Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[lungs]

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.

Of course it's the same thing.

I guess I hit the conservatives in this case because I've read a blogger or two that absolutely rail on the New York Times and while they don't come out and say it, almost imply that things would be different for John McCain if the liberal media wasn't in the tank for Obama.

You could have a Republican state controlled media and I'd still put my money on Obama.

[Arles]

Buc's right. In the grand scheme of things, this is all a little silly. I'm just a little amazed that the NY Times would do a straight hit piece on the wife of a presidential candidate 2 weeks before the election. But, much like Limbaugh attacking the left, why be surprised? Just accept it and move on.

[Swaggs]

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.

It is a huge problem.

Most news mediums are dramatically in the tank for one agenda or another. The ones that attempt to legitimately report news are, for the most part, so afraid to appear unbalanced that they have to tiptoe around real stories and/or over-represent non-stories so that they look like they are giving equal time/scrutiny.

[Buccaneer]

It is a huge problem.

Most news mediums are dramatically in the tank for one agenda or another. The ones that attempt to legitimately report news are, for the most part, so afraid to appear unbalanced that they have to tiptoe around real stories and/or over-represent non-stories so that they look like they are giving equal time/scrutiny.

I think that's an excellent summary. There are many, though, that pretend it doesn't exist.

[Daimyo]

So Michelle Obama is connected to a program at the University of Chicago hospital that attempts to divert non-critical patients from emergency rooms to local doctors where they will most likely get faster, cheaper treatment (isn't the over-reliance on hospital ERs one of the biggest problems in health care today?). One of Obama's earmarks is $1M to one of the largest, most respected hospitals in Chicago. Michelle Obama is a board member for a food distributor that (gasp) does business with Wal-Mart.

... and you wonder why none of that is getting play?

[Arles]

You're right, if McCain funneled over $1 million to his wife's beer distribution company in the form of earmarks, no one would report on it. The point is these items were not even mentioned in a total puff piece on Michelle (atleast report it and let the readers decide if it's meaningful). Then, 6 weeks later, a hatchet job on Cindy comes out talking about a small drug addiction to pain killers 20 years ago and some crazy claim about her lying about not having half siblings. It's just ridiculous. But, like Buc says, you just have to treat the NY Times like the left treats Rush Limbaugh. It's a shame, but the truth.

[Daimyo]

I read the Cindy McCain piece. I didn't think the stuff about Cindy was too weird or harmful. So she took pain pills 15 years ago... America loves redemption stories.

What did seem weird to me was how it seemed to be subtly dancing around McCain's character -- kind of implying he wasn't a good husband or family man without really coming out and saying it directly. That made it pretty awkward to me. I wonder if we'll hear about the Carol divorce next week...

[Daimyo]

You're right, if McCain funneled over $1 million to his wife's beer distribution company in the form of earmarks, no one would report on it. The point is these items were not even mentioned in a total puff piece on Michelle (atleast report it and let the readers decide if it's meaningful). Then, 6 weeks later, a hatchet job on Cindy comes out talking about a small drug addiction to pain killers 20 years ago and some crazy claim about her lying about not having half siblings. It's just ridiculous. But, like Buc says, you just have to treat the NY Times like the left treats Rush Limbaugh. It's a shame, but the truth.

hmmm.... beer distribution company = University of Chicago hospital. Really? That's the argument you're going with?

If you ignore earmarks requested by McCain and Obama, I wonder how much was requested for hospitals across the country and how much was requested for beer distribution companies (or similar industries)?

[Arles]

I wonder if we'll hear about the Carol divorce next week...
I'm sure we will. The polls are starting to tighten up a bit...

[Vegas Vic]

Here's some more news on the guy who was only 8 years old when the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers was active, and who has no association with him.

Obama Praised 'Searing and Timely' Book by Ayers (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/obama-praised-searing-timely-book-ayers/)

[cartman]

Here's some more news on the guy who was only 8 years old when the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers was active, and who has no association with him.

Obama Praised 'Searing and Timely' Book by Ayers (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/obama-praised-searing-timely-book-ayers/)

So giving feedback on a book is now incriminating? The book in question was "A Kind and Just Parent: Children of the Juvenile Court". Not quite "Anarchist's Cookbook" or anything like that.

[larrymcg421]

I'm sure we will. The polls are starting to tighten up a bit...

They were tightening up, but now they've spread far apart again. Gallup's LV #1 model got as close as 2 points, but is now at 5 points. Zogby was 3 pts. and is now at 6 pts. And if the race is really tightening up, then McCain's decision to forego Colorado and bank his whole election on winning Pennsylvania doesn't make any sense.

[Karlifornia]

Here's some more news on the guy who was only 8 years old when the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers was active, and who has no association with him.

Obama Praised 'Searing and Timely' Book by Ayers (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/obama-praised-searing-timely-book-ayers/)

Okay, let's read what Obama said.


"searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair."

Wow, that's truly sinister and terrible. Obama wasn't a fan of the juvenile court system at the time. What's your point?

[larrymcg421]

Vic has been posting some real quality content lately...

Here's some more news on the guy who was only 8 years old when the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers was active, and who has no association with him.

Mother Theresa would have been booed at a Philly sporting event.

Obama the Messiah?

His buddies at ACORN could probably crank one out, if needed.

You're uphauling, Subby.


Shit, eventhough I strongly disagree with Arles and MBBF, and think some of their conclusions are silly, at least they're attempting to engage in intelligent discourse. I firmly believe that Sports Night quote in my sig.

[GrantDawg]

Nice to see...


<OBJECT height=344 width=425>
&nbsp
<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>


Good piece. It was nice to see. I think the red-haired was hitting the idiot so hard because he thought the Kurd girl was hot. :)

[Fighter of Foo]

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.

Is this the same paper that employs Bill Kristol?

[flere-imsaho]

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.

Actually, it reads a lot like the cover story Newsweek did on Cindy McCain a few months ago. I don't think it's a strange article, but it does seem to be somewhat strange timing. The Newsweek article was published early in the summer, if my memory serves, and that seemed like a more relevant time to publish what's basically a biopic.

But whatever, newspaper editors have to fill inches and all that.

[flere-imsaho]

No mention of her curious role in the hospital scandal I mentioned above.

I actually don't remember it being a scandal, though I'm not surprised the Sun-Times wants to paint it in that way. The Sun-Times has cherry-picked a lot of quotes from people who don't like the program, but there were plenty of people on the neighborhood level who thought the program was a step in the right direction.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Is this the same paper that employs Bill Kristol?

Bill Kristol writes for the National Review, correct?

[flere-imsaho]

Actually, I thought the NYT piece on Cindy McCain was, like the Newsweek cover story I mentioned previously, pretty sympathetic. If it's a hit piece on anyone, it's a hit piece on McCain, who comes across as an arrogant, unsympathetic skirt-chaser.

Comparing the NYT to Rush Limbaugh is a bit much, though.

[flere-imsaho]

Bill Kristol writes for the National Review, correct?

I believe he writes for both. I know he writes for the NYT, because every week DailyKos has someone who lambastes his latest column there. :D

[Young Drachma]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I believe he writes for both. I know he writes for the NYT, because every week DailyKos has someone who lambastes his latest column there. :D

Ah, thanks. He must write an ad-hoc column for them. Probably the token conservative approach. :)

[flere-imsaho]

The confluence of traditional reporting and blogging has, probably, done the NYT (and other papers) some harm. The article Arles is upset about comes from a quasi-online section of the NYT that is devoted to regular updates, blogging-style of the Presidential Election. It's a different section from the regular "Washington" part of the newspaper which reports political news, objectively.

The "quasi-online" or "blogging-style" sections (whatever you want to call them) are definitely influenced by the left-leaning editorial board of the NYT, and are written by, clearly, left-leaning reports. Furthermore, in the quest to be more like "blogging", there's clearly less of an onus for this reporting to be objective, so the subjective tendencies of the reporters and the editorial board show through.

That's fine with obvious blogs like, say, DailyKos. However, I think it represents a problem for newspapers of record like the NYT. While they may think there's sufficient division between their "blogging" efforts and the rest of their reporting, this division probably doesn't really register for most people who go to the site and read these stories.

It's an interesting problem for newspapers to grapple with and will obviously continue to evolve. In the meantime, however, it provides the slighted party (the GOP, in this case) a cause celebe whenever they need it. As Andrew Sullivan recently pointed out, all we've really done is taken the "conversation" from being, in 2001, the arguments of a few internet cranks yelling incomprehensibly at each other to, in 2008, the same cranks, now with huge followings, bleeding over into mainstream media.

Of course as Bucc would point out, this is simply "journalism" of the 19th century all over again, except with faster transmission rates.

[flere-imsaho]

Ah, thanks. He must write an ad-hoc column for them. Probably the token conservative approach. :)

I believe David Brooks is the token conservative. Bill Kristol is the token idiot. :D

[ISiddiqui]

Is this the same paper that employs Bill Kristol?

Doesn't Fox News employ Alan Colmes? Fair and Balanced! ;)

[Young Drachma]

Barack Obama wins AdAge marketer of the Year.

Obama Wins! ... Ad Age's Marketer of the Year - Advertising Age - MOY 2008 (http://adage.com/moy2008/article?article_id=131810)

He beat out Apple, Zappos, Nike and Coors. McCain was 6th, probably so they wouldn't be accused of shutting him out completely.

[flere-imsaho]

For reference, here are the regular op-ed columnists at the NYT, with my guesses on affiliation:

Charles M. Blow (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/charles_m_blow/index.html): Don't know.

David Brooks (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/davidbrooks/index.html): Goldwater/Reagan Conservative.

Roger Cohen (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/columns/rogercohen/index.html): Unclear, but I believe he's left-of-center.

Gail Collins (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/gailcollins/index.html): Liberal. Has a running co-column with Brooks on the election.

Maureen Dowd (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/maureendowd/index.html): Liberal.

Thomas L. Friedman (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/thomaslfriedman/index.html): Ostensibly Liberal, though a hawk (famously supported the Iraq War). I'm biased, though, because I think he's a quack.

Bob Herbert (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/bobherbert/index.html): Liberal.

Nicholas Kristof (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/nicholasdkristof/index.html): Liberal. Focuses almost exclusively on the social problems in the developing world.

William Kristol (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/williamkristol/index.html): Beats me. Clearly conservative (or at least Republican) this election cycle. Frequently divorced from reality, and facts. Pretty much every left-leaning blog eviscerates his columns regularly with well-cited posts disproving all of his conclusions.

Paul Krugman (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html): Nobel Laureate, Economics. Ideology probably right down the center, but has repeatedly bashed Bush, so is considered "liberal" by the online GOP. On the other hand, did write a series of columns called "The Conscience of a Liberal"....

Frank Rich (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/frankrich/index.html): Liberal.


So there you go.

[ISiddiqui]

Ostensibly Liberal, though a hawk (famously supported the Iraq War).

I think Friedman is kind of a Scoop Jackson Dem. Left of center, but very hawkish. Though I guess these days Liebermann is a better analogue.

[Young Drachma]

What a socialist, huh?

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state…. The necessaries of life occasion the great expence of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expence of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book V, chapter 2, Of the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN21.html#B.V,%20Ch.2,%20Of%20the%20Sources%20of%20the%20General%20or%20Public%20Revenue%20of%20the%20Society)

[Young Drachma]

Not that I favor Obamanomics or think he couldn't present them better. But this absurd notion of people benefitting from the system that's in place and expecting not to contribute to it, to me, seems a little ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as giving people with no tax liability some form of rebate for merely existing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What a socialist, huh?

Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book V, chapter 2, Of the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN21.html#B.V,%20Ch.2,%20Of%20the%20Sources%20of%20the%20General%20or%20Public%20Revenue%20of%20the%20Society)

In similarly relevant news, the world was once considered flat.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

IMO, the pioneers of our political system were dead on right, and the way they saw the world in 1789 must be preserved word for word, ideal for ideal today.

Fixed.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Actually not fixed. That's not my opinion, but one that seems prevalent on the right especially with respect to gun control.

Yes, well if someone on the right believes it, it must be prevelent.

:withstupid:

[Daimyo]

Almost as ridiculous as giving people with no tax liability some form of rebate for merely existing.
They may not pay income taxes, but they certainly pay taxes everytime they spend money.

[JPhillips]

They may not pay income taxes, but they certainly pay taxes everytime they spend money.

Ever since the Reagan era commission on Social Security people have been paying FICA taxes that go into the general fund and serve as a de facto income tax.

[CamEdwards]

So, the pioneer of our economic system is irrelevant today, as the world has changed so much that our economic ideals must be flexible.

OTOH, the pioneers of our political system were dead on right, and the way they saw the world in 1789 must be preserved word for word, ideal for ideal today.

It's not so much that the pioneer of our economic system is irrelevant, as much as he is fallible, just like every other philosopher, economic or otherwise.

That's not say Smith didn't have a point, or that those who are "rich" don't have an obligation, be it legal or moral, to help those less fortunate. I don't think there's much debate in this country over the rich paying their fair share, or even more. The debate is over how much more, and who is defined as "rich". Keep in mind that Smith was writing in Scotland in the late 1700's, and disparity of wealth was much greater in Great Britain than in the colonies.

