Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[SFL Cat]

All of this from a press release from the Barr camp? Not one mention in the MSM? No way this happens.

Methinks wishful thinking from the Barr people.

[sabotai]

I think Bush missed the deadlines for one of the 2004 battleground states but still ended up on the ballot. Election laws in this country are just loose guidelines anyway.

[Arles]

Seems reasonable that both political candidates would have missed the deadlines in Texas and Barr will be the only name on the ballot. I mean, Obama and McCain probably only have around 2000 staffers each with the sole responsibility to make sure that happens. I could easily see all 4000+ of them, each campaign and the state officials completely spacing on that. This MUST be true - I mean Bob Barr sent out a memo ...

[SackAttack]

I think Bush missed the deadlines for one of the 2004 battleground states but still ended up on the ballot. Election laws in this country are just loose guidelines anyway.

If you have a D or an R after your name.

If you don't, well.

[larrymcg421]

Even if Barr is the only person on the ballot, he's not going to win Texas. McCain would still win, but I'd feel bad for the people counting all those write-in votes.

[Mike D]

I have no doubt that i'm intellectually superior to the vast majority of my peers. Whether my political affiliation is the same as yours or not does not reflect at all on my intelligence (or yours for that matter).

Right, your political affiliation has no bearing on your intelligence, so it was funny that you had to spill the beans on how smart you are right after your emotional swell of support for a DNC convention speech that spoke to it's large constiuancy of supporters, which happen to number you among them.

I think it's fairly commonly accepted on both sides of the aisle that Bill Clinton is a VASTLY superior public speaker to George Bush. That's not a partisan viewpoint, it's fact.

Bill Clinton could do more with a lie than George Bush ever could with the truth, I'll give you that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Even if Barr is the only person on the ballot, he's not going to win Texas.

What's the phrase I'm looking for, something about finishing third in a two-horse race ;)

Barr is so irrelevant I'm not even sure he beats McKinney.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

dola ... maybe its not a Greek temple...maybe its a facsimile of the White House...to go with the faux presidential seal he used on his overseas trip.

It's supposed to create the imagery of MLK Jr. making his 'I Have A Dream' speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial 45 years ago today. I'm not too sure how well that's going to work, especially given the rockstar stereotype.

***waiting for "Well, I knew MLK Jr., and you sir, are no MLK Jr." response.***

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

In an attempt to get the thread a bit more back on topic, I thought Clinton's speech was nothing special from a content standpoint, but he always does a good job in regards to presentation.

I've always liked Biden as a person. The personal portion of his speech was very good, but the political content was pretty pedestrian in nature. I did find it ironic that he would blast McCain for being wrong about the Iraq vote when he made the exact same 'Yea' vote. Overall, Biden did a good job and played the role of attack dog well. On a sidenote, someone needs to tell the Democrats that they can stop with the 'McCain is a friend and he served the country honorably.....' comments that are followed by attacks. It comes across as relatively hollow and it does nothing more than give him more exposure.

I'm not too sure that Obama showing up really added all that much. He stumbled over his words twice in the span of just a few comments, which highlighted what many perceive to be his weakness. The above 'wrestler with a mic' comment was pretty accurate. I was waiting for the 'If you smell what Barack is cooking!' line. He's a very good speaker when he's got the speech on teleprompters ready to go, but when the debates start, he needs to handle himself better than he has in past debates where rehearsal is not an option.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Well, isn't this interesting? The Republicans have included the following phrasing in their party platform to be approved next week........

“Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support legislation prohibiting gambling over the Internet or in student athletics by student athletes who are participating in competitive sports.”

Yeah, I'm none too happy about that.

[Alan T]

If you outlaw the poker chips, only outlaws will have poker chips!

[albionmoonlight]

Hilarious if this is true and holds up.
Also a complete blow to McCain.



Barr Only Presidential Candidate on Texas Ballot — Bob Barr 2008 (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/press-releases/108/barr-only-presidential-candidate-on-texas-ballot/)

Neither the Democrats or the Republicans had officially nominated a candidate by the deadline on which Barr is focusing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

If you outlaw the poker chips, only outlaws will have poker chips!

These kinds of issues are where my moderate conservative leanings and the religious right moral idiots collide. I really don't need them to save me from my gambling addiction. I'm doing just fine taking money from the other players.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Neither the Democrats or the Republicans had officially nominated a candidate by the deadline on which Barr is focusing.

There's not a chance on God's green Earth than any less than three candidates will be on that ballot.

[Mike D]

These kinds of issues are where my moderate conservative leanings and the religious right moral idiots collide. I really don't need them to save me from my gambling addiction. I'm doing just fine taking money from the other players.

And the Democrats are against the bill because people with money are dangerous to the New State.

[albionmoonlight]

Yeah, gambling is the area where the worst of the right and the worst of the left can find common ground. Lefties hate it because they think that poor people need to be protected from themselves. Righties hate it because teh bible says gamblin is teh devil.

[panerd]

Yeah, gambling is the area where the worst of the right and the worst of the left can find common ground. Lefties hate it because they think that poor people need to be protected from themselves. Righties hate it because teh bible says gamblin is teh devil.

Add prostitution and the war on drugs and I am in complete agreement.

[flere-imsaho]

On a sidenote, someone needs to tell the Democrats that they can stop with the 'McCain is a friend and he served the country honorably.....' comments that are followed by attacks. It comes across as relatively hollow and it does nothing more than give him more exposure.

Well, that's the first time all thread that I've agreed with you. :D

I'll be back in a sec - going to check on the current temperature in Hell. :lol:

[cartman]

Evidently the Texas Sec. of State has said that the Dem and Repubs have filed the paperwork, but left off the names pending filing an amended document once the nomination process is complete.

[Fighter of Foo]

Yeah, gambling is the area where the worst of the right and the worst of the left can find common ground. Lefties hate it because they think that poor people need to be protected from themselves. Righties hate it because teh bible says gamblin is teh devil.'

Let's include our military adventures too. Lefties like "nation building" and "spreading democracy." Righties like to "Get tuff" and "spread Christianity."

As if invading or bombing other countries accomplishes any of that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'll be back in a sec - going to check on the current temperature in Hell. :lol:

According to the Weather Channel, the temperature at the Temple of Obama should be 65 degrees when the worshippers convene later tonight. Perfect toga weather!

[JPhillips]

Is it too academic of me to point out that the Greeks didn't wear togas?

[Dr. Sak]

“Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support legislation prohibiting gambling over the Internet or in student athletics by student athletes who are participating in competitive sports.”

It is illegal by the NCAA to gamble on anything if you are a student athlete. I remember in school my freshman year we had a talk by our AD about it.

I'm not blind to think it isn't done and the NCAA really doesn't enforce it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Is it too academic of me to point out that the Greeks didn't wear togas?

