has to be an outlier. The last poll I saw had McCain +1

Probably. I was just showing that the same polling outfits giving him good news today is giving him really bad news at the same time.

The Gallup trackers moved towards Obama today: Version 1 has him +5 and Version 2 has him +9.

[Flasch186]

gotta take the rolling averages of a polling group that will be accurate come election day this year.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Good news for McCain from Rasmmussen and Suffolk:

Rasmussen has narrowed to a 4 pt national lead for Obama.
Suffolk puts him up by 1 pt in Missouri.


Incredibly fucking bad news for McCain from Rasmussen and Suffolk:

Suffolk has him down 9 pts. in Ohio.
Rasmussen has him down 10 pts. in Virginia.

Once again, the weights of the current polling methods are producing some wild numbers. We can be sure that Obama is ahead by a few points at this juncture. Outside of that, it's a dart toss at best.

[Flasch186]

except zoxby's? Im confused if you feel this way about "polls" how do you use 'some' but not others. I mean what meets the MBBF threshold for having enough credibility for you to hang your credibility in these issues on?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

except zoxby's? Im confused if you feel this way about "polls" how do you use 'some' but not others. I mean what meets the MBBF threshold for having enough credibility for you to hang your credibility in these issues on?

I've always stated that I believe that the new weights in the polls should be based on previous turnout rather than what they think the turnout will be. Zogby is the only poll that currently uses that weight. I also have not stated that the Zogby poll is necessarily the correct poll, but I do think this election turnout will give us a clear measure of whether these predicted weights used by other polls are very accurate at all. They certainly left a lot to be desired 4 years ago. I'm interested to see if that holds true in this election.

[JPhillips]

But the voting demo does shift from election to election and leaving it the same just skips the hardest part of polling. I don't know how accurate the various turnout projections will be, but I'm sure turnout will be a few points different than in 2004. Zogby doesn't even try to claim that the 2004 turnout is predictive of 2008, he just uses it for convenience.

It doesn't invalidate a poll to be several points off. That's what MOE is all about.

[flere-imsaho]

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081020/117842524.html

Russia's permanent mission to the UN has received a letter from U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain asking for financial support of his election campaign, the mission said in a statement on Monday.

"We have received a letter from Senator John McCain with a request for a financial donation to his presidential election campaign. In this respect we have to reiterate that neither Russia's permanent mission to the UN nor the Russian government or its officials finance political activities in foreign countries," the statement said.

According to Ruslan Bakhtin, press secretary of the Russian mission, the letter dated September 29 and signed by McCain, was addressed to Vitaly Churkin, Russia's envoy to the UN, and arrived on October 16.

The ambassador's title was not included in the letter, and was not clear why the letter had taken over two weeks to arrive.

Enclosed was a request for a donation of up to $5,000 to McCain's election campaign to be returned with a check or permission to withdraw the money from the donor's credit card until October 24.

Individual donations to candidates' election campaigns are capped by law at $2,300, and it is illegal to accept donations from foreign nationals.

McCain accepted the $84 million in public financing available to his election campaign, and consequently cannot accept private donations. However, the Republican National Committee is collecting donations that can be used to support his candidacy in limited ways.

Legal barriers aside, the request and the official response from the Russian mission appear even more confusing in the light of McCain's overall negative attitude toward Russia.

Last year he said the G8 should exclude Russia, citing "diminishing political freedoms, a leadership dominated by a clique of former intelligence officers, [and] efforts to bully democratic neighbors."

On August 12, during the brief conflict between Russia and Georgia in its breakaway region of South Ossetia, McCain said he had told Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili: " I know I speak for every American when I say to him, 'Today, we are all Georgians.'''

1. Accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals is illegal. So why ask?

2. After what he's said about Russia, they're going to give him money?

3. He accepted public funding. Shouldn't he be done with fundraising by this point?

4. You'd think the guy who helped write the most important campaign finance legislation in recent history would a) understand the rules and b) not want to violate, or seem to violate, said rules.

Seriously, WTF?

[GrantDawg]

I blame talk radio. :p


You nearly owed me a monitor. I just about spewed coffee all over mine. :D

[GrantDawg]

RIA Novosti - Russia - Russian UN mission gets letter from McCain seeking election cash (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081020/117842524.html)



1. Accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals is illegal. So why ask?

2. After what he's said about Russia, they're going to give him money?

3. He accepted public funding. Shouldn't he be done with fundraising by this point?

4. You'd think the guy who helped write the most important campaign finance legislation in recent history would a) understand the rules and b) not want to violate, or seem to violate, said rules.