As for whether or not the way the Founders saw the world in 1789 must be preserved word for word and ideal for ideal... that's a little tricky. I think you have to differentiate between opinions, laws, and ideals. Washington's views on foreign policy, for instance, made a great deal of sense in a world that was much bigger than it is today. It's easy to practice neutrality when an ocean really does seperate you from other countries. But that was just Washington's policy... not hardwired into our framework of government.

When the stuff that's hardwired into our Constitution need to be changed, as they inevitably will, the Founders designed a way for that to happen. It's called amending the Constitution. It's a difficult and lengthy process, which is as it should be, given that we're changing the basic ground rules of our government.

So, if you want to try and repeal the 2nd Amendment, go for it. It's the intellectually honest way of going about trying to change an enumerated right, in my opinion. BTW, according to a Gallup poll earlier this year, about 73% of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment is an individual right... so good luck with that.

If, on the other hand, you're simply going to say that since we no longer live in 1787, those rules no longer need apply, it seems to me like you need to design some new rules for our government.

As for the ideals... yes, I absolutely believe that we need to adhere to the ideals of those who created our system of government. If we're going to work within the system they designed, it makes sense to me that it would and has functioned best if/when we are trying to uphold their ideals as well.

[SirFozzie]

I have to admit, POTUS 08 on XM was carrying a replay of former President Clinton's speech in Ohio yesterday. As much as I currently prefer Obama to McCain, if somehow, someway he was running for prez again, I'd think I'd vote for him (maybne it's nostalgia, and the fact that he's really the only former president still out and about and making public appearances)

[sabotai]

I have to admit, POTUS 08 on XM was carrying a replay of former President Clinton's speech in Ohio yesterday. As much as I currently prefer Obama to McCain, if somehow, someway he was running for prez again, I'd think I'd vote for him (maybne it's nostalgia, and the fact that he's really the only former president still out and about and making public appearances)

If it weren't for term limits, I'd say it would be quite possible that Clinton would still be President and headed for his 5th term.

[Kodos]

Imagine how fun a Clinton vs. Reagan (both in their prime) would be?

[ISiddiqui]

If it weren't for term limits, I'd say it would be quite possible that Clinton would still be President and headed for his 5th term.

If he got elected in the first place. If he ran in 1992, he'd be running against Vice President Bush, after President Reagan stepped down and who knows what would have happened in that case.

[sabotai]

If he got elected in the first place. If he ran in 1992, he'd be running against Vice President Bush, after President Reagan stepped down and who knows what would have happened in that case.

Well of course. It's likely the people who became President would be completely different without term limits. Eisenhower was still popular at the end of his second term (he was the first to be forced out) and probably would have won a 3rd term if he ran. If that happened, who knows what would have happened and who would have become President after that.

[GrantDawg]

I didn't see this posted anywhere, so my apologies if its redundant, but I laughed so. fucking. hard.

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/48fde06582c1eafb/4741e3c5156499a7/3e906389/-cpid/449d162ffba9c246" id="W4727a250e66f972348fde06582c1eafb" width="384" height="283">



</object>


"I was worried with all the liberal media here, who has their head up Obama's ass right now?"

[Big Fo]

Warming up a crowd a few days ago in Concord, NC for a John McCain appearance, Representative Robin Hayes stated “liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God.” This was minutes after he said “make sure we don’t say something stupid, make sure we don’t say something we don’t mean” before going on stage.

After the big reaction Michele Bachmann's comments got you think the Republicans would cool it with this kind of junk.

politico.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1008/GOP_Rep_Liberals_Hate_Real_Americans_That_Work_And_Achieve_And_Believe_In_God.html?showall)

[miked]

Warming up a crowd a few days ago in Concord, NC for a John McCain appearance, Representative Robin Hayes stated “liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God.” This was minutes after he said “make sure we don’t say something stupid, make sure we don’t say something we don’t mean” before going on stage.

After the big reaction Michele Bachmann's comments got you think the Republicans would cool it with this kind of junk.

politico.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1008/GOP_Rep_Liberals_Hate_Real_Americans_That_Work_And_Achieve_And_Believe_In_God.html?showall)

The funnniest part is the evolution of the story, and how strongly he denied it. Even as it was being confirmed by other people. Then finally once the audio was released, it was admitted to. Must be that gotcha media that shows up early for events looking for non-stories.

[albionmoonlight]

It's like these people really don't know that the internet exists. "Well, I didn't see anyone in the crowd with a mimeograph, so we can just deny what I said."

[JonInMiddleGA]

The funnniest part is the evolution of the story, and how strongly he denied it.

And that's probably the one thing that bothers me about this at all, the sense that there's a growing trend toward denying what you know you said. I don't mean clarifications, I don't mean stuff that comes out wrong, I mean just flat out saying something & then running from it like a little bitch. Maybe it's just my perception but I feel as though I've seen more instances of people saying what they meant and then backpedaling away from it as fast as they can in the past year than I can recall in the decade or more prior to that.

If you're going to say it, mean it, and stand by it. If you can't do the last part, then do the world a favor & STFU because you're just wasting everybody's time flapping your gums.

edit to add: And I'm sorry to say that it's something I've noticed lately a lot more from the right than the left.

[miked]

I think they're doing it (hit and run) because it's what they think the people want (they seem to get decent responses from the crowds) but once it hits the media it's pretty despised. I think I saw a poll that said something like 60% of people think that John McCain is running a really negative campaign that the majority of people don't seem to like. So here you have these more "local" events where people say these stupid things that play to the crowd and may work on a local level, but I think these people are under the impression that the local crowds are representing their targets when it's clearly not.

Don't know if that's clear, but I think having the "gotcha" media around to run these stories is really hurting on a national level, but maybe not so much on local levels.

[flere-imsaho]

edit to add: And I'm sorry to say that it's something I've noticed lately a lot more from the right than the left.

That's because Al Gore invented the Internet, so folks on the left know about YouTube and its ability to record the stupid shit people say.

[Flasch186]

in an interview on CNN Palin just lied flat out: quoting Biden as saying 'if Obama is elected he'll be challenged by an [economic], uh, uh, International Crisis if you elect obama.

that is NOt what biden said. He did not say electing Obama would bring on a crisis as a causal effect. He said [whomever] is the next President they'll likely be tested [very early] by an international crisis.

[GrantDawg]

in an interview on CNN Palin just lied flat out: quoting Biden as saying 'if Obama is elected he'll be challenged by an [economic], uh, uh, International Crisis if you elect obama.

that is NOt what biden said. He did not say electing Obama would bring on a crisis as a causal effect. He said [whomever] is the next President they'll likely be tested [very early] by an international crisis.


It is how McCain is saying it as well:

Biden: Obama, if elected, will be tested early | ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/10/21/biden_obama.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab)

Biden: Obama, if elected, will be tested early

Associated Press
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
PHILADELPHIA — John McCain’s criticism that Barack Obama isn’t experienced enough to be president got a boost when the Democrat’s own running mate, Joe Biden, told donors that he expected his boss to be tested, if elected, by a “generated crisis” shortly after taking office.
“We don’t want a president who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars,” McCain, a 72-year-old Vietnam War veteran, told a crowd Monday in Belton, Mo.
“What is more troubling is that Sen. Biden told their campaign donors that when that crisis hits, they would have to stand with them, because it wouldn’t be apparent Sen. Obama would have the right response,” added the Republican nominee, who was spending Tuesday in Pennsylvania, another battleground. “Forget apparent. Sen. Obama won’t have the right response, and we know that because we’ve seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign.”
At weekend fundraisers, Biden said of Obama, “Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
McCain went on the criticize Obama’s opposition to President Bush’s decision to send tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to Iraq, as well as his rival’s more restrained response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia this summer.
Obama gained a rebuttal to those concerns over the weekend, when former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a retired four-star general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed Obama and attested to his readiness to be president.
Powell also criticized McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, saying she failed to meet the primary qualification for a vice president: the ability to assume the presidency at any time.
The attacks on Obama are one element in a sharpened stump speech in which McCain also accused his rival of having socialistic tax policies.
It was unclear whether McCain might step back from his attacks after Obama’s campaign announced that he will suspend campaigning for two days later this week to visit his gravely ill, 85-year-old grandmother in Hawaii.
McCain aides scheduled a daylong tour across Pennsylvania on Tuesday with rallies in Bensalem, near Philadelphia; Harrisburg; and Moon Township, outside Pittsburgh.

[cartman]

Triple T weighs in with his election message:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AbBq29qGxaA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AbBq29qGxaA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Big Fo]

Pretty good, but the one where he tackles Palin is better.

[SirFozzie]

Which one? He seems to not like Mrs Palin.

[SirFozzie]

Hell, I would've loved to have one of Terry Tate at the Presidential Debate. Take down both Obama and McCain.

"If in your answer you equivocate,. riding the pain train's your fate" Whooooooooo!

[Flasch186]

Fucking idiotic CNN this mornnig basically did a class on how to rig the DIEBOLD(SP?) machines, with pictures, descriptions, directions, etc.

Fucking retards.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Fucking idiotic CNN this mornnig basically did a class on how to rig the DIEBOLD(SP?) machines, with pictures, descriptions, directions, etc.

Fucking retards.

One of the divisions in my current contracting company does the testing of the touch screen voting for 80% of all the states. They're stressing out right about now. There's bound to be something that goes wrong somewhere and our execs will likely be on numerous news shows in the days following the election. I'm glad I'm not in that group.

[NoMyths]

McCain: Western Pennsylvania "the most patriotic part of America". Before that, though, comes a large misstatement.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NLVSURlFoQs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NLVSURlFoQs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[cartman]

Fucking idiotic CNN this mornnig basically did a class on how to rig the DIEBOLD(SP?) machines, with pictures, descriptions, directions, etc.

Fucking retards.

HBO had the documentary 4 years ago on this. I find it amazing that with their reputation built on ATMs, that they haven't done all they could to make these things as bulletproof as possible.

[Flasch186]

in the video above, Im sure in McCain's head he was like, "Shit, that isnt the way that was supposed to come out." And Cindy was like, "What the fuck."

[Fidatelo]

I think I would always feel more comfortable having paper ballots where you mark an 'X', regardless of the potential for saving time and money with electronic voting.

[JPhillips]

Optical Scan FTW

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Well of course. It's likely the people who became President would be completely different without term limits. Eisenhower was still popular at the end of his second term (he was the first to be forced out) and probably would have won a 3rd term if he ran. If that happened, who knows what would have happened and who would have become President after that.

If we play that game, Ike may have went for another term, resulting in JFK/Nixon facing off in '64. We wouldn't have been in the early stages on 'Nam yet. If elected, JFK may have stayed in office 20 years before Bobby was elected in '84... ;)

[sterlingice]

Fucking idiotic CNN this mornnig basically did a class on how to rig the DIEBOLD(SP?) machines, with pictures, descriptions, directions, etc.

Fucking retards.

Yeah, but the ones who already were/are going to rig the election already knew this. I mean, really, if CNN can get the info, it's readily available. There needs to be more attention brought to how awful this system really is, not less.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Charlie Cook (http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/ot_20081021_3912.php) more-or-less calls it for Obama:

The metrics of this election argue strongly that this campaign is over, it's only the memory of many an election that seemed over but wasn't that is keeping us from closing the book mentally on this one. First, no candidate behind this far in the national polls, this late in the campaign has come back to win. Sure, we have seen come-from-behind victories, but they didn't come back this far this late.

Second, early voting has made comebacks harder and would tend to diminish the impact of the kind of late-breaking development that might save McCain's candidacy. With as many as one-third of voters likely to cast their ballot before Election Day, every day more are cast and the campaign is effectively over for them. The longer Obama has this kind of lead and the more votes are cast early, the more voters are out of the pool for McCain.

Third, considering that 89 percent of all voters who identified themselves as Democrats voted for John Kerry four years ago and 93 percent of Republicans cast their ballots for George W. Bush, the switch from parity between the parties to a 10-point Democratic advantage would seem to almost seal this outcome irrespective of the candidates fielded on each side. The unprecedented surges seen in Democratic party registrations in those states that require party affiliations confirm that.

Fourth, just look at the money and spending. With Obama now outspending McCain routinely by margins of 3- and 4-to-1 in advertising in so many states, it's hard to see how the Arizonan's campaign can drive a message. For a time, Obama was matching McCain one for one in negative advertising, then spending double or triple on top of that in positive advertising. Now Obama seems primarily doing positive ads, probably the right move given his lead going into this final stretch. Organizationally, it's hard to find any state where McCain is organized as well as President Bush was four years ago or Obama is today, a product of both money and enthusiasm.

Fifth, while many are talking about the so-called "Bradley effect," voters telling pollsters that they will vote for an African-American candidate when they won't, putting aside the question of whether it ever existed, it hasn't been seen in at least 15 years and the likely surge in turnout among African-American and young people seems sufficient to offset it anyway.

Finally there are the states. Obama is now leading in every state that Al Gore and John Kerry both won, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin, and he is ahead in Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico, the three states that went once but not twice for Democrats in 2000 and 2004. He is also ahead in Florida, Colorado and Virginia. If that weren't enough (and it is), he's running basically even in Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio, and even threatening in Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia.