You obviously haven't seen 'Animal House'. :)

[larrymcg421]

www.electoral-vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com)

CO: McCain 47-46
FL: Obama 45-44
NM: Obama 53-40
NV: Obama 49-44
OH: Tied 40-40
PA: Obama 48-43
RI: Obama 51-30

The New Mexico and Nevada numbers are very good news for Obama.

[Dr. Sak]

Kerry had a similar lead in 04 at this time in the race in NM. Same with Nevada. He lost them both in the end.

[larrymcg421]

Kerry had a similar lead in 04 at this time in the race in NM. Same with Nevada. He lost them both in the end.

Sure, if a 6 point lead is the same as a 13 point lead and a 5 point lead is the same as a 2 point lead.

Also, Bush had a 4 pt lead in Wisconsin at this point last election and ended up losing.

[JPhillips]

I don't think those polls are very predictive, but I do see it more likely that instead of flipping Ohio or Florida the road to the White House for Obama will mean flipping Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado.

[Dr. Sak]

Sure, if a 6 point lead is the same as a 13 point lead and a 5 point lead is the same as a 2 point lead.

Also, Bush had a 4 pt lead in Wisconsin at this point last election and ended up losing.

What I am trying to say is that it is way to early to get all excited about any lead less than 10 points. But good job throwing the Bush loss in the way you did. There's a lot of margin for error and a lot of time to go. Now I realize why I don't respond to your posts anymore. I won't make that mistake again.

I took the numbers from the map which is showing a 9pt lead in NM, and a 3 pt lead in NV.

[larrymcg421]

What I am trying to say is that it is way to early to get all excited about any lead less than 10 points.

How is it getting "all excited" to say it is good news for Obama to be ahead in those two states? And he has a greater than 10 pt lead in one of the states you responded to me about. I mean, it's obviously good news.

But good job throwing the Bush loss in the way you did. There's a lot of margin for error and a lot of time to go. Now I realize why I don't respond to your posts anymore. I won't make that mistake again.

I was simply making the point that the current numbers could go either way.

[Vegas Vic]

The latest Gallup tracking poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109897/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Moves-Ahead-48-42.aspx) is starting to show the type of bounce that we expected to see from the Democratic convention.

[Young Drachma]

http://pics.livejournal.com/fusion_mobile/pic/000et712

[flere-imsaho]

For those of you comparing polls to 2004, remember that the dates of the conventions are different from that year, so head-to-head dates probably won't be all that good from a comparison standpoint until both conventions are done.

[JPhillips]

The latest Gallup tracking poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109897/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Moves-Ahead-48-42.aspx) is starting to show the type of bounce that we expected to see from the Democratic convention.

It's interesting that they're still going to use the weekend numbers for the official bounce. I guess they need to stay consistent, but McCain's VP choice will complicate the validity of those numbers. I don't think we'll be able to have as clear of a picture with so many major events happening on top of each other.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Geez, rough week for Hillary............

Hillary in Elevator Mishap*
August 28, 2008 12:44 AM

DENVER, Colo. -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., was already not having the Democratic National Convention that she'd been hoping for, her and her husband's well-received speeches notwithstanding.

Then it got worse.

After Wednesday night's festivities ended, there was a minor elevator mishap at the Pepsi Center that involved Clinton, sources tell ABC News.

Apparently, the elevator got stuck between floors, stranding Sen. Clinton and others for several minutes. For about five minutes inside the elevator it was "hectic" and not a little claustrophobic -- the elevator was over-packed, which is why it stopped, a source says. The doors needed to be pushed open and some of those in the elevator -- a couple Secret Service agents -- needed to be lifted and squeezed out in order for it to start moving again.

Clinton was seen leaving the scene looking a tad shell-shocked, but an aide says, "She's fine."

- jpt

[JPhillips]

This should be interesting:

UNDATED (AP) John McCain's campaign says it plans to air a new ad that will run in battleground states tonight around the time of Obama's address. A McCain spokesman says the ad will feature the Republican looking into the camera and speaking as if he's talking directly to Obama.

[Raiders Army]

Clinton was seen leaving the scene looking a tad shell-shocked, but an aide says, "She's fine."
I feel worse for the people in there with her.

[albionmoonlight]

This should be interesting:

I hope that he challenges Obama to throw down and then the camera pans back to reveal Chuck Norris, Brett Favre, and CGI John Wayne standing behind him looking tough.

That would take the buzz away from Obama's speech. And be pretty awesome.

[mckerney]

Well, isn't this interesting? The Republicans have included the following phrasing in their party platform to be approved next week........



Yeah, I'm none too happy about that.

So I take it they'll be working towards putting an end to state run lotteries then.

[sabotai]

Yeah, gambling is the area where the worst of the right and the worst of the left can find common ground. Lefties hate it because they think that poor people need to be protected from themselves. Righties hate it because teh bible says gamblin is teh devil.

I have no idea why Christians think gambling is immoral since the bible doesn't really say anything about it. I guess you could say that gambling is an extension of greed, and therefore a sin, but if you are going to stretch greed that far to cover gambling, why are people in the "religious right" capitalists?

[molson]

I have no idea why Christians think gambling is immoral since the bible doesn't really say anything about it. I guess you could say that gambling is an extension of greed, and therefore a sin, but if you are going to stretch greed that far to cover gambling, why are people in the "religious right" capitalists?

I don't think Christians consider gambling immoral.

I don't really know why Republicans are against internet gambling, but it seems both sides are.

[Alan T]

I have no idea why Christians think gambling is immoral since the bible doesn't really say anything about it. I guess you could say that gambling is an extension of greed, and therefore a sin, but if you are going to stretch greed that far to cover gambling, why are people in the "religious right" capitalists?


In the Bible it actually depicts many different times when people "Casted Lots" for various purposes. As far as I am aware, it never says anywhere that Gambling directly is a sin or wrong or evil. My guess is it is people's connection from Love of Money being wrong, and putting money before God being wrong then tying that to people who gamble for the love of money committing a sin.


(note, I am just answering a question as best as I can and not saying what is right or wrong or even giving my opinion or belief on the matter!)

[larrymcg421]

note, I am just answering a question as best as I can and not saying what is right or wrong or even giving my opinion or belief on the matter!)

Oh, you're not getting out of it that easy. This is an FOFC thread. You shall certainly be flamed for daring to presume what is right or wrong in a manner that completely offends people who do or do not do that type of thing, and you will learn to be less presumptuous next time!

[Rizon]

I don't think Christians consider gambling immoral.

I don't really know why Republicans are against internet gambling, but it seems both sides are.

Republicans are just against the internet period, because a Democrat invented it.

[Alan T]

Oh, you're not getting out of it that easy. This is an FOFC thread. You shall certainly be flamed for daring to presume what is right or wrong in a manner that completely offends people who do or do not do that type of thing, and you will learn to be less presumptuous next time!


Haha, I actually started making that disclaimer on any politics or religion discussion that I took part in long before FOFC, especially when I wasn't arguing my point but instead just responding to a question.