Seriously, WTF?

That just smells fishy. I doubt it was really sent by McCain or his people.

[larrymcg421]

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081020/117842524.html



1. Accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals is illegal. So why ask?

2. After what he's said about Russia, they're going to give him money?

3. He accepted public funding. Shouldn't he be done with fundraising by this point?

4. You'd think the guy who helped write the most important campaign finance legislation in recent history would a) understand the rules and b) not want to violate, or seem to violate, said rules.

Seriously, WTF?

I've seen that, but didn't want to post yet, because I have some suspicions about that story. McCain's actions don't make sense. The $5,000 he would get wouldn't be worth the political fallout. I'm thinking the letter is probably a fake, but we'll see what happens.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081020/117842524.html

1. Accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals is illegal. So why ask?

2. After what he's said about Russia, they're going to give him money?

3. He accepted public funding. Shouldn't he be done with fundraising by this point?

4. You'd think the guy who helped write the most important campaign finance legislation in recent history would a) understand the rules and b) not want to violate, or seem to violate, said rules.

Seriously, WTF?

Has it been verified that the document actually came from McCain's campaign? I didn't see any actual picture of the document. As you say, it seems odd to the point where it's not believable without evidence.

[flere-imsaho]

That just smells fishy. I doubt it was really sent by McCain or his people.

I've seen that, but didn't want to post yet, because I have some suspicions about that story. McCain's actions don't make sense. The $5,000 he would get wouldn't be worth the political fallout. I'm thinking the letter is probably a fake, but we'll see what happens.

Has it been verified that the document actually came from McCain's campaign? I didn't see any actual picture of the document. As you say, it seems odd to the point where it's not believable without evidence.

Oh, agreed 100%, and maybe I should have worded my post differently. I'd imagine that somehow the wrong name/address got into one of their mailing databases and sent out as part of a more general appeal.

Still funny, though, and a fair amount of egg on the face of the guy who wrote the book on how and why not to do this.

[SirFozzie]

They make it seem like it WAS from the campaign (the guy from the campaign saying he didn't know how he got the wires crossed).. but I think we can file this under "simple mistake" and no harm, no foul.

[Flasch186]

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081020/117842524.html



1. Accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals is illegal. So why ask?

2. After what he's said about Russia, they're going to give him money?

3. He accepted public funding. Shouldn't he be done with fundraising by this point?

4. You'd think the guy who helped write the most important campaign finance legislation in recent history would a) understand the rules and b) not want to violate, or seem to violate, said rules.

Seriously, WTF?

Flere:

I dont believe the article one iota. unless as stated prior that some mail purge just printed an address that shouldve been excluded.

[Klinglerware]

But the voting demo does shift from election to election and leaving it the same just skips the hardest part of polling. I don't know how accurate the various turnout projections will be, but I'm sure turnout will be a few points different than in 2004. Zogby doesn't even try to claim that the 2004 turnout is predictive of 2008, he just uses it for convenience.

It doesn't invalidate a poll to be several points off. That's what MOE is all about.

As has been mentioned before, predicting turnout is one of the more difficult aspects of predictive polling.

Year State VAP Turnout Rate
2006 United States 37.0%
2004 United States 55.3%
2002 United States 36.3%
2000 United States 50.0%
1998 United States 35.3%
1996 United States 48.1%
1994 United States 38.5%
1992 United States 54.7%
1990 United States 36.5%
1988 United States 50.3%
1986 United States 36.5%
1984 United States 53.3%
1980 United States 52.6%

Here is a table of turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population. Obviously, you can't base presidential turnout on non-presidential years. It is more reasonable to look at presidential years only. But even then, turnout has ranged from 48% to 55% of VAP. That represents a swing of 16 million voters.

Unfortunately, in only 2 out of 6 cases did the difference in turnout differ by 2% or less. Sometimes turnout went up. sometimes it went down. Obviously, these differences can be explained (popular incumbency, open race, etc.)--but these differences are there, nonetheless.

As stated before, the election-to-election differences can also be driven by shifts in demographic/affiliation makeup of the people casting the actual ballots. We don't know what the differences will be, but predictive pollsters have to make assumptions--it is standard practice to base weighting on the demographics of an "ideal representative" previous race, but it is reasonable to expect weights to be tweaked if the case can be made that the upcoming election is different from the last one.