That's great, but why do I still feel nervous?

[molson]

in an interview on CNN Palin just lied flat out: quoting Biden as saying 'if Obama is elected he'll be challenged by an [economic], uh, uh, International Crisis if you elect obama.

that is NOt what biden said. He did not say electing Obama would bring on a crisis as a causal effect. He said [whomever] is the next President they'll likely be tested [very early] by an international crisis.

You're a liar. This is the quote:

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy," Biden said. "The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

He's clearly talking about Obama, not "whomever" is president (unless Biden is mistaken and thinks McCain is a 47-year old senator - but being mistaken would still fall under this thread's definition of "lie").

[M GO BLUE!!!]

We are likely to have an international crisis whether Obama, McCain or Gumby takes office in January. That's just the way it is... too bad things can't stay nice and peaceful, with no threat of anything at all happening, like it is today.

[Flasch186]

You're a liar. This is the quote:

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy," Biden said. "The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

He's clearly talking about Obama, not "whomever" is president (unless Biden is mistaken and thinks McCain is a 47-year old senator - but being mistaken would still fall under this thread's definition of "lie").

BS, and What Palin said was that "IF we elect Obama he'll face an economic, er, er, International Crisis." Biden did not say Obama would be the causal effect of such challenge. Palin and you are wrong in attempting to say that Biden said "IF" he is it will happen because what Biden meant, clearly in his quote is that no matter who is the next President, and he believes it will be the 47 year old you mention, he will be challenged in their first 6 months and I agree wholeheartedly with his statement and sentiment and Palin's addition of the word "If" changes the entire meaning of the sentence.

He did say that Obama will be elected the next President and he will be challenged. He did not say that if we elect Obama that will invite an international crisis. Like others have said, no matter who is elected next, they will be challenged.

Harkens back to the last election where the GOP stated that a vote for the Dems is a vote for the terrorists.

[molson]

BS, and What Palin said was that "IF we elect Obama he'll face an economic, er, er, International Crisis." Biden did not say Obama would be the causal effect of such challenge. Palin and you are wrong in attempting to say that Biden said "IF" he is it will happen because what Biden meant, clearly in his quote is that no matter who is the next President they will be challenged in their first 6 months and I agree wholeheartedly with his statement and sentiment and Palin's addition of the word "If" changes the entire meaning of the sentence.

The only difference is that Biden said "we're about to elect" and Palin said "if we elect". It would be kind of silly if Palin said the former.

You have to be kidding (or just unable to admit that you're wrong) if you think that quote "clearly" refers to "whomever" is president - he specifically compares Obama to Kennedy, cites his youth, and says that the world will want to test the mettle of "this guy".

I think what Biden meant was that Obama is well aware that he'll be challenged by others because of his inexperience and perceived relative passiveness in foreign affairs, and that he's up to the challenge.

It's just a quote, it's happens to be one of the fears I have about Obama (I mentioned early how I believed Putin, for example, was rooting for an Obama win). I'm sure Biden would take it back if he could - but my only real argument here was your use of the word "liar".

[Flasch186]

I was just about to say the same thing to you:

you honestly agree with Palin that she and Biden meant that "IF" you elect Obama [it will bring about] an International challenge, to test him?

If you do than we might as well stop debating the statement because we'll never get our interpretations to mesh or change eachother's mind (or the other's who agree with either me or you on this particular topic).

[molson]

I was just about to say the same thing to you:

you honestly agree with Palin that she and Biden meant that "IF" you elect Obama [it will bring about] an International challenge, to test him?

If you do than we might as well stop debating the statement because we'll never get our interpretations to mesh or change eachother's mind (or the other's who agree with either me or you on this particular topic).

I edited my post a few seconds after you posted this, but ya, I think Biden's saying, "we know what we're up against, we know we'll be challenged because of Obama's inexperience (citing his age and comparing him to Kennedy - who stood up to international challenges), and that we're ready for that challenge".

There's nothing remotely about McCain in what Biden said, at all. Calling Palin a liar was off-base (as is 95% of the time that word is thrown around here).

I don't have a problem with what Biden said. It was good to hear somebody from the (or any) ticket admit one particular challenge they might face. I think he was actually trying to soothe fears.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This kind of stuff drives me nuts. We don't need more loopholes and credits in the tax code. Just raise the rate or lower the rate and get on with it.

Political Radar: Obama Tweaks Tax Plan to Rebut McCain (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/obama-alters-ta.html)

The first presidential candidate who offers to simplify the tax code will have my vote until I can't vote for that person anymore.

[Subby]

Fucking idiotic CNN this mornnig basically did a class on how to rig the DIEBOLD(SP?) machines, with pictures, descriptions, directions, etc.

Fucking retards.
I would argue that exposure like this is what spurs innovation and improvement. Sweeping issues under the rug never ends well.

[Flasch186]

id like to see it 2 weeks after the election and not two weeks before hand when there is literally nothing that can be done to 'fix' anything before Nov. 4

[BrianD]

The whole world is waiting, folks. The whole world is waiting. I know almost every one of those major leaders by their first name, not because I'm important, because they were young parliamentarians when I was coming up and we've been hanging around a long time. I'll tell you what, mark my words, within the next, first six months of this administration if we win, you're gonna face a major international challenge, because they are going to want to test him just like they did young John Kennedy. They're going to want to test him, and they are going to find out this guy has got steel in his spine.

This really does sound like he is predicting the test of Obama specifically. "Within six months of this administration" could be taken to mean the next administration - whoever it is. "...because they are going to want to test him just like they did young John Kennedy" seems pretty specific to Obama. I would agree that any new president will face tests (as the spin goes now), but Biden seems to be making the point that Obama specifically will be tested due to his age.

I also like the Dan Rather quote saying that this story would be above the fold of most newspapers if Palin had said it.

[Flasch186]

1. I can see how those that want to interpret it as Molson did would think that they are right.

2. I also do not see Biden stating that Obama would be the causal effect of such challenge and do not think Im wrong.

Therefore perhaps this is one of those things that can be interpreted both ways. I do however think it was wrong to add an 'if' to the quote when Palin cited it.

3. I agree with you and Rather that if Palin had said it she wouldve been scrutinized more harshly but only because she is the competition and not because she's Palin.

[BrianD]

1. I can see how those that want to interpret it as Molson did would think that they are right.

2. I also do not see Biden stating that Obama would be the causal effect of such challenge and do not think Im wrong.

"...you're gonna face a major international challenge, because they are going to want to test him..." I'll let it go after this, but the causal effect seems pretty clear. I won't disagree that McCain would also be challenged, but that wasn't stated explicitly.

3. I agree with you and Rather that if Palin had said it she wouldve been scrutinized more harshly but only because she is the competition and not because she's Palin.

Because she is the competition to whom? The newspapers? I would hope that the newspapers themselves don't have a position where either candidate would be viewed as competition.

[Flasch186]

Ive been swayed, Ronnie Dobbs said it succinctly. I agree with Molson that he was talking about Obama specifically. I also think that Palin added an 'if' there that changes the meaning in my view of the quote to have a causal relationship. Im fine with that and admit Im wrong.

Brian I dont think he means, test Obama because of his age i think he means the 'him' to be President but I also get it that we're never going to know specifically because it isnt specific enough.


The competition to Obama therefore the statement would clearly indicate the causal relationship to the quote that I do not believe existed in Biden's original quote, and still dont, but would make for better ratings fodder: "GOP says 'if' you vote for Obama he'll be challenged by an International Crisis!" <----better ratings than what I think Biden said sans the 'if'.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Are we seriously having this prolonged discussion merely because Flasch feels the need to spin today. We're all perfectly aware that he was referring solely to Obama. There's honestly nothing to debate. It should come as a shock to no one that Obama will be tested by world leaders early on if he's elected.

[Flasch186]

Are we seriously having this prolonged discussion merely because Flasch feels the need to spin today. We're all perfectly aware that he was referring solely to Obama. There's honestly nothing to debate. It should come as a shock to no one that Obama will be tested by world leaders early on if he's elected.

and McCain wont? That's my point! Ill ask you ----- DO YOU believe that by electing Obama it will have a causal effect in inviting an international crisis that wouldnt exist if McCain we're elected?

Do you believe Biden meant a vote for Obama would have a causal effect?

If not, do you believe that Palin added the 'if' to insinuate such a causal effect?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

and McCain wont? That's my point! Ill ask you ----- DO YOU believe that by electing Obama it will have a causal effect in inviting an international crisis that wouldnt exist if McCain we're elected?

'International crisis'? No

Will Obama be tested by world leaders much more than McCain? Absolutely.

I'm not even saying it's good or bad. He may handle it well or he may fall flat on his face. It's certainly fair to say that most people have no idea how he'll do.

[BrianD]

Brian I dont think he means, test Obama because of his age i think he means the 'him' to be President but I also get it that we're never going to know specifically because it isnt specific enough.

OK, so I lied about leaving it alone. I think context here fills in the gaps you seem to be seeing. The same speech talks about a "brilliant 47-year old senator" and "test him like they did young John Kennedy" I'm trying to see the other side of this, but I keep seeing "they will test Obama because of his age".

The competition to Obama therefore the statement would clearly indicate the causal relationship to the quote that I do not believe existed in Biden's original quote, and still dont, but would make for better ratings fodder: "GOP says 'if' you vote for Obama he'll be challenged by an International Crisis!" <----better ratings than what I think Biden said.

I think this is another place where we are reading the same thing and coming to different conclusions. Rather was asked if Palin had made comments about McCain being challenged because of his age would the story be above the fold? This isn't a case of Palin accusing Obama of being too young being more newsworthy, it was a question of Palin saying about McCain what Biden said about Obama being more newsworthy. Same situation, other side of the aisle.

[BrianD]

and McCain wont? That's my point! Ill ask you ----- DO YOU believe that by electing Obama it will have a causal effect in inviting an international crisis that wouldnt exist if McCain we're elected?

I wouldn't make this claim.

Do you believe Biden meant a vote for Obama would have a causal effect?

I do. He said the crisis would happen "because they want to test him". Feel free to argue my grasp of the English language, but I believe "because" implies causality.

Edit: I'll even change this to help you out. I don't know if Biden MEANT that a vote for Obama would have a causal effect, but I think he did say that it would.

If not, do you believe that Palin added the 'if' to insinuate such a causal effect?

This doesn't really apply because of my previous answer. I think her saying 'if' highlights what Biden said, but I don't think it changes the meaning.

[molson]

'International crisis'? No

Will Obama be tested by world leaders much more than McCain? Absolutely.

I'm not even saying it's good or bad. He may handle it well or he may fall flat on his face. It's certainly fair to say that most people have no idea how he'll do.

And I think a "crisis" isn't necessarily a bad thing - if Obama faces challenges early, and handles any crisis competently and decisively, great for Obama and great for the US.

If you think he's up to it, then this dynamic isn't necessarily a negative, if you have concerns about it, it's absolutely a fair point to make by the more experienced side (though here it's a little less convincing because it's Palin, but that's another story).

[Daimyo]

I'm an Obama supporter and I think its pretty clear Biden was referring specifically to an Obama presidency and not the next president in general. Seems a stupid thing to say, but I can kind of see the strategy. Public opinion has swayed such that now a small majority see Obama as being better able to handle crisis than McCain and this is trying to play to the erratic image McCain projected in the wake of the economic crisis. If that was the case though he should have spoke more generically "whoever we elect as president will be challenged by an international crisis..." Maybe that's what he meant to say and this is just another example of Biden misspeaking before a crowd?

Either way though I think its a stupid play and completely unnecessary.

[digamma]

According to Zogby, polling shows that NASCAR fans are split evenly between the candidates. That's a wow in my book and means the checkered flag we're seeing doesn't just symbolize we're less than 2 weeks from the end of the race.

[molson]

So why did McCain pick Palin again? This discussion reminds me of McCain's biggest advantage, experience, and how it feels like there's an asterisk attached to that advantage every time it comes up.

[lungs]

John McCain gains an endorsement that could be the beginning of an even bigger endoresement:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/3238578/John-McCain-endorsed-by-al-Qaeda-supporters.html

[Flasch186]

I'm fine with all of the above and can see how different conclusions were reached. I can also see that if you reach a different conclusion to Biden's original quote that Palin's follow up would be a reconfirmation of the same thing.

[Neon_Chaos]

John McCain gains an endorsement that could be the beginning of an even bigger endoresement:

John McCain 'endorsed by al-Qaeda supporters' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/3238578/John-McCain-endorsed-by-al-Qaeda-supporters.html)

:D:lol:

[JonInMiddleGA]

That's great, but why do I still feel nervous?

Probably picking up what this poll picked up (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20081022/D93VM4PO0.html)

WASHINGTON (AP) - The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.

The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.

Three weeks ago, an AP-GfK survey found that Obama had surged to a seven-point lead over McCain, lifted by voters who thought the Democrat was better suited to lead the nation through its sudden economic crisis.

The contest is still volatile, and the split among voters is apparent less than two weeks before Election Day. ... The new AP-GfK head-to-head result is a departure from some, but not all, recent national polls.