I remember back in the early 1990s, I was a regular on a BBS hosted at University of Iowa that had some real doozies of discussions that would turn into pretty bad flame wars anytime it dealt with religion and politics. :)

[CraigSca]

Not an expert here either, but I think the idea of gambling for Christians is a slippery slope. There are many families that have lose everything because of gambling. Therefore, gambling = nothing really good can come of it, so don't even open the Pandora's box.

Frankly, however, I've never even heard our pastor refer to gambling in any of his sermons, so I'm not so sure it's a touch-point with the "religious right" as opposed to society as a whole.

[samifan24]

I hope that he challenges Obama to throw down and then the camera pans back to reveal Chuck Norris, Brett Favre, and CGI John Wayne standing behind him looking tough.

That would take the buzz away from Obama's speech. And be pretty awesome.

That would be hilarious.

[JPhillips]

I read that some Christians see gambling as taking money without earning it and consider it close to stealing. Some of the distaste for gambling no doubt also developed from anti-Catholic mindset. I remember as a child hearing the Catholics of my town disparaged for gambling.

[Galaxy]

I have no idea why Christians think gambling is immoral since the bible doesn't really say anything about it. I guess you could say that gambling is an extension of greed, and therefore a sin, but if you are going to stretch greed that far to cover gambling, why are people in the "religious right" capitalists?

With Nevada a battleground state, isn't this political sucide in that state for the GOP to add that to it's platform?

[Galaxy]

Not an expert here either, but I think the idea of gambling for Christians is a slippery slope. There are many families that have lose everything because of gambling. Therefore, gambling = nothing really good can come of it, so don't even open the Pandora's box.

Frankly, however, I've never even heard our pastor refer to gambling in any of his sermons, so I'm not so sure it's a touch-point with the "religious right" as opposed to society as a whole.

But I guess you go attack alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, junk food, ect.?

[Galaxy]

This should be interesting:

McCain should keep inviting Obama for his town hall, no moderator debates that he wants to do. Put the pressure on Obama. McCain just doesn't seem to know when to attack his opponents and do it pretty aggressively.

[Jas_lov]

They showed the new McCain ad on tv. McCain says congratulations to Obama, it's an historic night, and job well done.

[Buccaneer]

I wonder if Obama will walk up to the podium, salute and then declare, "Sen. Obama reporting for duty"? :)

[ace1914]

I wonder if Obama will walk up to the podium, salute and then declare, "Sen. Obama reporting for duty"? :)

What would be hilarious is if he ended his speech with.......

Can you dig it????

[molson]

I'd go with:

"FINALLY, Barack as RETURNED to Denver....."

[Buccaneer]

What would be hilarious is if he ended his speech with.......

Can you dig it????

That would be cool. But as the way things have gone this week, every single word, every single motion and every single visual will be fully approved ahead of time by a committee.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What would be hilarious is if he ended his speech with.......Can you dig it????

Right idea, wrong catchphrase.

[sabotai]

Right idea, wrong catchphrase.

If you SMEEEELLLLLLLL what BARACK is cooking!

[molson]

If you SMEEEELLLLLLLL what BARACK is cooking!

This is a pretty painfully awkward :56 seconds.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HbaxHjxOlo4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HbaxHjxOlo4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Buccaneer]

Set to air in key campaign states to coincide with Barack Obama's formal acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination, the Arizona senator is featured looking directly into the camera to congratulate his presidential rival.

"Senator Obama, this is truly a good day for America," McCain says in the ad. "Too often the achievements of our opponents go unnoticed. So I wanted to stop and say, congratulations."

"How perfect that your nomination would come on this historic day," McCain also says in reference to the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' speech. "Tomorrow, we'll be back at it. But tonight Senator, job well done."


hmmm... Too bad the favor can't be returned. Nothing historic about an old white guy running for president.

[cartman]

I wonder if Obama will walk up to the podium, salute and then declare, "Sen. Obama reporting for duty"? :)

Are you now channeling MBBF for your predictions?

:D

[Buccaneer]

Are you now channeling MBBF for your predictions?

:D

I kind of skim over his posts, don't you? ;)

[JPhillips]

hmmm... Too bad the favor can't be returned. Nothing historic about an old white guy running for president.

Favor my ass. McCain is running the commercial because it keeps him in the media eye. It wouldn't shock me at all to see some sort of congratulations commercial from Obama, but it won't be a favor either.

[Buccaneer]

Favor my ass. McCain is running the commercial because it keeps him in the media eye. It wouldn't shock me at all to see some sort of congratulations commercial from Obama, but it won't be a favor either.

Now why didn't I think of that.

[Buccaneer]

Upon arriving in Dayton, Ohio, Thursday evening, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate was asked on the airport tarmac who he has selected for the No. 2 job.

“Wilford Brimley,” McCain deadpanned.



Cool. He can get everyone eating oatmeal again.

[Raiders Army]

This is a pretty painfully awkward :56 seconds.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HbaxHjxOlo4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HbaxHjxOlo4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Posers.

[Tigercat]

Wilford Brimley can get shit done, Dick Chaney style. He whooped some ass in The Firm.

[cartman]

Wilford Brimley can get shit done, Dick Chaney style. He whooped some ass in The Firm.

But he had to shut it all down in "Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins".

[Young Drachma]

I love how they keep referring to Invesco Field as "Mile High Stadium." Keith Olbermann started it last night and ever since then, they've seemingly decided to ignore it. But whatever works.

As for the whole "this convention was supposed to show him as a regular guy and this big rally is failing," that logic is really stupid, even if the pundits and the partisans will keep pushing it. Looking at those crowds, save for the pols and the random Hollywood types mixed in, all I see is a horde of just ordinary people.

Getting that many people energized to do anything, much less listen to a political speech, is a pretty big deal.

If this was overseas and we were watching these rallies, we'd talk about the swarms of people desiring a change in direction in that country.

Here we say "he's not an ordinary guy. He can't connect."

If this was Belarus or something, we'd call it the "Change Revolution" or something.

No, I'm still not voting for him. But this stuff is still crazy.

[DaddyTorgo]

I love how they keep referring to Invesco Field as "Mile High Stadium." Keith Olbermann started it last night and ever since then, they've seemingly decided to ignore it. But whatever works.

As for the whole "this convention was supposed to show him as a regular guy and this big rally is failing," that logic is really stupid, even if the pundits and the partisans will keep pushing it. Looking at those crowds, save for the pols and the random Hollywood types mixed in, all I see is a horde of just ordinary people.

Getting that many people energized to do anything, much less listen to a political speech, is a pretty big deal.

If this was overseas and we were watching these rallies, we'd talk about the swarms of people desiring a change in direction in that country.

Here we say "he's not an ordinary guy. He can't connect."

If this was Belarus or something, we'd call it the "Change Revolution" or something.

No, I'm still not voting for him. But this stuff is still crazy.

aaah, just vote for him already

[Young Drachma]

aaah, just vote for him already

Nope.