[JPhillips]

I'm sure the email to the Russian embassy was a mistake, but it just symbolizes McCain's campaign that on the day they decide to make a big deal about Obama's fundraising they have this come out.

[GrantDawg]

I'm sure the email to the Russian embassy was a mistake, but it just symbolizes McCain's campaign that on the day they decide to make a big deal about Obama's fundraising they have this come out.


It's the liberal media's fault.

[SirFozzie]

Have you seen the latest shenanigans from the far-right Republican Blogosphere? They're trying to manufacture their own October Surprise, by bringing up Obama's "supplemental security provider", a long time family friend, and trying to codeword their way into insinuating that Obama is having a homosexual affair.

[albionmoonlight]

I really get the feeling that some of the Republicans in this thread could be running a better campaign than McCain is right now:

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/10/mccain-off-message.html

I imagine that, whether he wins or loses, the behind the scenes books and articles about McCain's campaign will be interesting. Sort of like the Atlantic article discussing how Clinton's campaign was much more disorganized behind the scenes than anyone suspected during the primaries.

Which isn't, of course, to say that he will lose. Just that a thread on a football message board seems to have more message discipline than his campaign right now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I really get the feeling that some of the Republicans in this thread could be running a better campaign than McCain is right now

Some? More like damned near any.

I imagine that, whether he wins or loses, the behind the scenes books and articles about McCain's campaign will be interesting. Sort of like the Atlantic article discussing how Clinton's campaign was much more disorganized behind the scenes than anyone suspected during the primaries.


Sort of like the various texts on the demise of Titanic.

[Big Fo]

Big controversy with Obama out on the stump these last two weeks, is he rooting for the Rays or the Phillies in the World Series?

Can't lose: Obama backs Rays, Phillies

Barack Obama, campaigning in the key swing state of Florida, is seeking to capitalize on the excitement over the World Series-bound Tampa Bay Rays, telling a Tampa crowd he was “showing some love for the Rays,” several members of which joined him onstage.

...

On Oct. 11, Obama told a crowd in the City of Brotherly Love — the biggest city on the key swing state of Pennsylvania: “My White Sox are gone, so I’ll go ahead and root for the Phillies now.”

Yet in Tampa on Monday afternoon, where he was introduced by Rays players Fernando Perez and David Price, Obama also seemed to express support for the Rays, telling the crowd that he had just met with several members of the team backstage.

"I have said from the beginning that I'm a unity candidate, bringing people together. So when you see a White Sox fan showing some love for the Rays and the Rays showing some love back, you know we're onto something here,” Obama said.

He added that he considered cutting his hair in a Mohawk to show solidarity with the team’s players, but “My political advisers said they weren't sure how that would play with swing voters.”

...

Obama spokesman Bill Burton stressed that his boss did not say he was rooting for the Rays.

“He said nice things about the members of the team who came to support him today, but that doesn’t change his feelings about the fact that they bounced his White Sox out of the playoffs,” Burton said, adding that Obama would root for the Phillies. “He’s a unity candidate and it is going to be a great series.”

politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14750.html)

I don't give a damn about William Ayers but things like this make me wary. I'm glad they could get one of his spokesmen to clear things up.

[Cringer]

Seems like normal campaigning BS to me.

[ISiddiqui]

FLIP FLOPPER!!!

[flere-imsaho]

There was also a section of religious questions that included asking the religion of Obama that included Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Christian.They will never get accurate answers if three of the options mean the same thing.

Oh yes?

[Tigercat]

Heh, delayed reaction sarcasm fail? :p Just reacting to a society where that question is necessary at this point in a presidential campaign.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm sleep-deprived, give me a break. :p

[larrymcg421]

The Page - by Mark Halperin - TIME (http://thepage.time.com/2008/10/20/king-of-the-world-says-mccain-pretty-much-giving-up-on-colorado/)

This is a CNN report that McCain is giving up on Colorado. Ummmm, are they fucking insane? They have to win a Kerry state if they do that.

[SirFozzie]

The word from the Republicans is that Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico are now off the list of takeable states for McCain, and they're throwing all their hopes and dreams at Pennsylvania.