Obama and McCain were essentially tied among likely voters in the latest George Washington University Battleground Poll, conducted by Republican strategist Ed Goeas and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. In other surveys focusing on likely voters, a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Obama up by 9 percentage points, while a poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center had Obama leading by 14. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, among the broader category of people registered to vote, found Obama ahead by 10 points.

Polls are snapshots of highly fluid campaigns. In this case, there is a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points; that means Obama could be ahead by as many as 8 points or down by as many as 6. There are many reasons why polls differ, including methods of estimating likely voters and the wording of questions.

Of course, a national poll means zilch without breaking it down by state.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

And I think a "crisis" isn't necessarily a bad thing - if Obama faces challenges early, and handles any crisis competently and decisively, great for Obama and great for the US.

If you think he's up to it, then this dynamic isn't necessarily a negative, if you have concerns about it, it's absolutely a fair point to make by the more experienced side (though here it's a little less convincing because it's Palin, but that's another story).

:+1:

I'm not even sure why the defensiveness other than being partisan to the point of absurdity.

[Flasch186]

Im not defensive about it other than the cause effect claim.

Actually i think no matter who wins, they'll be tested and I also hope that whomever it is succeeds mightily in passing said test as it would be good for you and I. I just think saying it's a causal effect of voting one way or the other is wrong and IMO not what Biden said (meant if you want). It is what Palin said IMO.

Regardless I DO think Biden is right in that a test will come of our next President.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Im not defensive about it other than the cause effect claim.

Actually i think no matter who wins, they'll be tested and I also hope that whomever it is succeeds mightily in passing said test as it would be good for you and I. I just think saying it's a causal effect of voting one way or the other is wrong and IMO not what Biden said (meant if you want). It is what Palin said IMO.

Regardless I DO think Biden is right in that a test will come of our next President.

Does this post come with an air sickness bag?

[Butter_of_69]

So why did McCain pick Palin again?

Pandering, pure and simple. Part of the reason so many independents are disillusioned with McCain and his campaign. It solidified his base, but alienated the voters he needs the most.

[BrianD]

Actually i think no matter who wins, they'll be tested and I also hope that whomever it is succeeds mightily in passing said test as it would be good for you and I. I just think saying it's a causal effect of voting one way or the other is wrong and IMO not what Biden said (meant if you want). It is what Palin said IMO.

I was thinking more about this on my drive to lunch, and I think the bold part is where some of the struggle is coming from. Saying an international crisis will come up "because they want to test [Obama]" is functionally equivalent to saying "if you elect Obama, then we will see an international crisis". It is not functionally equivalent to saying "if and only if". I think you are equating Palin saying "if" to her saying "if and only if".

It is probably equally safe to say that if we elect McCain, a different international crisis will come up which will test him. Since Biden failed to even hint along those lines in his speech, Republicans can quote him without any fear of people saying that they are quoting out of context.

[Flasch186]

BrianD, you are right and im all ears if you can explain to me how Im not correct in my interpretation as I want to know if Im off base. I believe she was saying 'if [and only if]'. Is that not accurate or a misinterpretation or some sort of bad assumption?

[Flasch186]

Does this post come with an air sickness bag?

unfortunately the bags are caught between rolling averages.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

unfortunately the bags are caught between rolling averages.

I bet. It's a ridiculously tangled web you're weaving today.

[dolfin]

Of course, a national poll means zilch without breaking it down by state.

These "national" polls mean zilch to me anyway you look at it. Most of these are polling less than 1,500 likely voters, except for PEW which hits on a whopping 2,300 telephone interviews.

It would be funny to see them broken down by state, though. "6 out of 9 likely voters in Delaware to vote Dem."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interesting look back at what was happening at this time 4 years ago. Kerry was ahead by 2-3 points in most polls, with only Zogby and Rasmussen showing Bush ahead.

Presidential Election Polls 2004 RNC Zogby Presidential Election Gallup Polls Press Releases Democratic Presidential Campaign Polls (http://www.2004dnc.com/polls.htm)

[NoMyths]

These "national" polls mean zilch to me anyway you look at it. Most of these are polling less than 1,500 likely voters, except for PEW which hits on a whopping 2,300 telephone interviews.

It would be funny to see them broken down by state, though. "6 out of 9 likely voters in Delaware to vote Dem."

FiveThirtyEight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com)

[JPhillips]

Probably picking up what this poll picked up (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20081022/D93VM4PO0.html)

WASHINGTON (AP) - The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.

The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.

Three weeks ago, an AP-GfK survey found that Obama had surged to a seven-point lead over McCain, lifted by voters who thought the Democrat was better suited to lead the nation through its sudden economic crisis.

The contest is still volatile, and the split among voters is apparent less than two weeks before Election Day. ... The new AP-GfK head-to-head result is a departure from some, but not all, recent national polls.

Obama and McCain were essentially tied among likely voters in the latest George Washington University Battleground Poll, conducted by Republican strategist Ed Goeas and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. In other surveys focusing on likely voters, a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Obama up by 9 percentage points, while a poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center had Obama leading by 14. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, among the broader category of people registered to vote, found Obama ahead by 10 points.

Polls are snapshots of highly fluid campaigns. In this case, there is a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points; that means Obama could be ahead by as many as 8 points or down by as many as 6. There are many reasons why polls differ, including methods of estimating likely voters and the wording of questions.

Of course, a national poll means zilch without breaking it down by state.

The likely voter screen on that is pretty strong pro-republican. The registered number is 47-37 Obama.

After looking at the cross tabs I'm sure this is what I was polled on a few days ago.

[JPhillips]

Interesting look back at what was happening at this time 4 years ago. Kerry was ahead by 2-3 points in most polls, with only Zogby and Rasmussen showing Bush ahead.

Presidential Election Polls 2004 RNC Zogby Presidential Election Gallup Polls Press Releases Democratic Presidential Campaign Polls (http://www.2004dnc.com/polls.htm)

That page only shows SUSA and ARG polls favoring Kerry. SUSA is solid, but ARG has a well earned reputation for being unreliable.

[Neon_Chaos]

Why is it that you guys still use the electoral college thing?

[Young Drachma]

Why is it that you guys still use the electoral college thing?

It's in the Constitution.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Why is it that you guys still use the electoral college thing?

To make sure the redneck voters in Western Pennsylvania still have a say in the final results.

[gstelmack]

Why is it that you guys still use the electoral college thing?

It keeps New York and Los Angeles from deciding who the next President will be...

[Fighter of Foo]

Plus it's fun fucking with all the people who can't read a poll.

[stevew]

fuck murtha.

[Daimyo]

It keeps New York and Los Angeles from deciding who the next President will be...
Of course, to do that you have to make the vote of a citizen of Montana worth four times as much as the vote of a citizen of California...

[Big Fo]

Why is it that you guys still use the electoral college thing?

Because Democrats in Texas and Republicans in New York are subhuman thus their votes shouldn't count.

[flere-imsaho]

It keeps New York and Los Angeles from deciding who the next President will be...

Hey! And Chicago! :D

[gstelmack]

Of course, to do that you have to make the vote of a citizen of Montana worth four times as much as the vote of a citizen of California...

I bet he provides at least four times as much food :D

I never understood the electoral college until I saw the map of the 2000 election results and went "oh, now it makes sense".

[GrantDawg]

Optical Scan FTW


I worked as a poll person in 2000, and we used the Optical Scan. By far the best way to go. I just can't understand why more States didn't go to that over this mess they are using.

[molson]

I bet he provides at least four times as much food :D

I never understood the electoral college until I saw the map of the 2000 election results and went "oh, now it makes sense".

Was it this map?

http://images.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/elections2004/_images/2004countymap-final2.gif

As a country, we've decided that all that red is worth SOME kind of bonus, even though the actual votes behind them were basically a tie. You need broad popular and geographic support to win a presidential election in the US.

I've never decided if that was a good idea or not, though I lean towards it. It kind of just fits in with the rest of our system, and the importance of states (small states have incredibly disproportinate senate representation, for example, and nobody seems to be up in arms over that).

(This one's actually 2004 - 2000 didn't work for some reason).

[BrianD]

BrianD, you are right and im all ears if you can explain to me how Im not correct in my interpretation as I want to know if Im off base. I believe she was saying 'if [and only if]'. Is that not accurate or a misinterpretation or some sort of bad assumption?

Here is the analogy I was thinking about. Assume I make the statement, "if the Green Bay Packers play an NFL game in Mexico, there will be a big fan turnout". I think in general we can assume this is a true statement. You definition of "big" may be different than mine, but it is hard to find fault with the statement.

What I haven't said is that if and only if the Packers play in the NFL game will there be a big turnout. You could replace the Packers in my statement with the Bears, or the Patriots, or just about any team in the league (maybe not Miami) and that statement would still be true. The fact that I only gave one example doesn't mean that is the only true example.

Now assume that I am the assistant coach of the Bears and a Packer assistant coach delightedly calls a Chicago talk-radio station to parrot my quote that "if the Green Bay Packers play an NFL game in Mexico, there will be a big fan turnout". It probably doesn't make me look good to the Chicago media. I may have been speaking about the Packers specifically for another reason, but because I didn't give more than one example, people can accurately quote me with just the one.

This isn't a perfect analogy, but I am like Biden in this story. (Forget the fact that there are 2 presidential candidate and way more NFL teams.) Biden says that if Obama is elected, he will face a crisis from people who will want to test him. He didn't say that it is any different for McCain, but he (foolishly) didn't say anything at all about McCain. Now Palin can say the same thing Biden did with a changing around of the words which really doesn't change the meaning. Palin also hasn't said that the same wouldn't be true for McCain because she is just quoting Biden. When you hear 'if' from her, you associate that with 'if and only if' because she is on the side opposite you and you are expecting the attacks to be as strong as possible.

That is the beauty of this situation for the Republicans. The Biden quote was pretty unambiguous. Reps can repeat the quote without embellishment and it sounds harsh. The Democrats have basically responded in two ways. 1 - it was a perfectly reasonable thing to say because every president faces challenges. 2 - if you parse the words in just the right way, you might see that the statement really wasn't about Obama.

1 is fairly weak because "every president faces challenges" doesn't address the "electing Obama will cause a crisis" statement. 2 is pointless because you can't parse away the words because it is fairly unambiguous.

The real response should have been that Biden did in fact say that electing Obama will result in a crisis brought on to test him. Since the whole speech was about Obama in particular, his is the only name that was brought up. Had the discussion also included McCain, Biden would have commented that a different crisis would have come up to challenge him.

A second decent response would have been to say that Obama will face a crisis because he is young and people will want to test him. Obama will show everyone that he knows what to do and he will win the challenge. I think this is really what Biden was going for, but he didn't say it very well.

In the current state of "gotcha politics", the first reaction is always to deny. Once you deny, you look worse when you keep denying. Had they thought a little more and owned their statement with an amendment to make it more clear, they would have been better off.

[Flasch186]

you are right in the above and I take back everything I said. Thank you for taking the time to explain the positions.

[molson]

I don't think the whole quote thing is a big deal, but I heard the audio of Palin's response this morning, it wasn't really a hardcore attack, she said, "Why is he saying that, if I had said that you guys would be clobbering me. I'd like to hear him explain what he meant". Pretty reasonable sentiment.

[JPhillips]

I worked as a poll person in 2000, and we used the Optical Scan. By far the best way to go. I just can't understand why more States didn't go to that over this mess they are using.

Cheap, easy and reliable. What's not to like?

[molson]

Cheap, easy and reliable. What's not to like?

Some people are uptight about the government "collecting data" like that (whether or not that info is actually retained). Like they'll be able to track us or something.

I agree it's the right thing to do though. It's not that friggen complicated. We've accomplished much more impressive stuff as a species then have a reliable voting process.

[Flasch186]

I don't think the whole quote thing is a big deal, but I heard the audio of Palin's response this morning, it wasn't really a hardcore attack, she said, "Why is he saying that, if I had said that you guys would be clobbering me. I'd like to hear him explain what he meant". Pretty reasonable sentiment.

I had a problem with the 'if' and attached an existing 'and only if' that didnt exist. When analyzing that the second part actually was attached in my head and hence forth removed and than reanalyzed, I realize that I was wrong.

I agree that she wouldve been hammered for it but only due to the bias towards ratings/readers.

[larrymcg421]

Was it this map?

http://images.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/elections2004/_images/2004countymap-final2.gif

As a country, we've decided that all that red is worth SOME kind of bonus, even though the actual votes behind them were basically a tie. You need broad popular and geographic support to win a presidential election in the US.

I've never decided if that was a good idea or not, though I lean towards it. It kind of just fits in with the rest of our system, and the importance of states (small states have incredibly disproportinate senate representation, for example, and nobody seems to be up in arms over that).

(This one's actually 2004 - 2000 didn't work for some reason).

Okay, but what's silly about this argument is it still happens on the state level. For example, look at California. Look at all that red, but the state still went to Kerry. Also look at Pennsylvania, Oregon, or Washington. The electoral college doesn't force you to have broad geographic support. You can still take the entirety of a state's electoral votes by appealing to the urban areas.

I still can't figure out how on earth people think it's okay to say people who live close together deserve less voting power than people who live far apart.