Can't do that. It's like rooting for a team you're not a fan of. Just because you're not gonna root for them, you can appreciate the story.

[Buccaneer]

Nope.

Can't do that. It's like rooting for a team you're not a fan of. Just because you're not gonna root for them, you can appreciate the story.

+1

+2 - actually I'll give another bump for him beating the Clintons. That took balls.

[Young Drachma]

"Free ponies! Free ponies for everyone! Ponies for America! All Americans deserve the right to have a pony."

[Raiders Army]

I dunno. I wanna punch Michelle in the mouth and fix her underbite.

[SFL Cat]

Working for the Tribune Company, I found this interesting...

SHOWDOWN: Obama campaign confronts talkradio station over 'right-wing hatchet man' (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/obama_campaign_confronts_wgn_r.html)

After all the media anal probes presidents have received for the past two and one half decades, Obama sure seems thin-skinned when it comes to criticism from what he and his followers consider the opposition.

If he wins, hopefully some world leader doesn't insult him.

"Did you hear what that cat, Ahmadinejad, said about me the other day? It is time for you, my followers, to take action..."

Obamanation..."Yes we can...here we come Iran."

[Chief Rum]

Obama should ask Kobe how his ass tastes. That should secure the basketball hater vote in every state except California, and the Dems are too far ahead in CA to lose it. :)

[Buccaneer]

"Change happens because the American people demand it -- because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time," he will say.

Some "American people" are also demanding changes that neither party can deliver.

"Rise up and insist on new leadership" - Yes.

"New ideas" - Probably, but I haven't heard of many, unless "reversal" are considered new ideas.

"New politics" - Give me a break. This week and next will be anything but new politics. The "American people" are not ready for new politics, they just want to change the channel.

[Young Drachma]

Yeah, the media will probably herald this speech as decisive. I don't really find it anything more than a trumped up stump speech. The massive crowd was necessary, because otherwise, it'd look just like his other rallies. He needed to one up that considerably and this does that by the optics of it all.

That said, all he's saying is the same retread Demo platform stuff. The fact of the matter is, he's giving Johnny Mac more free advertising by saying his name a ton more than anything. You notice McCain almost never says his name. He just generally says "my opponent."

[Young Drachma]

Some "American people" are also demanding changes that neither party can deliver.
.

+1

[Buccaneer]

Working for the Tribune Company, I found this interesting...

SHOWDOWN: Obama campaign confronts talkradio station over 'right-wing hatchet man' (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/obama_campaign_confronts_wgn_r.html)

After all the media anal probes presidents have received for the past two and one half decades, Obama sure seems thin-skinned when it comes to criticism from what he and his followers consider the opposition.

If he wins, hopefully some world leader doesn't insult him.

"Did you hear what that cat, Ahmadinejad, said about me the other day? It is time for you, my followers, to take action..."

Obamanation..."Yes we can...here we come Iran."


Sounds like we don't want a leader that is too thick skinned (i.e., too stubborn to change) or too thin skinned either (i.e., too reactive). But then again, those that have too little experience in Washington tend to rely more on others to think and react in their stead (as we saw with Carter and Bush2).

[SFL Cat]

It has been my experience, Republicans and Democrats say what needs to be said to energize their voters during the election cycle...but once they get to Washington, there really isn't much difference in how the govern.

[Chief Rum]

Yeah, the media will probably herald this speech as decisive. I don't really find it anything more than a trumped up stump speech. The massive crowd was necessary, because otherwise, it'd look just like his other rallies. He needed to one up that considerably and this does that by the optics of it all.

That said, all he's saying is the same retread Demo platform stuff. The fact of the matter is, he's giving Johnny Mac more free advertising by saying his name a ton more than anything. You notice McCain almost never says his name. He just generally says "my opponent."

So did he say what he would do to bring about change? I mean, besides "save the poor", "tax the rich", "balance the budget", "universal health care" and "save social security"?

I am looking for something between "I will do nothing" and "I will write a great novel", like "I will write the first page in my first year."

[Chief Rum]

It has been my experience, Republicans and Democrats say what needs to be said to energize their voters during the election cycle...but once they get to Washington, there really isn't much difference in how the govern.

:withstupid:

[Buccaneer]

It has been my experience, Republicans and Democrats say what needs to be said to energize their voters during the election cycle...but once they get to Washington, there really isn't much difference in how the govern.

Except for one thing (and this is the big thing for me) - a single-party Legislature/Executive will be different than a split-party Legislature/Executive.

[Galaxy]

It has been my experience, Republicans and Democrats say what needs to be said to energize their voters during the election cycle...but once they get to Washington, there really isn't much difference in how the govern.

Yep. And I think we all get sucked into it.

[SFL Cat]

How about, "I will do something that should have been done following the First World War, I will work to appeal the Sixteenth Amendment and forever abolish the federal personal income tax."

I'd launch a grass roots effort to abolish presidential term limits for such an individual.

[Young Drachma]

Wonder how Brooks and Dunn feel about their song being used...

[Buccaneer]

How about, "I will do something that should have been done following the First World War, I will work to appeal the Sixteenth Amendment and forever abolish the federal personal income tax."

I'd launch a grass roots effort to abolish presidential term limits for such an individual.

I think the American People would like a Free Pony better.

[Chief Rum]

How about, "I will do something that should have been done following the First World War, I will work to appeal the Sixteenth Amendment and forever abolish the federal personal income tax."

I'd launch a grass roots effort to abolish presidential term limits for such an individual.

That's a dream sequence, right? He didn't really say that.

[SFL Cat]

Except for one thing (and this is the big thing for me) - a single-party Legislature/Executive will be different than a split-party Legislature/Executive.

Yeah, but it usually only takes one presidential term or two of whatever party is in control of the entire wad to screw things up so badly that partisan gridlock is finally restored to the government. :)

[SFL Cat]

That's a dream sequence, right? He didn't really say that.

Yes...that would be my dream candidate!

And no, I don't expect any Democrat candidate to say anything close to that in my lifetime.

[cartman]

I think the American People would like a Free Pony better.

Considering the average pony costs between $600 and $1200, they've already gotten that this year.

[SFL Cat]

Man...I didn't realize ponies were that cheap!

[JPhillips]

If my daughter finds out I could have bought a pony instead of a television I'm in big trouble.

[Buccaneer]

Considering the average pony costs between $600 and $1200, they've already gotten that this year.

That's a really good point.

Instead of one big wad, I would vote for having everyone getting $100 less taken out of their paychecks each month.

[SFL Cat]

If my daughter finds out I could have bought a pony instead of a television I'm in big trouble.

luckily for me ... my daughter is past the age of wanting a pony.

unluckily for me ... now she wants a new car.

[cartman]

Man...I didn't realize ponies were that cheap!

Yeah, they are cheap to buy, but ongoing upkeep is a bitch. Kinda like interest payments on a massive amount of debt.