(that's not including their must wins in NC/VA/OH/FL)

edit corrected one state after watching the bit a 2nd time

Got beat to the link by 1 minute :)

[larrymcg421]

So it's basically a one state election for McCain. People said he needed to shrink the map, and he sure did.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I'm laughing my head off at this...

PalinAsPresident.com (http://www.palinaspresident.us/)

[SirFozzie]

Poll: Obama Gained During Debates, CBS News/N.Y. Times Follow-Up Survey Of Likely Voters Suggests Democrat's Advantage Grew - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/20/opinion/polls/main4533712.shtml?tag=topStory;topStoryHeadline)

In a poll taken just before the first presidential debate, the Obama-Biden ticket held a five point edge, with 48 percent of likely voters backing the Democratic ticket and 43 percent supporting the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Those 476 likely voters were re-interviewed for the new poll, and their responses suggest that the Democratic ticket has made gains since the initial survey: The Obama-Biden ticket now holds a 13-point edge, 54 percent to 41 percent, among the group.

This doesn't mean much, it's the same voters, but it may be a sign of how much the third debate hurt McCain.

[Maple Leafs]

Nice to see...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gl2EndLZv7w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gl2EndLZv7w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Arles]

Man, can the NY Times be anymore in the tank for Obama? This is terrible 15 days prior to the election:

Mrs. McCain, 54, describes herself as her husband’s best friend, though for the last two decades they have mostly lived apart, she in Arizona, he in Washington. She initially seemed like an ideal political partner, giving Mr. McCain a home state, money and contacts that jump-started his career. But as the years passed, she also became a liability at times. She played a role in the Keating Five savings-and-loan scandal, and just as her husband was rehabilitating his reputation, she was caught stealing drugs from her nonprofit organization to feed her addiction to painkillers. She has a fortune that sets the McCains apart from most other Americans, a problem in a presidential race that hinges on economic anxieties. She can be imprecise: she has repeatedly called herself an only child, for instance, even though she has two half-siblings, and has provided varying details about a 1994 mercy mission to Rwanda.

But this was the best:

When The New York Times reported last winter that Mr. McCain’s staffers had urged him to stay away from a female lobbyist during his first presidential run, Mrs. McCain stood by her husband at a news conference and defended his honor
This report was completely debunked and even the NY Times called it later an "utter fabrication". This is like saying "Cindy wasn't clear on when McCain stopped beating her". None of it is true, but it makes McCain look bad.


The Long Run - Behind McCain, Outsider in Capital Wanting Back In - Series - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18cindy.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Cindy%20McCain&st=cse&oref=slogin)

So, I take it the NY Times will provide a similarly critical piece about Michelle Obama 15 days before the election? Or, if drug use 20 years ago by McCain's wife is newsworthy, maybe the NY Times should look more into Obama's drug use? The correct answer is "of course not".

IMO, the whole thing is terrible and the NY Times is losing what little shred of credibility it had left.

[Maple Leafs]

So, I take it the NY Times will provide a similarly critical piece about Michelle Obama 15 days before the election?
Political leanings aside... this is the sort of "media criticism" that has me shaking my head. It's not the media's job to be "similarly critical" -- it's their job to present the facts. If Michelle Obama has been involved in a major political scandal, been addicted to drugs and lied about her family, then the media can be "similarly critical".

[Flasch186]

Im with Arles though in that rehashing a overly old story 15 days before an election could make a 'mainstream' rag become a partisan talking point sheet.

[Tigercat]

So, I take it the NY Times will provide a similarly critical piece about Michelle Obama 15 days before the election? Or, if drug use 20 years ago by McCain's wife is newsworthy, maybe the NY Times should look more into Obama's drug use? The correct answer is "of course not".


If they found drug use by Michelle well into her adult life, especially if it involved other illegal activities, I am sure it will find its way in reports. This shouldn't be an issue in a presidential campaign, but as long as either side plays personal attack politics, the media will not shy away from negative stories that are out there about the candidates and their spouses.

[Tigercat]

Dola, and Obama's drug use is out in the open, you can read about it in his autobiography. It has already been referenced in plenty of stories about him.

[Arles]

Political leanings aside... this is the sort of "media criticism" that has me shaking my head. It's not the media's job to be "similarly critical" -- it's their job to present the facts. If Michelle Obama has been involved in a major political scandal, been addicted to drugs and lied about her family, then the media can be "similarly critical".
IMO, this stuff is a little off limits at this point. It's just a pure smear. But, if you would like to know possible stories about Michelle Obama, how about:

1.University of Chicago Medical Center (where Michelle is currently on unpaid leave from her $317,000-a-year job as a VP) "steers patients who don't have private insurance -- primarily poor, black people -- to other health care facilities."