[cartman]

There's another map I saw that painted a more realistic picture. That one is absolute, 100% or 0%. I'll see if I can find it again, but it showed shaded boxes depending on the closeness of the vote, with white where there was a 50/50 split, and gradually getting darker blue or red as it went towards 100%. There were a lot of light colored counties on that one.

[lordscarlet]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't electoral votes based on population? Its not so much that Wyoming's votes are worth more. It's just that a close win in a state is just as valuable as a landslide win.

[Klinglerware]

There's another map I saw that painted a more realistic picture. That one is absolute, 100% or 0%. I'll see if I can find it again, but it showed shaded boxes depending on the closeness of the vote, with white where there was a 50/50 split, and gradually getting darker blue or red as it went towards 100%. There were a lot of light colored counties on that one.

Here is the "Purple America" map of the 2000 Election...

http://politicalmaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/2000-purple-america.jpg

[larrymcg421]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't electoral votes based on population? Its not so much that Wyoming's votes are worth more.

Well, it doesn't work out exactly tied to population. Every state gets a minimum of 3 electoral votes, no matter how small they are, so some states are getting more than they would if there was a flat population per electoral vote ratio.


It's just that a close win in a state is just as valuable as a landslide win.

That is one of the silliest parts of the electoral college. If we really had three viable partoes, people would be winning all the electoral votes in a state with less than 40% of the vote.

[Klinglerware]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't electoral votes based on population? Its not so much that Wyoming's votes are worth more. It's just that a close win in a state is just as valuable as a landslide win.

Electoral votes are the sum of a state's Senators + Representatives. Since all states have 2 senators, smaller states have a very slight over-representation in the electoral college relative to their populations.

[lungs]

No wonder I'm voting for Obama, he has secretly been hypnotizing us!

http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama%27s_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf

[molson]

It's just that a close win in a state is just as valuable as a landslide win.

That's up to the states though. They could proportion it out by county, congressional district etc. (Maine and Nebraska do the latter, though they've always had sweeps and have never split the vote).

[molson]

I like those shaded maps except I think they're too easy to give a "split" color. 60/40 is a pretty dominant margin, but the map just gives slightly varying shades of red-blue.

[larrymcg421]

There's a proposal I've seen from some states meant to make the electoral college meaningless. The idea is that the state will allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. However, it doesn't go into effect until enough states (that make up 270 electoral votes) also pass the law.

[lordscarlet]

the bottom thing is neat: 2008 Electoral Map Predictions: 10-14-2008 | Political Maps (http://politicalmaps.org/2008-electoral-map-predictions-10-14-2008/) (found it from the purple map above)

<script src="http://vote2008.thetakeaway.org/wp-content/files/tools/electoral_college_maps_vote2008_takeaway_big_embed.js" type="text/javascript"></script>

EDIT: Embedded

[Ryan S]

Here is the "Purple America" map of the 2000 Election...

http://politicalmaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/2000-purple-america.jpg

What happened in Maine and Vermont?

[adubroff]

That is one of the silliest parts of the electoral college. If we really had three viable partoes, people would be winning all the electoral votes in a state with less than 40% of the vote.

A third party would capable of preventing both of the two main parties from achieving a majority would have a huge impact on the electoral college itself. It's very likely that if a third party could do that, they could demand almost anything from the main parties....In a close election, that party might only need to win one or two states.

[Buccaneer]

To me, the election has boiled down to a simple view:

I will not vote Democrat because of substance.
I will not vote Republican because of style.

There are more ways than one to vote against a one-party government and I may exercise that right. But I will not I will not help the Republicans carry Colorado for the presidency.

[Buccaneer]

Another Election Prediction:

45% of the population would vote for Obama (including those against McCain).
45% of the population would vote for McCain (including those against Obama).

The key will be what percentage of the population will actually get out and vote for (or against) a candidate.

[digamma]

Another Election Prediction:

45% of the population will vote for Obama (including those against McCain).
45% of the population will vote for McCain (including those against Obama).

The key will be what percentage of the population will actually get out and vote for (or against) a candidate.

I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean that 45% of the population would vote for Obama if they voted? And the key is seeing how many of those who would vote for Obama actually show up to vote for Obama?

[Buccaneer]

Yes, I meant "would" (as in theoretically). My brain said 'would' but my fingers typed 'will'.

[flere-imsaho]

Another election cycle, another instance of Republicans telling me that I'm anti-American. As Jon Stewart said, "Republicans love America, but just hate half the people living in it."

[CamEdwards]

Another election cycle, another instance of Republicans telling me that I'm anti-American. As Jon Stewart said, "Republicans love America, but just hate half the people living in it."

I've been called a racist, a fascist, a corporatist, paranoid, delusional, evil... and that was just the last phone call with my mom the Democrat! :D

Seriously, again I feel the need to point out that the emnity on the right is equaled by the emnity on the left, and good people on both sides become targets of it.

[Flasch186]

I have no idea since im a guy but I heard Palin spent up to $150K on clothes....is that a lot for a Pol? i honestly have no clue and since I got married I even have less of a clue and have stopped buying clothes for myself entirely (mostly since what I buy gets met with shakes of the head and disapproval which is repeated when I attempt to wear said item(s) and then get pushed into something bought for me.....by her.) plus Im not a Pol..

[JPhillips]

It seems to be unprecedented. It's also fun to note that the RNC had to foot the bill because McCain-Feingold made that sort of purchase with candidate funds illegal. It's another thing that doesn't really matter substantively, but Lord does it make the McCain team look even more inept.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What happened in Maine and Vermont?

A power blackout due to the damaging energy crisis.

[JPhillips]

Here are three fake commercials for McCain done by Hollywood directors. The first one isn't great, but the last two are pretty good.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u8fXaJmDbsY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u8fXaJmDbsY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I have no idea since im a guy but I heard Palin spent up to $150K on clothes....is that a lot for a Pol?

Male candidates spend thousands of dollars on suits, but nobody cares. If she didn't get more fashionable clothes and upgrade her appearance, we'd here the cries of how poor her appearance was. Female politicians walk a tightrope of fashion at all times. Male politicians put on one of their 20 navy suits with a red tie and think nothing of it.

[Alan T]

How is Palin's wardrobe any worse than John Edwards' haircut? Both were stupid stories and not a big deal at all. Sure it probably hurts their attempts at the "common person" feeling like that candidate understands them when they spend more on clothes or a haircut then many people can spend on things like food... but otherwise does it really matter? Of course I probably feel that way about 85% of the random things people bring up against Democrats or against Republicans in this thread trying it to make the candidate look like the worst person ever :)

[Flasch186]

their not any different. The haircut I have a point of reference on and KNOW that that is a ridiculous way to spend your money! I dont even know how much a suit costs and the one time I had to buy one was years ago and I was absolutely blown away by how expensive they seemed to be. If someone only bought suits I could easily see how you could get to 150K....That might only be about 35 suits....which 35 suits is a lot IMO but perhaps suits can be even more expensive than I imagine.

[Dr. Sak]

To make sure the redneck voters in Western Pennsylvania still have a say in the final results.

Please tell me you are kidding with the redneck comments?

[sterlingice]

http://politicalmaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/2000-purple-america.jpg

It's as I always suspected- there are no people in Maine or Vermont :D

SI

[sterlingice]

Male candidates spend thousands of dollars on suits, but nobody cares. If she didn't get more fashionable clothes and upgrade her appearance, we'd here the cries of how poor her appearance was. Female politicians walk a tightrope of fashion at all times. Male politicians put on one of their 20 navy suits with a red tie and think nothing of it.

Once again, one of the many reasons I'm glad I'm a guy. I open up my closet for work and it's just two sets of clothes: one of solid colored shirts and the other of solid colored pants. So, when I'm not really awake and getting dressed in the morning, the only thing I have to do it make sure I don't pick ones that are the same color. :D

SI

[Neon_Chaos]

To make sure the redneck voters in Western Pennsylvania still have a say in the final results.

It keeps New York and Los Angeles from deciding who the next President will be...

But if it were a straight-up popular vote, everyone would still have a say in the final results, right? One vote is just that, one vote.

I'm assuming that given the electoral college system that you have, you've got horrible voter turnout all over the country.

[flere-imsaho]

A power blackout due to the damaging energy crisis.

Lies. Everyone knows that people in Maine and Vermont get power from pine sap.

If she didn't get more fashionable clothes and upgrade her appearance, we'd here the cries of how poor her appearance was.

This is the same Sarah Palin who at the GOP convention (which was before the shopping spree) got so much attention in part because of her appearance? And she needed another $150,000 on top of that to look good?

Look, I understand they needed to get her more clothes for the campaign trail. Unlike guys, who can have a bunch of suits and white shirts and ties (and at least the shirts and ties can be pretty cheap), women on the campaign trail really need different outfits so as not to repeat outfits too much, which is not a concern for men.

However, $150,000? From Saks & Needless Markup? There are thousands of professional women who go to work each day looking good and professional who don't spend that kind of money and/or get very good looking clothes from much less expensive retailers.

How is Palin's wardrobe any worse than John Edwards' haircut? Both were stupid stories and not a big deal at all. Sure it probably hurts their attempts at the "common person" feeling like that candidate understands them when they spend more on clothes or a haircut then many people can spend on things like food

That's basically why it matters. It's an image thing. It begins to look hypocritical to be a champion of the common man when you spend more on clothes than the common man makes in a year (or two, or three). Plus, if I was a donor to the RNC (not even a donor to McCain/Palin) would I be 100% happy with this use of my money?

It's as I always suspected- there are no people in Maine or Vermont :D

Or Rhode Island, apparently.

[Dr. Sak]

Anyone who votes based on petty things like haircuts or suits...needs to have their vote revoked.

[Alan T]

Anyone who votes based on petty things like haircuts or suits...needs to have their vote revoked.


No joke...

Heaven forbid things get discussed such as who has the better plan to turn around the economy, or discussion of each candidate's foreign policies or what will be done about health care, etc. Lets discuss instead who spends too much on suits or haircuts, or if such and such candidate once upon a time walked on the same street as someone else.

[JPhillips]

That's basically why it matters. It's an image thing. It begins to look hypocritical to be a champion of the common man when you spend more on clothes than the common man makes in a year (or two, or three). Plus, if I was a donor to the RNC (not even a donor to McCain/Palin) would I be 100% happy with this use of my money?

To put the amount in perspective, that 150,000 is just a little under what the RNC spent on advertising last week in MO and WV combined.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Anyone who votes based on petty things like haircuts or suits...needs to have their vote revoked.

But "needs to" and "has had" are two very different things. Therefore it's an issue the realistic pol has to be aware of and deal with.

Plus, if I was a donor to the RNC (not even a donor to McCain/Palin) would I be 100% happy with this use of my money?

If it's toward the effort of winning, I really don't see it as an issue. After all, that's the overriding purpose of the donation presumably (ignoring the whole donate in order to have some advantage in the event of a victory thing).

[flere-imsaho]

To put the amount in perspective, that 150,000 is just a little under what the RNC spent on advertising last week in MO and WV combined.

If it's toward the effort of winning, I really don't see it as an issue. After all, that's the overriding purpose of the donation presumably (ignoring the whole donate in order to have some advantage in the event of a victory thing).

Well, that's the thing. Is the money better spent on Sarah Palin (who already looked good, or at least could have continued to look good with less of an outlay on clothes from two very expensive retailers), or on media buys?

I, personally, don't have a problem with it. I regularly present/interact with C-level executives, so I know the value of dressing well and looking good on a regular basis. I find the result of the RNC's ham-handed handling of this to be funny and the resulting media backlash predictable. But if anyone wants to claim that this won't have some effect amongst the electorate (ironically the part of the electorate the GOP ticket has been courting strongly for at least the past week), well, good luck with that. :D

[Arles]

Man, the attacks on Palin are reaching a new high. I checked Yahoo, CNN, MSNBC and even MSN last night- all had negative stories on Palin at the top (most on the 150K outfit and how Palin is killing McCain's chances). I just don't understand why so many are so angry at her. Is it really this "a woman being pro life" issue?

[Alan T]

Man, the attacks on Palin are reaching a new high. I checked Yahoo, CNN, MSNBC and even MSN last night- all had negative stories on Palin at the top (most on the 150K outfit and how Palin is killing McCain's chances). I just don't understand why so many are so angry at her. Is it really this "a woman being pro life" issue?

It has nothing to do with her being pro life. As mentioned, John Edwards had the same treatment regarding his haircut. It is really a "Media just reports on anything stupid and unfortunately for the most part the american public enjoys reading it" issue

[flere-imsaho]

I think it depends on the media outlet. The dumber ones are attacking Palin on the $150,000 because it's easy and will generate a lot of viewers. The smarter ones are attacking Palin because of the theory that all she's done is solidify the base, whilst alienating the parts of the electorate McCain needed to add to win the election.

[Arles]

I'm surprised no one has posted this yet:

http://www.journalism.org/node/13307


How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election

http://www.journalism.org/files/u29/1_lead_image2.png

For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.

For McCain, by comparison, nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two in ten (14%) were positive.