[Young Drachma]

Yeah, they are cheap to buy, but ongoing upkeep is a bitch. Kinda like interest payments on a massive amount of debt.

ALL AMERICANS DESERVE A PONIES. NOT JUST THE RICHEST AMERICANS DESERVES PONIES.

PONIES ARE AN INALIENABLE RIGHT!

NO SUBPRIME LOANS FOR PONIES!

[SFL Cat]

Heh...the Pony Upkeep Crisis. We need the government to do something to help us take care of our ponies.

[cartman]

Heh...the Pony Upkeep Crisis. We need the government to do something to help us take care of our ponies.

Don't worry. A no-bid contract has been awarded to Halliburton to provide for the ponies.

[Buccaneer]

Don't worry. A no-bid contract has been awarded to Halliburton to provide for the ponies.

Except they will find 3 ponies in New Mexico and 9 in Mississippi that weren't cared for, therefore, all ponies regardless of state of residence will have to get their oats from federal distribution centers.

[SFL Cat]

Except they will find 3 ponies in New Mexico and 9 in Mississippi that weren't cared for, therefore, all ponies regardless of state of residence will have to get their oats from federal distribution centers.


And they'd damn well better be FDA inspected oats to boot.

[Galaxy]

Can we play polo?

[SackAttack]

Ponies? (http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20050411a.gif)

[SFL Cat]

Well, that comic strip ended just as things were getting interesting... :popcorn:

[Buccaneer]

McCain settled on VP pick, sources say

It's been absolutely riveting to follow the media's obsession with tracking each of the VP hopeful's every move.

Oh wait...

Seriously, no one is going to care, except maybe for the neo-cons. And it sounds like Rep convention schedule might be screwed up anyways.

[mckerney]

It's been absolutely riveting to follow the media's obsession with tracking each of the VP hopeful's every move.

The Minneapolis media is doing that, though it's not any more worthless than their typical stories during the state fair.

[Big Fo]

Great speech by Obama tonight. Lots of policy stuff plus he came out swinging vs. McCain.

[Galaxy]

Ponies? (http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20050411a.gif)

My Little Pony.

[ace1914]

Some people on here are going to say that he didn't go into enough detail, just watch. He needed to go up and actually read the bill.

[Arles]

The Wall Street Journal is dead on with their analysis of this evening:

Americans last night got their closest look yet at Barack Obama, the shooting star bidding to be our next President. His speech before 85,000 at Invesco Field was as much coronation as nomination. Yet for someone who is so close to being the most powerful man in the world, the remarkable fact is that Americans still know very little about either his political philosophy or what he wants to accomplish.

This is not unusual for the modern Democratic Party. As we've often noted, the party has tended to nominate relative unknowns ever since its animating liberalism fell out of public favor in the 1970s. Sometimes the voters have gone along with the leap of faith (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) and sometimes they haven't (Michael Dukakis). But in either case the voters learned sooner or later that they were sold something more than the "change" they imagined.

Now comes the most audacious change agent of them all, a 47-year-old first term Senator not yet four years removed from the Illinois state legislature. His political and oratorical gifts are formidable, as he showed during the primaries and last night. His campaign skills -- in fund-raising, and staff organization -- deserve more than a nod for defeating the Clinton juggernaut in the primaries.

We also count ourselves among those millions of Americans, of all races, who take pride in a man of African descent reaching these political heights. It is easy to be cynical about celebrating such an event in our age of diversity correctness. But America has suffered much pain over its racial divisions, and the nomination of a man of mixed racial heritage is undeniably a sign of our progress.

Martin Luther King Jr. and Frederick Douglass would have viewed Mr. Obama's success as vindication both of their struggles and their faith in America's promise. And while we have no polls to prove it, our guess is that more than a few white Americans would welcome an Obama victory in November in part as a way to put the battles over racial grievance and preference further into the background of American public life.

Yet as the fall campaign is joined, Americans will want to know more concretely what kind of change Mr. Obama is proposing. So far his campaign, like his political persona, has been marked by contradiction. In his rhetoric, Mr. Obama is a centrist, stressing a theme of post-ideological, bipartisan political transformation. There is no "red" or "blue" in his "one America." Yet look closely at his policy agenda and you see that he has by far the most liberal program of any Democratic nominee since George McGovern in 1972.

In his (two) autobiographies and convention presentation this week, he is a conciliator who brought unique skills to transcend old political disputes. But as journalists have unveiled his record, we have learned that he also advanced by more than innocence through Chicago politics, and that he dissembled about his 20 years in the pews of a black liberation church. He used the Reverend Jeremiah Wright when belonging to that church served his purposes as a state politician, but he denied his pastor when that association might have hurt his national campaign. This speaks not merely to his past but to his present political character.

A similar disconnect applies to his agenda, which is nothing if not ambitious. Most conspicuously, he is proposing a steeper tax increase than any recent candidate, yet he is selling it as a net tax cut. He justifies this by asserting that his eight "refundable" tax credit proposals for people who pay no income tax are "tax cuts." But such tax credits are really a government cash transfer from one taxpayer to a nontaxpayer. Mr. Obama is disguising the kind of pure income distribution that Mr. McGovern failed to sell as a $1,000 "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's packaging is post-ideological but his package is from the Great Society.

In this and in other policy areas, Mr. Obama is different from Bill Clinton and the New Democrats of 1992 and 1996. Mr. Clinton made real concessions to conservative policy goals -- welfare reform, a balanced budget -- in the hope that this would give him the political running room to pursue other liberal goals. Mr. Obama's concessions are nearly all rhetorical, a nod that Ronald Reagan had some good ideas or that the free market does some things well. But his policy instincts and political program always seem to turn left. He has shown he can tack right when he is politically forced to, as on wiretapping of al Qaeda abroad, but he has done so only after his liberal options have turned into dead ends.

This will also be a Commander in Chief election amid a war on terror, and Mr. Obama's national security profile is especially indistinct. He has made much of his 2002 opposition to the Iraq war, though he took that stand from the political safety of the Illinois legislature. In his time as a Presidential candidate, the most consequential security debate concerned President Bush's 2007 Iraq surge. Mr. Obama opposed it, and we now know the U.S. would have been defeated in Iraq without it. Voters will have to decide if they believe that his capacity to learn on the job will trump his instinct that negotiations can tame almost any enemy.

For activist Democrats of a certain age, their expectation and hope is that 2008 is their version of 1980, when Reagan ushered in the modern conservative era. But the Gipper had been a two-term Governor of California, had nearly won his party's nomination four years earlier, and had a philosophy that he had broadcast for a generation on radio and TV. His challenge was persuading the country that his philosophy was the right one for that political moment -- as it turned out to be.
* * *

The Obama Democrats seem to believe that the country is now ready to turn the page on the Reagan era, ushering in another "progressive" age of activist and expanding government. Perhaps the unpopular Bush Presidency has created that opening, especially among young people who have no memory of the 1970s, or even of 1993-94. In Mr. Obama, Democrats hope they have found a liberal with Reagan's likability and communications skills. The Illinois Senator has even compared his own ambitions to Reagan's as a potentially transformative President, angering Mr. Clinton in the process.