U. of C. shunning poor patients? :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1122691,CST-NWS-hosp23.article)

2. "Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has released a list of $740 million in earmark requests he made in the past three years, and it includes $1 million for the hospital where his wife Michelle is a vice president."

3. Michelle Obama was on the corporate board (payed 50K + stock options) of TreeHouse Foods Inc. earlier this year. TreeHouse’s largest customer is retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and the company paid $26.2 million in total compensation in 2005 to then-CEO Sam K. Reed. This happened while Barrack Obama was criticizing Wal-Mart and corporate pay practices like above.

And that's not even getting personal. The point is you could write a "hit piece" on Barrack, Michelle, John or Cindy at this point if you look hard enough (and not have to go back 20+ years to get information). But, the question is why do that when the "hit piece" (esp in this case) has nothing to do with the election?

[Arles]

Dola, and Obama's drug use is out in the open, you can read about it in his autobiography. It has already been referenced in plenty of stories about him.
And no one has ever referenced Cindy McCain's drug use or "lie" about her family (which was a joke when it was reported in Arizona decades ago) back in 2000 and before? All this stuff is just as much rehashed as the Obama claim would be. Yet, for some reason, the NY Times decided to re-report all this information 2 weeks prior to the election.

In fact, there would be no difference in referencing Obama's drug use or his wife's questionable board roles. Both have been reported numerous times, but so was the Cindy McCain stuff.

[Swaggs]

Man, can the NY Times be anymore in the tank for Obama? This is terrible 15 days prior to the election:



But this was the best:


This report was completely debunked and even the NY Times called it later an "utter fabrication". This is like saying "Cindy wasn't clear on when McCain stopped beating her". None of it is true, but it makes McCain look bad.


The Long Run - Behind McCain, Outsider in Capital Wanting Back In - Series - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18cindy.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Cindy%20McCain&st=cse&oref=slogin)

So, I take it the NY Times will provide a similarly critical piece about Michelle Obama 15 days before the election? Or, if drug use 20 years ago by McCain's wife is newsworthy, maybe the NY Times should look more into Obama's drug use? The correct answer is "of course not".

IMO, the whole thing is terrible and the NY Times is losing what little shred of credibility it had left.

Looks like a biographical piece on the potential first lady from a liberal leaning newspaper. No offense, but this barely registers on the list of outrageous articles that have been written during this election season.

[Arles]

Just for those who don't believe me on the McCain issue:

Feb 14, 2000: NY Times:
McCain's Double Standard: Hawk In The Drug War, Yet His Wife Got No Penalty
by Stanton Peele

Much has been made of allegations of possible youthful use of illegal drugs by Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush. Meanwhile, his chief GOP opponent, Arizona Sen. John McCain, has admitted that his wife not only illegally used drugs but walked away from criminal charges. The McCains have worked to make Cindy McCain's addiction into a political asset--despite the fact that she stole the drugs from a charity she directed and used them while mothering four young children.
McCain's Double Standard: Hawk In The Drug War, Yet His Wife Got No Penalty (http://www.commondreams.org/views/021400-102.htm)

This was also mentioned in the 2007 Bazaar magazine, 2007 NY Daily News, Arizona Republic, Washington Post and numerous other wire stories going back to the early 90s.

[Maple Leafs]

IMO, this stuff is a little off limits at this point. It's just a pure smear.
You know, having gone and read the actual article now (as opposed to just your post, which was what I was originally responding to), I'm inclined to agree. That's just a really strange article.

[Tigercat]

And no one has ever referenced Cindy McCain's drug use or "lie" about her family (which was a joke when it was reported in Arizona decades ago) back in 2000 and before? All this stuff is just as much rehashed as the Obama claim would be. Yet, for some reason, the NY Times decided to re-report all this information 2 weeks prior to the election.

In fact, there would be no difference in referencing Obama's drug use or his wife's questionable board roles. Both have been reported numerous times, but so was the Cindy McCain stuff.

Really I think you are taking the piece a little too personally. Maybe the story shouldn't be published today, and maybe it could have including different pieces of information, but I hardly think it was written for the purpose of just being a "hit" on Cindy McCain.