It's going to be pretty tough to make a charge when 6 in 10 are negative. Not that McCain has run a wonderful campaign, but I'm beginning to wonder if he was going to be behind the eight-ball no matter what.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, that's the thing. Is the money better spent on Sarah Palin (who already looked good, or at least could have continued to look good with less of an outlay on clothes from two very expensive retailers), or on media buys?

The amount of media $150k buys, depending upon the market of course, can be pretty negligible, and at this point the impact is pretty questionable with regard to anything other than turnout so ... a coin flip AFAIC. Palin is the only thing positively energizing the voters that absolutely must turnout for McCain to have any chance at all, so yeah, I can see investing it in her rather than him as being a reasonable decision.

The other thing we aren't privvy to is what research may have been behind the decision. I have to suspect that there was something coming back indicating an issue and this was an attempt to address the situation (remember, once upon a time there was analysis of the impact of Hillary's hairstyle on voters) Even as little as I think of a lot of the strategy I've seen, I have a tough time picturing this being entirely the result of someone saying "hey, why don't we take Sara shopping?". That just doesn't ring quite true to me. And if it was just totally random then let's face it, the people spending the money wouldn't likely to be smart enough to do anything worthwhile with it anyway.

[Fighter of Foo]

What happened in Maine and Vermont?

They seceded

[flere-imsaho]

The amount of media $150k buys, depending upon the market of course, can be pretty negligible, and at this point the impact is pretty questionable with regard to anything other than turnout so ... a coin flip AFAIC. Palin is the only thing positively energizing the voters that absolutely must turnout for McCain to have any chance at all, so yeah, I can see investing it in her rather than him as being a reasonable decision.

Fair enough.

[Big Fo]

Man, the attacks on Palin are reaching a new high. I checked Yahoo, CNN, MSNBC and even MSN last night- all had negative stories on Palin at the top (most on the 150K outfit and how Palin is killing McCain's chances). I just don't understand why so many are so angry at her. Is it really this "a woman being pro life" issue?

Well Palin is killing McCain's chances. Her selection has become McCain's number one negative among those polled and as Palin's favorability rating has plummeted the percentage of people who view McCain's age as a negative has risen.

People aren't angry at her as much as they don't feel she'd make a capable president.

As for the clothes thing, yeah that's been overblown but some people find it amusing.

[Klinglerware]

What happened in Maine and Vermont?

My guess is that the map was done prior to the certification process being completed.

New England is different from most of the rest of the US, in that election results are tabulated and certified at the town level, not the county level. I suppose that the map maker wanted to use certified results to create the map, and there were probably some straggler towns in those states that certified late--which would make county calculations difficult (if you wanted to use apple-to-apples certified data)...

[miked]

Man, the attacks on Palin are reaching a new high. I checked Yahoo, CNN, MSNBC and even MSN last night- all had negative stories on Palin at the top (most on the 150K outfit and how Palin is killing McCain's chances). I just don't understand why so many are so angry at her. Is it really this "a woman being pro life" issue?

I think a decent amount of it is hypocrisy as well (as Jon Stewart alluded to last night). She (and her campaign) are going through great lengths to portray her as an average woman, an outsider who doesn't play by the rules of the "Washington elite", and will bring the issues the voters really care about (family values, etc). Then they go out and spend more in 6 weeks than the average family makes in 3 years to make her look good. I believe it's a non-story and they are donating everything to charity once the election is over (so they say), so really it's not a big deal. But it is a stark contrast to the message they are trying to send and that's why it gets airtime.

[RedKingGold]

GO PHILS!

[Jon]

Man, the attacks on Palin are reaching a new high. I checked Yahoo, CNN, MSNBC and even MSN last night- all had negative stories on Palin at the top (most on the 150K outfit and how Palin is killing McCain's chances). I just don't understand why so many are so angry at her. Is it really this "a woman being pro life" issue?

No, it's a person being unqualified, holier than thou, and hypocritical. From the media's standpoint, it's someone that's unprepared and, as a result, inaccessible to media. It took 55 days before she was interviewed on NBC Nightly News (per Brian Williams). And, the Republicans are so afraid of what'd she say, John McCain had to be there. She has a hard time giving the same answer twice, and can't stay on message. I think the media view it as an added bonus that even a lot of conservatives view her as the most unqualified person to be nominated for veep.

[Arles]

It has nothing to do with her being pro life. As mentioned, John Edwards had the same treatment regarding his haircut. It is really a "Media just reports on anything stupid and unfortunately for the most part the american public enjoys reading it" issue
Good point on the outfit, but it's more about the stories on her hurting the ticket. I watched NBC news while at a hotel and they referenced this poll:

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ_NBCPoll_102108.pdf

Here's the exact quote from the newscast:

Perhaps more dangerous for the GOP ticket, most of those polled do not believe Sarah Palin is qualified to be President, by a margin of 55 percent to 40 percent. We will have more of the new numbers from our poll in just a moment. But it is a notable snapshot. With 14 days to go now, two weeks until we elect a new President, it's where we begin tonight. The poll numbers, the Palin factor and politics today. Here with that, NBC's Andrea Mitchell.
Now, if you look at the PDF poll above and the history of the poll, you find that 40% had her "qualified" in September 19-22, 41% in October 4-5 and back to 40% in the new poll. This is somehow a "dangerous" trend. Quite honestly, given the mugging she's received over the past month, it's almost shocking that the qualified number hasn't changed.

[Kodos]

Maybe she just spent some of the savings from the Bridge to Nowhere.

[Passacaglia]

Look, I understand they needed to get her more clothes for the campaign trail. Unlike guys, who can have a bunch of suits and white shirts and ties (and at least the shirts and ties can be pretty cheap), women on the campaign trail really need different outfits so as not to repeat outfits too much, which is not a concern for men.

Maybe she should be more concerned about repeating speeches than repeating outfits.

But seriously, this is a male-dominated board, and the votes the campaign wants her to get are women -- I'm guessing they notice this stuff more than we do.

[Kodos]

That fucking liberal media, always ruining things.

If there was one group of people who could be blamed for nearly all of the country's ills today, it would definitely be the liberal media! Why must they be so mean to the Palin drones?

[Passacaglia]

Good point on the outfit, but it's more about the stories on her hurting the ticket. I watched NBC news while at a hotel and they referenced this poll:

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ_NBCPoll_102108.pdf

Here's the exact quote from the newscast:


Now, if you look at the PDF poll above and the history of the poll, you find that 40% had her "qualified" in September 19-22, 41% in October 4-5 and back to 40% in the new poll. This is somehow a "dangerous" trend. Quite honestly, given the mugging she's received over the past month, it's almost shocking that the qualified number hasn't changed.

I think they're referring to how the percent that had her "unqualified" went from 50% to 55%.

[lordscarlet]

I just saw this, and while I don't think it is relevant to Palin's ability to run the country, it is absurd. And I think making a separate thread would be even worse than posting it here and rolling my eyes (that is, make it seem more newsworthy than it is).

Palin says she considers herself intellectual - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/22/AR2008102201645.html?nav=hcmodule)
"I always wanted a son named Zamboni," she said

[Big Fo]

She shouldn't have said that, intellectuals don't poll well with the Republican base. The "voracious reader" quote is especially damaging because she didn't mention the Bible afterwards.

[Toddzilla]

I'm surprised no one has posted this yet:

http://www.journalism.org/node/13307



It's going to be pretty tough to make a charge when 6 in 10 are negative. Not that McCain has run a wonderful campaign, but I'm beginning to wonder if he was going to be behind the eight-ball no matter what.That is a remarkable statistic, especially given the MSM's love affair with John McCain that lasted for years and years, basically ending after the GOP convention.

Of course, when your campaign admits publicly that it can't win on the issues, runs a 100% negative smear campaign, and picks the most unqualified running-mate in political history, it's tough to find something positive to say.

;)

[Toddzilla]

The amount of media $150k buys, depending upon the market of course, can be pretty negligible, and at this point the impact is pretty questionable with regard to anything other than turnout so ... a coin flip AFAIC. Palin is the only thing positively energizing the voters that absolutely must turnout for McCain to have any chance at all, so yeah, I can see investing it in her rather than him as being a reasonable decision.

The other thing we aren't privvy to is what research may have been behind the decision. I have to suspect that there was something coming back indicating an issue and this was an attempt to address the situation (remember, once upon a time there was analysis of the impact of Hillary's hairstyle on voters) Even as little as I think of a lot of the strategy I've seen, I have a tough time picturing this being entirely the result of someone saying "hey, why don't we take Sara shopping?". That just doesn't ring quite true to me. And if it was just totally random then let's face it, the people spending the money wouldn't likely to be smart enough to do anything worthwhile with it anyway.Excellent analysis.

I also believe the MSM has picked up, not on the whole shopping spree per-se, but how spending that amount of money appears in complete contradiction to so many things McCain-Palin has campaigned on.

Joe Six Pack, Joe The Plumber, Small Town Values, Obama is an Elitist - all of those kind of sound hypocritical when you drop 150 large on clothes.

[Kodos]

But Palin looks good. MILFy, even.

[Klinglerware]

The other thing we aren't privvy to is what research may have been behind the decision. I have to suspect that there was something coming back indicating an issue and this was an attempt to address the situation (remember, once upon a time there was analysis of the impact of Hillary's hairstyle on voters) Even as little as I think of a lot of the strategy I've seen, I have a tough time picturing this being entirely the result of someone saying "hey, why don't we take Sara shopping?".

Knowing the cost of a typical market research study, someone saying "hey, why don't we take Sara shopping?" in the first place would have been cheaper. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Joe Six Pack, Joe The Plumber, Small Town Values, Obama is an Elitist - all of those kind of sound hypocritical when you drop 150 large on clothes.

But isn't anyone who actually believes for more than a few seconds that a national level politician lives in a world that remotely resembles the majority of the voters pretty much a damned fool from the get go?

It seems pretty likely to me that the people who claim to be the most offended by the spending on the clothes are also among the most likely to be influenced by self-same clothes ... further proof perhaps that we're so FUBAR at this point that it may not matter much who wins what this year.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Knowing the cost of a typical market research study, someone saying "hey, why don't we take Sara shopping?" in the first place would have been cheaper. :)

In the words of D-Von Dudley "Oh my brutha ... TESTIFY !".

[molson]

That's basically why it matters. It's an image thing. It begins to look hypocritical to be a champion of the common man when you spend more on clothes than the common man makes in a year (or two, or three). Plus, if I was a donor to the RNC (not even a donor to McCain/Palin) would I be 100% happy with this use of my money?



Do you think Obama shops at the Men's Warehouse? I'd be shocked if his wardrobe expenses aren't in the same ballpark.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Please tell me you are kidding with the redneck comments?

Murtha much?

Since I have no clue whether you're kidding, Rep. Murtha was widely criticized in recent days for saying that Western Pennsylvania has a lot of rednecks. I was merely playing off that. I honestly have no idea whether there are rednecks in Pennsylvania.

I feel like I'm a politician and should publicly apologize for Mr. Murtha's comments.

[lordscarlet]

Do you think Obama shops at the Men's Warehouse? I'd be shocked if his wardrobe expenses aren't in the same ballpark.

I would be very surprised. Even if he bought $5,000 suits he would need to be 30 of them. Let's say he buys $1,000 shirts to go with them, and he has, I don't know, 30 shirts, then that's 30 shirts (one for each day of the month) and 24 suits. Unless he is buying $30,000 suits, that still seems very excessive for a man's wardrobe.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Do you think Obama shops at the Men's Warehouse? I'd be shocked if his wardrobe expenses aren't in the same ballpark.

Exactly. An intelligent media would note that big players like Obama and McCain are spending 2,000-5,000 per suit on their wardrobe (which is similarly paid for by the party) and that their suit/shirt/shoes costs easily exceed 100K when all is said and done. They are not buying $200 suits on sale at Men's Wearhouse.

[lordscarlet]

non-dola: I assume McCain, Obama and Biden spend a similar amount of money compared to one another on clothing for the campaign trail.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I would be very surprised. Even if he bought $5,000 suits he would need to be 30 of them. Let's say he buys $1,000 shirts to go with them, and he has, I don't know, 30 shirts, then that's 30 shirts (one for each day of the month) and 24 suits. Unless he is buying $30,000 suits, that still seems very excessive for a man's wardrobe.

With all due respect, you're a naive fool. I have a friend that is a lobbyist for Northrop Grumman in DC and knows how the political machine works. The amount of money spent on clothes by some of these big players is outrageous (both male and female). I'm surprised that Pelosi or Clinton's wardrobe hasn't been similarly catalogued (by surprised, I mean not surprised at all).

[molson]

I would be very surprised. Even if he bought $5,000 suits he would need to be 30 of them. Let's say he buys $1,000 shirts to go with them, and he has, I don't know, 30 shirts, then that's 30 shirts (one for each day of the month) and 24 suits. Unless he is buying $30,000 suits, that still seems very excessive for a man's wardrobe.

His suits cost WAY more than $5k.

I don't care either way, except when someone starts criticizing how much one of the other candidates spends and calls it "hypocritcal".

[flere-imsaho]

Some people who have delved deeper into the RNC's accounting are finding, apparently, that part of the $150,000 also went to accessories, like $1,000 handbags, some of which have also been used by Palin's daughters.

So there's how you get to $150,000, anyway.