The coming campaign ought to be a test of whether the country really wants that kind of change. We have our doubts, and Mr. Obama may have doubts himself -- which probably explains the audacity of his rhetorical, postpartisan disguise. We've been disappointed by shooting stars before.

A Shooting Liberal Star - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121997396071782159.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks)

[larrymcg421]

The Wall Street Journal is dead on with their analysis of this evening:



A Shooting Liberal Star - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121997396071782159.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks)

Uh, are we reading the same article? This is the same old regurgitated nonsense that we've heard before. There's very little about the actual evening, so little in fact that I'm certain this article was written before the evening and posted afterwards. I don't see how it could be classified as a "view of the evening", much less an accurate one.

But maybe there was an error and you meant to post a link to an article that actually talked about his speech.

[molson]

"Maybe if John McCain went to Pennsylvania and he met the man who lost his job, but can’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he’d understand we can’t afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators."

So he's saying that with McCain, we'll still be addicted to oil, but with Obama, we won't be (within 4 years)

I just don't believe him, I think he's full of shit.

"And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country — and we will win that fight — she will be central to that victory."

This one, maybe he can be given the benefit of the doubt and that he means "we" as in "America, eventually". But if so it's misleading. He wants us to think he'll do it in his term.

And I just don't believe him, I think he's full of shit again.

Will Obama supporters admit he's a failure after 4 years when we're still addicted to oil and we don't have universal health care? I guess it's better to attempt great things than not. But Obama is selling A LOT. And there's still little discussion of how he can actually do all this.

[Vegas Vic]

And now the campaign begins in earnest.

I've heard that there was some recent controversy with Obama's campaign plane. Does anyone have the details on this?

http://members.cox.net/sauvignon/obamaplane.jpg

[sabotai]

Uh, are we reading the same article? This is the same old regurgitated nonsense that we've heard before. There's very little about the actual evening, so little in fact that I'm certain this article was written before the evening and posted afterwards. I don't see how it could be classified as a "view of the evening", much less an accurate one.

Yeah, I agree. No specific reference to anything Obama said, just a lot of generalities, so I don't see how it can be "dead on with their analysis of this evening" since there is no analysis of the evening at all. Definitely sounds like it was written before hand.

[DaddyTorgo]

"Maybe if John McCain went to Pennsylvania and he met the man who lost his job, but can’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he’d understand we can’t afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators."

So he's saying that with McCain, we'll still be addicted to oil, but with Obama, we won't be (within 4 years)

I just don't believe him, I think he's full of shit.

"And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country — and we will win that fight — she will be central to that victory."

This one, maybe he can be given the benefit of the doubt and that he means "we" as in "America, eventually". But if so it's misleading. He wants us to think he'll do it in his term.

And I just don't believe him, I think he's full of shit again.

Will Obama supporters admit he's a failure after 4 years when we're still addicted to oil and we don't have universal health care? I guess it's better to attempt great things than not. But Obama is selling A LOT. And there's still little discussion of how he can actually do all this.

if you listened to his speech you'd hear that he said he'd lay out a roadmap and begin a process so that in 10 years we wouldn't be addicted to foreign oil anymore - not saying it'd be done in 4 years

[Radii]

So he's saying that with McCain, we'll still be addicted to oil, but with Obama, we won't be (within 4 years)

I just don't believe him, I think he's full of shit.

"And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country — and we will win that fight — she will be central to that victory."

I was disappointed to hear such promises, but not at all surprised. I'll be voting for Obama, no secret there, and I do truly hope that our government does something serious about our energy policy, but the big points he made sound like the same rhetoric that any candidate would promise. I'm curious to see what things McCain promises in his acceptance speech, I expect similar vague promises to resolve impossible problems, just from a different angle.


Will Obama supporters admit he's a failure after 4 years when we're still addicted to oil and we don't have universal health care? I guess it's better to attempt great things than not. But Obama is selling A LOT. And there's still little discussion of how he can actually do all this.

Perhaps I'm just cynical here, but isn't a fundamental part of campaigns today to have to promise the most idealized vision they have, and its just never possible. I don't expect any of those promises to occur over the next 4 or years, though I will certainly in part measure the next president based on the changes that occur in our nation's energy and healthcare policies, among other things.



Don't forget McCain's speech in May where he predicted where the US would be after 4 years in office(caveat, he did say he does not presume he will be able to do all of this, but hopes that he can). Some of the most lofty goals excerpted here:


By January 2013...

After efforts to pressure the Government in Sudan over Darfur failed again in the U.N. Security Council, the United States, acting in concert with a newly formed League of Democracies, applied stiff diplomatic and economic pressure that caused the government of Sudan to agree to a multinational peacekeeping force

The United States has experienced several years of robust economic growth, and Americans again have confidence in their economic future.

After exercising my veto several times in my first year in office, Congress has not sent me an appropriations bill containing earmarks for the last three years. A top to bottom review of every federal bureaucracy has yielded great reductions in government spending by identifying programs that serve no important purpose; and instigating far reaching reforms of procurement and operating policies that have for too long extravagantly wasted money for no better purpose than to increase federal payrolls.

The world food crisis has ended, inflation is low, and the quality of life not only in our country, but in some of the most impoverished countries around the world is much improved.

Americans, who through no fault of their own, lost jobs in the global economy they once believed were theirs for life, are assisted by reformed unemployment insurance and worker retraining programs.

Public education in the United States is much improved thanks to the competition provided by charter and private schools; the increase of quality teachers through incentives like merit pay and terrific programs that attract to the classroom enthusiastic and innovative teachers from many disciplines

Health care has become more accessible to more Americans than at any other time in history. Reforms of the insurance market; putting the choice of health care into the hands of American families rather than exclusively with the government or employers

Obesity rates among the young and the disease they engender are stabilized and beginning to decline.

The federal government and states have cooperated in establishing backstop insurance pools that provide coverage to people hard pressed to find insurance elsewhere because of pre-existing illness.

The reduction in the growth of health care costs has begun to relieve some of the pressure on Medicare

The United States is well on the way to independence from foreign sources of oil; progress that has not only begun to alleviate the environmental threat posed from climate change, but has greatly improved our security as well.

Clean coal technology has advanced considerably with federal assistance. Construction has begun on twenty new nuclear reactors thanks to improved incentives and a streamlined regulatory process.

This is the progress I want us to achieve during my presidency. These are the changes I am running for President to make.



Full text of this speech; Text of McCain's Speech on First-Term Goals | The Trail | washingtonpost.com (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/15/text_of_mccains_vision_of_2013.html)


The bolded parts are the very similar to Obama's goals(clean coal technology and nuclear power anyone?)

If McCain wins, I hope he is able to be a bi-partisan president that can accomplish even a few of his goals too.