After reading the article it seems to be a response to the reality that Michelle Obama has been more visable in this election thus far. So part of the article is an answer to "why?" Part of the answer is: Cindy McCain's past and present image brings as many negatives to a presidential campaign as positives. It may not be fair that those past issues are seen as negatives towards her ability to represent America as first lady; but thats modern politics, where some will see her as a man stealing drug popper, and the Obamas as un-American.

If/when someone does an article about Michelle Obama in the next couple of weeks, you can be sure that someone from the left will be able to interpret the listed negatives her image brings to the campaign as part of a hit on her.

[Arles]

Looks like a biographical piece on the potential first lady from a liberal leaning newspaper. No offense, but this barely registers on the list of outrageous articles that have been written during this election season.
So as long as it's not the worst article, it's OK?

For balance, here's the piece they ran on Michelle Obama on August 26:

A relative newcomer to campaigning and the first black woman with a serious shot at first ladyhood, Mrs. Obama is a softer, smoother presence on the trail than she was at the start of the race.

Her basic message — the stirring life story, the full-throated advocacy for her husband, the maternal warmth — has remained constant. But instead of laying down challenges to her audiences, she solicits their concerns and showers them with empathy. She used to appear on news programs; now she gives interviews to “The View” and Ladies’ Home Journal. On Monday night she wore a designer dress, but lately she has more often sported a cheap-chic approach to fashion that might be called the economic crisis look: fewer designer pieces, more $79 Gap sundresses.
Michelle Obama, Reluctant No More - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/us/politics/26michelle.html)

No mention of her curious role in the hospital scandal I mentioned above. No mention of her being on a board for a company supporting WalMart while her husband was criticizing those exact actions? No mention of her controversial comments earlier.

Obviously, there's one standard for what's "appropriate" for Obama and one for McCain at the Times. I don't see how anyone can argue that at this point.

[Arles]

If/when someone does an article about Michelle Obama in the next couple of weeks, you can be sure that someone from the left will be able to interpret the listed negatives her image brings to the campaign as part of a hit on her.
The NY Times did one on Michelle in late August. You read how "hard-hitting" it was in the post above.

[Tigercat]

No mention of her curious role in the hospital scandal I mentioned above. No mention of her being on a board for a company supporting WalMart while her husband was criticizing those exact actions? No mention of her controversial comments earlier.


Really, are any of those situations that controversial or interesting to any large groups of people? These are issues that hardly got the attention of the blogging community, and they get excited over the stupidest issues known to man.

[Tigercat]

The NY Times did one on Michelle in late August. You read how "hard-hitting" it was in the post above.

Dola, I dunno, again I just don't think your list of crappy character issues against Michelle Obama are even good crap character issues. The whole Un-American line is more successful crap than all of that.

[lungs]

Why do conservatives get their panties in a row every time the New York Times smears a Republican?

[Swaggs]

So as long as it's not the worst article, it's OK?


I don't really think of it as okay or not okay. To me, I take all news mediums with a grain of salt and try to piece together enough information to make my own opinions. I don't really think this article is particularly eye-opening or shocking and I certainly don't think it stands out compared to the types of things that are written during an election season.

If you are reading the New York Times and not expecting a liberal lean, I don't know what to tell you. You are acting as if you are shocked that a very liberal newspaper wrote a critical and unfavorable article about Cindy McCain. To me, that is just feeding red meat to the base.

[Arles]

If you are reading the New York Times and not expecting a liberal lean, I don't know what to tell you. You are acting as if you are shocked that a very liberal newspaper wrote a critical and unfavorable article about Cindy McCain. To me, that is just feeding red meat to the base.
I agree to the most part here. It's just a shame that what used to be such a major national publication has gone such in the tank for one political candidate. At this point in time, the NY Times to the democratic party is no different than Pravda to mother Russia. It's a shame, but as you say, you have to expect it now.

[Buccaneer]

Why do liberals get their panties in a row every time the Limbaugh smears a Democrat?

Wouldn't that be the same thing?

To me, it's all a stupid game - the end justifies the means. No one is still reporting much on the inevitable expansion of federal government powers, expenditures and deficits.

[Buccaneer]

I agree to the most part here. It's just a shame that what used to be such a major national publication has gone such in the tank for one political candidate. At this point in time, the NY Times to the democratic party is no different than Pravda to mother Russia. It's a shame, but as you say, you have to expect it now.

You wouldn't have liked living in the 19th century. :)