[Tigercat]

With all due respect, you're a naive fool. I have a friend that is a lobbyist for Northrop Grumman in DC and knows how the political machine works. The amount of money spent on clothes by some of these big players is outrageous (both male and female). I'm surprised that Pelosi or Clinton's wardrobe hasn't been similarly catalogued (by surprised, I mean not surprised at all).


In comparison, Gore in 2000 got suits donated to him, and was able to list them as contributions at material/labor cost($500 or less a suit) because designers get free advertising.

You really think with Palin's image being such a big part of public consciousness right now, that she couldn't find some designers to donate if they looked for it? I find that hard to believe.

The RNC took the quickest and easiest way out, throwing money at the problem. Not what you would expect from Conservatives. Is it a big deal? Of course not. Is it another minor screwup when the campaign needs to be a near playing perfect game right now? You bet.

[JPhillips]

With all due respect, you're a naive fool. I have a friend that is a lobbyist for Northrop Grumman in DC and knows how the political machine works. The amount of money spent on clothes by some of these big players is outrageous (both male and female). I'm surprised that Pelosi or Clinton's wardrobe hasn't been similarly catalogued (by surprised, I mean not surprised at all).

It isn't catalogued because it wasn't financed with donations. The reason this came to light is that it was disclosed on campaign expenditure forms. It isn't a media conspiracy.

[molson]

Who gives a shit about clothes.



The news media apparently.

And several posters in this thread.

[flere-imsaho]

Seriously crazy polls today:

Quinnipiac:
Florida: Obama 49, McCain 44
Ohio: Obama 52, McCain 38
Pennsylvania: Obama 53, McCain 40



Big Ten:
Illinois: Obama 61, McCain 32
Indiana: Obama 51, McCain 41
Iowa: Obama 52, McCain 39
Ohio: Obama 53, McCain 41
Michigan: Obama 58, McCain 36
Minnesota: Obama 57, McCain 38
Pennsylvania: Obama 52, McCain 41
Wisconsin: Obama 53, McCain 40



CNN/TIME:
Nevada: Obama 51, McCain 46
North Carolina: Obama 51, McCain 47
Ohio: Obama 50, McCain 46
Virginia: Obama 54, McCain 44

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

It isn't catalogued because it wasn't financed with donations. The reason this came to light is that it was disclosed on campaign expenditure forms. It isn't a media conspiracy.

It's a crock of filth is what it is. The intent of digging for this information was solely to paint Sarah Palin as being a Paris Hilton type who will spend dollars at the drop of a hat. At the same time, no one went about mentioning just how much some of the other politicians spent on the race. Why? Because they only wanted to report the portion of the story that fit their billing rather than doing proper reporting and noting that Obama, Biden, and McCain all have wardrobes that dwarf that $150K value. It's just more class warfare.

Kudos to liberal supporters for finding a way to mask negative and sexist campaigning in the cloak of 'searching for the best interest of the Republican donors and taxpayers'.

[Tigercat]

It's a crock of filth is what it is. The intent of digging for this information was solely to paint Sarah Palin as being a Paris Hilton type who will spend dollars at the drop of a hat. At the same time, no one went about mentioning just how much some of the other politicians spent on the race. Why? Because they only wanted to report the portion of the story that fit their billing rather than doing proper reporting and noting that Obama, Biden, and McCain all have wardrobes that dwarf that $150K value. It's just more class warfare.

Kudos to liberal supporters for finding a way to mask negative and sexist campaigning in the cloak of 'searching for the best interest of the Republican donors and taxpayers'.

BS. Michelle Obama got negative press and attention from conservatives over a lobster and cavier dinner at a hotel. The problem? She never even stayed at that hotel! So don't even bring that weak crap in here about woe-is the scruitny against Palin spending money.

[molson]

BS. Michelle Obama got negative press and attention from conservatives over a lobster and cavier dinner at a hotel. The problem? She never even stayed at that hotel! So don't even bring that weak crap in here about woe-is the scruitny against Palin spending money.

I saw the Obamas at Arby's yesterday.

[molson]

I've seen quite a lot of class warfare recently, but this doesn't seem to be the best example of it. Aren't there several more prominent examples of class warfare recently you might be missing? Or does the mouth it comes out of affect your outrage level?

Maybe when (best selling author) Obama was bragging that he only had 1 house v. McCain's 5

[Tigercat]

I saw the Obamas at Arby's yesterday.

I bet they got the 5 dollar subs instead of ordering 99 cent value sandwiches. Fuckin elitists.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

BS. Michelle Obama got negative press and attention from conservatives over a lobster and cavier dinner at a hotel. The problem? She never even stayed at that hotel! So don't even bring that weak crap in here about woe-is the scruitny against Palin spending money.

Link to the full page articles on that from NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX, etc.?

Exactly.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I've seen quite a lot of class warfare recently, but this doesn't seem to be the best example of it. Aren't there several more prominent examples of class warfare recently you might be missing? Or does the mouth it comes out of affect your outrage level?

I have no problem with this information coming out. I have a problem with the total lack of investigative journalism across the board when things like this come out. Palin's playing the same game as everyone else. If the media would have properly acknowledged that, then it's no big deal.

[Tigercat]

Link to the full page articles on that from NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX, etc.?

Exactly.

Oh I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the false report of Michelle Obama spending her own money on an expensive dinner should get the same national media attention as campaign money being unnecessarily spent on clothing?

You're right, I can't find evidence to support that suggestion.

[bignej]

I believe it's a non-story and they are donating everything to charity once the election is over (so they say), so really it's not a big deal.

I'd love to be on the receiving end of that kind of charity. Speaking of which anyone want to donate their DVD player or XBOX to the homeless? Just as useful.

Comparing a $500 haircut(though absurd) to a $150,000 shopping spree is pretty ridiculous. John Edwards isn't even in this election. What we have is a ticket "against" wasteful spending, but blows a huge wad on something completely unnecessary. You can argue that it was an investment, but did any of you or your wives notice any difference in her appearance since the RNC. Its a big deal because of the hypocrisy, not because its just clothes.

Has Palin done anything to give even a remote impression that she knows what the hell she is doing? We can attack or defend her all day but can anyone name one thing to suppress my curiosity.

[molson]

7 actually.



My bad.

But 20 years, hundreds of lucrative speaking engagements, and a few more best selling books from now, Obama should be in the double-digits. (He'll be a regular Bill Clinton, champion of the people). Like Al Gore (champion of the environment), the cost of his energy bills could feed a city.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Has Palin done anything to give even a remote impression that she knows what the hell she is doing?

She isn't affiliated with the Dems, nor the least qualified excuse for a Presidential candidate in the history of the nation, specifically this Obama guy.

That's more than enough, believe me.

edit to add: Clarifying an edit I made for the people who may have seen the original. I first referred to Obama as the sorriest excuse for a candidate in history but corrected myself in light of the fact that if McCain fails to get a victory in this one he's actually a worse candidate.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Comparing a $500 haircut(though absurd) to a $150,000 shopping spree is pretty ridiculous. John Edwards isn't even in this election. What we have is a ticket "against" wasteful spending, but blows a huge wad on something completely unnecessary. You can argue that it was an investment, but did any of you or your wives notice any difference in her appearance since the RNC. Its a big deal because of the hypocrisy, not because its just clothes.

Great, let's play that game. How do you think the wardrobe costs of Obama, Biden, and McCain compare to Palin's cost? Are they more/less hypocritical than Palin?

[molson]

Great, let's play that game. How do you think the wardrobe costs of Obama, Biden, and McCain compare to Palin's cost?

The media doesn't report on those.

So it appears more sexist than politically-biased. Clinton MIGHT have faced the same kind of crap if she won the nomination, we'll never know.

[flere-imsaho]

Because they only wanted to report the portion of the story that fit their billing rather than doing proper reporting and noting that Obama, Biden, and McCain all have wardrobes that dwarf that $150K value. It's just more class warfare.

I'd be surprised if Obama & Biden (Biden especially) have wardrobes they've amassed for this campaign that "dwarf" $150,000 in value. Really surprised.

It's harder to tell with McCain, simply because his wife is so rich so he's operating on a different scale. Left to his own devices, though, I'd be surprised if McCain would have spent that much on his wardrobe for this campaign.

You're missing the point, though. This is a campaign that, every day, tells people what an elitist Obama is, and then gets its VP candidate outfitted (arguably a necessary expense) at Saks Fifth Avenue and Nieman Marcus.

[ISiddiqui]

Well there were reports, IIRC, of Hillary's haircuts (I believe they wer $1,500 each). And they were talking up and down about the pantsuits in the primary. I'm sure their costs would have come out at some point.

[Tigercat]

Great, let's play that game. How do you think the wardrobe costs of Obama, Biden, and McCain compare to Palin's cost? Are they more/less hypocritical than Palin?

If they spent campaign contribution money on them we would know. Really, I don't think you understand whats going on here. In the grand scheme of things it isn't even close to a big deal, but if you don't think this is some degree of a misstep you are sadly mistaken.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The media doesn't report on those.

So it appears more sexist than politically-biased. Clinton MIGHT have faced the same kind of crap if she won the nomination, we'll never know.

Oh, you can be assured that Hillary would have faced the exact same crap and it would have been just as pathetic as this argument is.

[molson]

You're missing the point, though. This is a campaign that, every day, tells people what an elitist Obama is, and then gets its VP candidate outfitted (arguably a necessary expense) at Saks Fifth Avenue and Nieman Marcus.

Yet Obama's the "candidate for the middle class" and is worth WAY WAY WAY more than Palin. (And spends a shitload on suits).

[bignej]

Great, let's play that game. How do you think the wardrobe costs of Obama, Biden, and McCain compare to Palin's cost?

Doesn't matter what Obama, Biden, and McCain pay if they use their own money.

Obama pays for his own coattails :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1238030,CST-NWS-pside23.article)

They knew they were wrong when they pulled out the bull crap charity thing.

[ISiddiqui]

If they spent campaign contribution money on them we would know.

They likely do, they just refer to it as something else, like "campaign advertising" or something

[cartman]

Oh, you can be assured that Hillary would have faced the exact same crap and it would have been just as pathetic as this argument is.

But not as pathetic as your continued defense of the non-issue. Got it.

[molson]

But not as pathetic as your continued defense of the non-issue. Got it.

How can you have a "defense of a non-issue?". (Some) liberals are making a huge deal out of it and he's saying it's not a big deal.

[flere-imsaho]

So, if McCain/Palin win the election, does this mean the White House will spend roughly $7.2 million on her wardrobe during their first term? :D

[Tigercat]

They likely do, they just refer to it as something else, like "campaign advertising" or something

You still have to report who the money goes to so you wouldn't be able to hide it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So it appears more sexist than politically-biased.

The degree of sexism on display en route to the Obama coronation to the throne has been perhaps one of the most surprising developments of the entire process to me. Color me naive, but it has really shocked me at times.

[cartman]

and he's saying it's not a big deal.

over and over and over and over he's saying it.

[Tigercat]

How can you have a "defense of a non-issue?". (Some) liberals are making a huge deal out of it and he's saying it's not a big deal.

He is saying it is status quo, which it isn't. I think almost everyone would agree it isn't a big deal.

[Neon_Chaos]

Glad to see that the Republicans are paying for Palin's daughter's handbags.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

If they spent campaign contribution money on them we would know. Really, I don't think you understand whats going on here. In the grand scheme of things it isn't even close to a big deal, but if you don't think this is some degree of a misstep you are sadly mistaken.

Herein lies the hypocracy of this argument. That argument put forth is that she's spending donor/taxpayers dollars while the other candidates are spending their own money.

Palin pissed off both sides of the aisle in Alaska along with the oil industry. Want to guess how much lobby money she received to bolster her income with those kinds of stances? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't much.

On the other side, McCain, Obama, and Biden paid for their wardrobe with their own money, right? They got that money by accepting millions of dollars in corporate lobby money. That in turn often results in them passing bills that contain literally billions of dollars in earmarks and corporate loopholes to earn that lobby money in addition to future donations to their personal account and their campaign. The taxpayers pay much more in this scenario.

Who's the hypocrite here? Anyone who takes off their partisan glasses and looks at the big picture would realize that the concessions of Obama, McCain, and Biden which create that income to finance their wardrobe are costing the taxpayers far more money than a $150K tab to finance a campaign wardrobe for a VP candidate.

[flere-imsaho]

Yet Obama's the "candidate for the middle class" and is worth WAY WAY WAY more than Palin. (And spends a shitload on suits).

They likely do, they just refer to it as something else, like "campaign advertising" or something

From the link Bignej posted:

The elegant black ensemble Michelle Obama wore to her anniversary dinner with her husband at Spiaggia two Fridays ago presented reporters with a challenge:

It looked like a dress at the top but pants at the bottom. But it was hardly a pantsuit of the type Hillary Clinton wore through her campaign.

Whatever it was, it was paid for by the Obamas themselves, the Obama campaign said.

"Neither the campaign nor the DNC [Democratic National Committee] has paid for clothing," spokesman Ben LaBolt said Wednesday in response to news reports that the Republican National Committee spent $150,000 on a makeover for Sarah Palin.

Barack Obama, running mate Joe Biden and their wives get no campaign or DNC money for clothes, LaBolt said.