[Deattribution]

if you listened to his speech you'd hear that he said he'd lay out a roadmap and begin a process so that in 10 years we wouldn't be addicted to foreign oil anymore - not saying it'd be done in 4 years

I didn't catch the speech, but did he happen to lay out that roadmap during it, or any part of it?

If not, isn't that just more pointless talk?

[DaddyTorgo]

I didn't catch the speech, but did he happen to lay out that roadmap during it, or any part of it?

If not, isn't that just more pointless talk?

he didn't lay it out in specific-specifics no. But no candidate ever does. That would be one hell of a "boring" (albeit very informative) speech. You'll never see that. Now I wish the candidates would put these types of details out on their websites or something for those who are interested, yeah.

But he did talk about doing it by utilizing other sources of power, and in general terms how he'd go about that, yeah. In as much detail as you get in any of these speeches.

[Jas_lov]

It sounds like Pawlenty won't be in Dayton today so I think he's out and Romney is in for the VP.

[Big Fo]

Uh, are we reading the same article? This is the same old regurgitated nonsense that we've heard before. There's very little about the actual evening, so little in fact that I'm certain this article was written before the evening and posted afterwards. I don't see how it could be classified as a "view of the evening", much less an accurate one.

But maybe there was an error and you meant to post a link to an article that actually talked about his speech.

This, what a terrible article. The Republican spin machine doesn't even need to read or hear the speeches anymore, they'll just repeat the same stuff anyhow.

And LOL at molson complaining Barack promised energy independence within four years. Learn to read or buy a hearing aid.

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: in 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Washington’s been talking about our oil addiction for the last 30 years, and John McCain has been there for 26 of them. In that time, he’s said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Sen. McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stopgap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I’ll help our auto companies retool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I’ll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I’ll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy — wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever be outsourced.

Can this happen within ten years? Hell if I know, probably not. But we gotta try something...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Yeah, I agree. No specific reference to anything Obama said, just a lot of generalities, so I don't see how it can be "dead on with their analysis of this evening" since there is no analysis of the evening at all. Definitely sounds like it was written before hand.

Unfortunately, the speech given last night contained little more than general comments about Democratic platform issues. Not only that, but he used rhetoric about the economy that simply isn't backed up by the latest economic numbers that were released this week. Large growth (3.3%) and a low unemployment rate. How quickly we forget that the ideal presented by the Democrats (Bill Clinton's presidency) had a higher average unemployment rate than the Bush presidency, higher average percentage of people below the poverty level than the Bush presidency, and a -.5% growth in his final quarter in office. All this despite the fact that Bush had the added issues associated with 9/11. Obama presented it well, but the WSJ article was spot-on in its analysis.

Honestly, if the debates came before the conventions, Obama would have a pretty good shot at winning the election as he's probably the better speaker of the two. Unfortunately for him, the debates come after the conventions and McCain is expected to do very well in the debates against a relatively inexperienced Obama. If McCain fails in the debates, it's no secret that he'll lose.

[Jas_lov]

Was Romney in Alaska last night?

Apparently Romney won't be in Dayton either says Chuck Todd so maybe it will be Palin.

[ace1914]

The information is on their respective websites.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

and

http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

The information is out there. People(not saying you Torgo) want spoon fed info or use the saying, "he's not specific with his ideas" to justify irrational decisions. Looking at both sites, one thing that jumped out when comparing the two energy policies is that McCain's FIRST bullet point is expanding domestic oil exploration. WTF? Isn't the main priority supposed to be, doing what we can to move away from oil?

Another thing that pisses me off about McCain's plan is the idea of giving a "prize" for creating a plug-in/hybrid car. Another WTF for me. I feel like Chris Rock on this one. Its like we are giving a prize to people for something that they are SUPPOSED to do. If someone can make a cheaper, more efficient electric powered car, believe me its going to sell without the requirements of a gotdamn, jeopardy prize. That's a waste of money in my opinion.

[JPhillips]

Like I've said before, there's plenty of reasons for ideological conservatives to dislike Obama's policies, but I don't see how you can rationally argue that the speech last night wasn't effective. God knows if McCain put together something similar I'd be very nervous about the election.

[ace1914]

Fox is hinting at Palin for VP. She's young, white, and Pro-life. Wow, this could be a very, very interesting turn. If McCain chooses her does the pick appeal to Hillary supporters who identify with Hillary?

[Big Fo]

The information is out there. People(not saying you Torgo) want spoon fed info or use the saying, "he's not specific with his ideas" to justify irrational decisions.

Imagine how long the speech would have needed to be to satisfy the FOFC critics decrying the lack of substance, he still wouldn't have finished yet.

As for Palin's potential appeal it depends on how many of Hillary's supporters were only there because she was a woman.

[ace1914]

Unfortunately, the speech given last night contained little more than general comments about Democratic platform issues. Not only that, but he used rhetoric about the economy that simply isn't backed up by the latest economic numbers that were released this week. Large growth (3.3%) and a low unemployment rate. How quickly we forget that the ideal presented by the Democrats (Bill Clinton's presidency) had a higher average unemployment rate than the Bush presidency, higher average percentage of people below the poverty level than the Bush presidency, and a -.5% growth in his final quarter in office. All this despite the fact that Bush had the added issues associated with 9/11. Obama presented it well, but the WSJ article was spot-on in its analysis.

Honestly, if the debates came before the conventions, Obama would have a pretty good shot at winning the election as he's probably the better speaker of the two. Unfortunately for him, the debates come after the conventions and McCain is expected to do very well in the debates against a relatively inexperienced Obama. If McCain fails in the debates, it's no secret that he'll lose.

MBBF, you are misleading with your statistical analysis, at least with the higher avg. unemployment rate. Of course, he had a higher AVERAGE % rate, the place was in shambles when Bill took office. Unemployment was above 7% and in 8 years was down to below 4%. G-Dub took the baton from Clinton and subsequently it rose back up to 6.0 where its been for most of Bush's presidency. I guess you can give him an A for consistentency.

Give me 8 years of declining unemployment rates over consistently high rates any day.

[Alan T]

Fox is hinting at Palin for VP. She's young, white, and Pro-life. Wow, this could be a very, very interesting turn. If McCain chooses her does the pick appeal to Hillary supporters who identify with Hillary?


MSNBC seems to be hinting that it will be Lieberman, but it is kind of funny the way they are doing it. They are saying that ABC confirms that the govenor of Alaska is in.... Alaska! Anyhows, I'm not really holding my breath trying to figure out who it will be I am sure that I will find out soon enough, and I don't really think either way Palin or Lieberman it's a big enough deal to me to get me to vote Republican, so not that worried about it.

[cartman]

Yeah, it sure was too bad we didn't make it to the moon in 10 years after JFK gave his speech that we would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, because he didn't list out a detailed road map of how to do it in that speech.