When Obama stops at the Hyde Park Hair Salon for a trim every week, he does not seek reimbursement, though the campaign has paid for hair and makeup costs for the Obamas for particular events, the campaign acknowledges.

The Sun-Times reported Tuesday that Obama ordered five new suits from Chicago-based menswear maker Hartmarx. Obama paid full-price, spokesmen for Hartmarx and the Obama campaign said Wednesday. The suits retail for $1,500 apiece.

A tailor from Hart Schaffner Marx went to Obama's Kenwood home in early August to fit him and pick out material for Obama's first suit.

[bignej]

The media doesn't report on those.

So it appears more sexist than politically-biased. Clinton MIGHT have faced the same kind of crap if she won the nomination, we'll never know.



Not so much sexist as I prefer potential presidents to be capable of a coherent thought. If someone says something critical of Palin, it does not make them sexist. Does you saying something critical about Obama make you a racist?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

He is saying it is status quo, which it isn't. I think almost everyone would agree it isn't a big deal.

It is status quo. That's a fact and you're simply unaware of how much these people spend on this kind of stuff if you think otherwise.

It isn't a big deal as long as all sides are reported. That's not the situation in this case.

[Big Fo]

Glad to see that the Republicans are paying for Palin's daughter's handbags.

At least they'll have something tangible left after the election, unlike all the ad dollars being poured into Pennsylvania that won't help them one bit.

[molson]

Doesn't matter what Obama, Biden, and McCain pay if they use their own money.

Obama pays for his own coattails :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1238030,CST-NWS-pside23.article)



McCain (and his wife) paid for their own houses, which are such a big deal for whatever reason.

McCain, Obama, and Biden are millionares. Palin is not. When comparing Obama to McCain, (some) liberals consider it a selling point that Obama has less money. Yet Palin is clearly the closest to the middle class of all 4, and isn't in a position to dress like a VP candidate on her own dime.

So even if the expense of the wardrobes are comparable, only Palin should be subject to critisism because she's the poorest?

There's an email forward going around asking people to have an open mind about stuff like this. What if Obama brought his family on stage at the convention and still asked for privacy in their daily lives - would you criticize him? What if the Obama chose a younger, less rich VP that they dressed up in fancy suits - would you have a problem with that?

[Butter_of_69]

Well, the last 2 pages of this thread are completely worthless.

Those Big Ten polls that came out today... who did they poll, students? Those are crazy.

Palin has been used exactly as she should by the Republicans: to rally the base. It's up to McCain to woo the undecideds, and the fact that he hasn't at all so far just tells you how weak of a candidate he is. It's not like most of us didn't see this coming back when McCain was going to be the candidate.

(Here's where someone posts the link to the discussion about the Republican Nominating process, but not me, because I'm too lazy.)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Does you saying something critical about Obama make you a racist?

LOL......you obviously haven't been paying attention to the campaign.

[Tigercat]

Who's the hypocrite here? Anyone who takes off their partisan glasses and looks at the big picture would realize that the concessions of Obama, McCain, and Biden which create that income to finance their wardrobe are costing the taxpayers far more money than a $150K tab to finance a campaign wardrobe for a VP candidate.

I don't fault Palin at all. And hell, a big infusion to her wardrobe is probably something she needed. I just think to go about it in that way and to that degree was stupid on behalf of the RNC. There were cheaper options. Again, look back to my donations example, you mean to tell me Palin couldn't find someone perfectly willing to donate wardrobes to her for free advertising? I find that hard to believe.

Its not a big issue at all. But what does it say when a campaign keeps making little missteps like these all over the place?

[cartman]

McCain (and his wife) paid for their own houses, which are such a big deal for whatever reason.

McCain, Obama, and Biden are millionares. Palin is not. When comparing Obama to McCain, liberals consider it a selling point that Obama has less money. Yet Palin is clearly the closest to the middle class of all 4, and isn't in a position to dress like a VP candidate.

Wrong on Biden. He is nowhere near a millionaire. His net worth is listed as less than $400,000, mainly attributed to the value of his house. His income comes almost exclusively from his Senate paycheck. I would guess the the Palin family is worth much more than Biden, considering they also own a business.

[Klinglerware]

Again, look back to my donations example, you mean to tell me Palin couldn't find someone perfectly willing to donate wardrobes to her for free advertising? I find that hard to believe.


I'm sure there would be plenty of takers. But a candidate accepting donated clothes may run afoul of ethics guidelines...

[flere-imsaho]

On the other side, McCain, Obama, and Biden paid for their wardrobe with their own money, right? They got that money by accepting millions of dollars in corporate lobby money. That in turn often results in them passing bills that contain literally billions of dollars in earmarks and corporate loopholes to earn that lobby money in addition to future donations to their personal account and their campaign. The taxpayers pay much more in this scenario.

???

The vast majority of Obama's income comes from royalties from his books. Then there's his senate salary. Lobbying money does not (can not) go directly into his bank account.

[molson]

Not so much sexist as I prefer potential presidents to be capable of a coherent thought. If someone says something critical of Palin, it does not make them sexist. Does you saying something critical about Obama make you a racist?

Um, sure (I'm just going to play along because you're clearly not reading any of the posts anyway).

[Big Fo]

A new National Republican Senate Committee ad in North Carolina seems to assume Obama defeating McCain, but apparently doesn't.

politico.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/NRSC_ad_assumes_Obama_win.html?showall)

[Neon_Chaos]

At least they'll have something tangible left after the election, unlike all the ad dollars being poured into Pennsylvania that won't help them one bit.

:lol:

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not so much sexist as I prefer potential presidents to be capable of a coherent thought. If someone says something critical of Palin, it does not make them sexist.

At what point exactly did I say that "all comments critical of Palin" was sexist?
Oh, that's right, I didn't.

As a matter of fact, I think the sexism was more obvious with Clinton than with Palin. The haterade for her seems more about philosophy than gender.

[Tigercat]

I'm sure there would be plenty of takers. But donating clothes to a political candidate may run afoul of ethics guidelines...

It has happened before, I think you just have to report the monetary value. Or at the least, you can make a deal with a designer where you just pay at cost. If McCain/Palin can't take donations at this time, that would have probably been the best bet.

[miked]

McCain (and his wife) paid for their own houses, which are such a big deal for whatever reason.

McCain, Obama, and Biden are millionares. Palin is not. When comparing Obama to McCain, (some) liberals consider it a selling point that Obama has less money. Yet Palin is clearly the closest to the middle class of all 4, and isn't in a position to dress like a VP candidate on her own dime.

So even if the expense of the wardrobes are comparable, only Palin should be subject to critisism because she's the poorest?

There's an email forward going around asking people to have an open mind about stuff like this. What if Obama brought his family on stage at the convention and still asked for privacy in their daily lives - would you criticize him? What if the Obama chose a younger, less rich VP that they dressed up in fancy suits - would you have a problem with that?

You keep bringing up this straw-man argument. Nobody here has said anything about Obama's money. The reason it's a story is because Palin keeps pushing herself as non-Elite, just one of the gals golly gee, hockey mom, etc, and then it comes out that the RNC is footing what appears to be quite a large bill for 6 weeks (and it seems as though her family is also benefiting). 95% of the people in the country probably wouldn't care, in fact, most of the people here don't REALLY care. It just makes for a story because of the image she's trying to project.

They are all rich by most standards, even Palin. Nobody expects them to buy their clothes at the Salvation Army.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Wrong on Biden. He is nowhere near a millionaire. His net worth is listed as less than $400,000, mainly attributed to the value of his house. His income comes almost exclusively from his Senate paycheck. I would guess the the Palin family is worth much more than Biden, considering they also own a business.

Really? His income comes exclusively from his Senate paycheck? You might want to let Senator Biden know that. He claims that it only makes up roughly half of his yearly income in 2007.......

According to financial disclosure forms submitted on May 15, 2008, Biden’s $165,200 salary as a senator in 2007 was supplemented with $20,500 he earned as an adjunct professor at Widener University Law School and a $112,500 advance he received from Random House for his book, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics.

So in summary, he made nearly just over $300,000 in 2007, but his net worth is $400,000 (mostly because he retains loans under his name to depress his net value)? As a man who owns an advanced degree in accounting, I can tell you with great certainty that Joe Biden suffers from one of two things: a horrible spending habit or an excellent accountant. I'm going to guess it's the latter.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/659/

[molson]

You keep bringing up this straw-man argument. Nobody here has said anything about Obama's money. The reason it's a story is because Palin keeps pushing herself as non-Elite, just one of the gals golly gee, hockey mom, etc, and then it comes out that the RNC is footing what appears to be quite a large bill for 6 weeks (and it seems as though her family is also benefiting). 95% of the people in the country probably wouldn't care, in fact, most of the people here don't REALLY care. It just makes for a story because of the image she's trying to project.

They are all rich by most standards, even Palin. Nobody expects them to buy their clothes at the Salvation Army.

The Obama money thing was a big deal in this thread and in the news a few months back (he's closer to the middle class because he has 1 house, where McCain has lost track how many he has, the argument goes).

I'm not Palin fan, but it simply it's not inconsistent for her to be who she is, a non-elite, mayor turned-small state governor, who the GOP is spending tons of moeny on to make her look like a VP candidate. Is she supposed to bring a fishing rod and hunting rifle to her press conferences in order to "stay consistent" with her roots?

And if that is somehow inconsistent and/or hypocritical, it's no more so than Obama, (defender of the middle class), making millions off the middle class in book sales, and living in luxury, (the extent of which we don't know because much of it comes from his bottomless bank account).

The liberals (and some conservatives) quite fairly point out her lack of experience. And now they're upset that she doesn't dress the part.

[flere-imsaho]

McCain (and his wife) paid for their own houses, which are such a big deal for whatever reason.

Actually, most of the McCain's houses were bought (and are owned) by a corporation trust set up for this purpose. Funding of the trust most likely comes directly from Cindy's inherited money and/or her stake in the beer distributorship. I'm going to assume this was done for tax purposes.

McCain, Obama, and Biden are millionares. Palin is not.

Actually, the Bidens' joint income compares to the Palins' joint income favorably, especially given that Biden is much older. Similarly, the Obama's income, minus book royalties, is comparable when adjusted for cost-of-living expenses (i.e. Chicago is more expensive than Wasila).

When comparing Obama to McCain, (some) liberals consider it a selling point that Obama has less money. Yet Palin is clearly the closest to the middle class of all 4, and isn't in a position to dress like a VP candidate on her own dime.

When has anyone really cared about the economic class from which a candidate comes? We expect our candidates to be wealthy. It's part of the electoral system, frankly.

Again, you're missing the point. This is about image and hypocrisy. If you're going to campaign as the down-home common man/woman, you compromise this image by blowing $150,000 at Saks & Neiman.

So even if the expense of the wardrobes are comparable, only Palin should be subject to critisism because she's the poorest?

Nope, it's just her turn, just like it was when McCain's ridiculously-expensive shoes were brought up, or Biden's lack of charitable contributions or Obama's 2005 house purchase.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon, this isn't meant as an attack on you because I've always thought you to be sincere politically, but one of the more ironic things I've noticed about this election is the outpouring of support and understanding by conservatives for that poor Hillary Clinton woman.

I try to be honest, even when the truth isn't particularly convenient. Although she lost the nomination through her own missteps more than anything else, I was surprised how frequently she found herself being poleaxed by the same people who previously supported her fervently.

And I've been plain from the get go that, on the whole, I didn't ultimately find her to be particularly less palatable as President than I find McCain if running he's running in a vacuum that is. I wouldn't give you two bits for the pair to be sure, but I believe her most unpalatable rhetoric would have been tempered often enough by political and/or fiscal reality that I wouldn't have ended up significantly more unhappy with her in the White House than I would be with McCain in office.

[cartman]

And, if you look back at tax returns he released, he did get a big jump in 2007 from the book. Since that was a one time bump, yes, the bulk of his earning has come from his Senate paycheck. He is consistently ranked near the bottom of the net worth list in the Senate. And he is still not a millionaire.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Where's all that lobbyist money in that article?

It does not go directly to his account. You know that.

[larrymcg421]

Let's leave MBBF alone about the "obvious sexism" of the clothes issue, and ask him if he still thinks Zogby's super duper partisan weighting makes it the most accurate poll?

[Fighter of Foo]

That is a remarkable statistic, especially given the MSM's love affair with John McCain that lasted for years and years, basically ending after the GOP convention.

Of course, when your campaign admits publicly that it can't win on the issues, runs a 100% negative smear campaign, and picks the most unqualified running-mate in political history, it's tough to find something positive to say.

;)

Pffft. Liberal.

[molson]

Again, you're missing the point. This is about image and hypocrisy. If you're going to campaign as the down-home common man/woman, you compromise this image by blowing $150,000 at Saks & Neiman.


I just don't get this part - so you think the small town/governor thing is just an image? Isn't that why she's not qualified?

Or is she secretly a millionare veteran US senator and we just haven't figured it out yet?

She's a small town governor of questionable qualifications who's wearing nice clothes. GET THE FUCK OVER IT. A nicer wardrobe doesn't suddenly change her background (though some in the GOP probably wish it would).