[albionmoonlight]

Fox is hinting at Palin for VP. She's young, white, and Pro-life. Wow, this could be a very, very interesting turn. If McCain chooses her does the pick appeal to Hillary supporters who identify with Hillary?

She's a bold choice. And I think that McCain needs to take some chances. But, my goodness, if he ever wanted to remind voters that he is OLD, he can do that by making sure that he stands next to a young woman as much as possible.

If I were McCain, I'd pick Huck. Huck is very very likable, will energize the base, and his humor will allow him to play the attack dog in a very effective and unorthodox, IMO, way.

There are people who would be afraid of Huck as president who I think could be persuaded to vote for a ticket with him as VP.

[Arles]

There's very little about the actual evening, so little in fact that I'm certain this article was written before the evening and posted afterwards. I don't see how it could be classified as a "view of the evening", much less an accurate one.
The article did mention the only real "debatable items" he mentioned in his speech (ie, selling tax rebates to people who don't pay taxes as cuts to balance out the increases on people who do). The problem is that there's nothing you can really analyze from the speech. According to Obama, he's the magic elixir for whatever ails you. Energy costs, he'll fix it. Use of foreign oil? No more when he's president. Have issues with health care or losing your job? Obama will fix it the first day in office.

I don't know how you can have an article on his speech last night with any substantive policy debate. It was a well-delivered speech where Obama said he will be the combination of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny to all Americans.

But maybe there was an error and you meant to post a link to an article that actually talked about his speech.
I wish such were the case, but this is kind of the point. There's nothing new that a person with any critical thinking skills could have taken from that speech on how Obama actually plans to make a difference in the issues that face us. Either you buy that he's the pied piper leading us from danger or you don't. There's nothing in last night's speech that really changed that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

MSNBC seems to be hinting that it will be Lieberman, but it is kind of funny the way they are doing it. They are saying that ABC confirms that the govenor of Alaska is in.... Alaska! Anyhows, I'm not really holding my breath trying to figure out who it will be I am sure that I will find out soon enough, and I don't really think either way Palin or Lieberman it's a big enough deal to me to get me to vote Republican, so not that worried about it.

Honestly, I'm not sure we can believe much of anything at this point. McCain's PR machine is pumping rumors into the media food chain on an hourly basis at this point. The Palin comments come from her spokesperson, not Palin. The Romney and Pawlenty comments were directly from them. The Republicans could just as easily be trying to keep attention on McCain and off of Obama this morning by pumping the media pipelines full of information.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I wish such were the case, but this is kind of the point. There's nothing new that a person with any critical thinking skills could have taken from that speech on how Obama actually plans to make a difference in the issues that face us. Either you buy that he's the pied piper leading us from danger or you don't. There's nothing in last night's speech that really changed that.

That speech did nothing more than solidify some Democratic support, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But the 'best political speech I've ever seen' rhetoric on some of the liberal websites is WAY over the top.

[Big Fo]

Yeah, it sure was too bad we didn't make it to the moon in 10 years after JFK gave his speech that we would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, because he didn't list out a detailed road map of how to do it in that speech.

JFK should have built the rockets and trained the astronauts right on stage during the middle of his speech.

[cartman]

The article did mention the only real "debatable items" he mentioned in his speech (ie, selling tax rebates to people who don't pay taxes as cuts to balance out the increases on people who do). The problem is that there's nothing you can really analyze from the speech. According to Obama, he's the magic elixir for whatever ails you. Energy costs, he'll fix it. Use of foreign oil? No more when he's president. Have issues with health care or losing your job? Obama will fix it the first day in office.

I don't know how you can have an article on his speech last night with any substantive policy debate. It was a well-delivered speech where Obama said he will be the combination of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny to all Americans.


I wish such were the case, but this is kind of the point. There's nothing new that a person with any critical thinking skills could have taken from that speech on how Obama actually plans to make a difference in the issues that face us. Either you buy that he's the pied piper leading us from danger or you don't. There's nothing in last night's speech that really changed that.

It seems then that he is taking a cue from Reagan's 1980 campaign. You can substitute Reagan for Obama in your post above, and have a pretty good description of his race against Bush in the primaries, then Carter in the general. The biggest knock against him was that he have good speeches, but no details about his policies in those speeches.

I'm not sure why people were expecting a detailed, policy wonk style of speech. That has never been what the acceptance of the nomination speech has ever been for either party. The place where more details come out is later on, during stump speeches and during the debates. And on both sides I can see the public speaking being more general in nature, with the campaign websites supplying the detailed info, to hedge against misspeaking about the details.

[lungs]

My question for the McCain folks. What the hell has he laid out in detail?

All I hear from the McCain camp is why Obama shouldn't be President, not why McCain should be President.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

A jet chartered by a McCain backer just arrived in Dayton, Ohio. It flew out of Alaska earlier this morning.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

My question for the McCain folks. What the hell has he laid out in detail?

All I hear from the McCain camp is why Obama shouldn't be President, not why McCain should be President.

Let's wait until after the Republican convention before we make that comparison. He hasn't even had that opportunity. You might be right, but it's a tad premature at this point.

[Warhammer]

After efforts to pressure the Government in Sudan over Darfur failed again in the U.N. Security Council, the United States, acting in concert with a newly formed League of Democracies, applied stiff diplomatic and economic pressure that caused the government of Sudan to agree to a multinational peacekeeping force

After exercising my veto several times in my first year in office, Congress has not sent me an appropriations bill containing earmarks for the last three years. A top to bottom review of every federal bureaucracy has yielded great reductions in government spending by identifying programs that serve no important purpose; and instigating far reaching reforms of procurement and operating policies that have for too long extravagantly wasted money for no better purpose than to increase federal payrolls.

Clean coal technology has advanced considerably with federal assistance. Construction has begun on twenty new nuclear reactors thanks to improved incentives and a streamlined regulatory process.

Public education in the United States is much improved thanks to the competition provided by charter and private schools; the increase of quality teachers through incentives like merit pay and terrific programs that attract to the classroom enthusiastic and innovative teachers from many disciplines

This is the thing though, McCain has outlined what he plans to do in these comments. They make sense, and can be done. Obama has not even done this in many of his speeches. Additionally, how much more of a road map can we expect in a speech?

It is a hell of a lot easier to make promises in a speech and make it sound good than it is to outline how you plan to meet those promises.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This is the thing though, McCain has outlined what he plans to do in these comments. They make sense, and can be done. Obama has not even done this in many of his speeches. Additionally, how much more of a road map can we expect in a speech?

It is a hell of a lot easier to make promises in a speech and make it sound good than it is to outline how you plan to meet those promises.

The 'health care for every American' promise alone should raise eyebrows. Anyone involved in health care or the insurance industry knows that it would take a Herculean effort to make this happen. Even a Dem president with a Dem Congress couldn't make that happen anytime soon, if at all.

[JPhillips]

The convention had two goals. One, solidify Democratic support. I saw Dem support numbers at roughly 60/20 with 20 undecided. I imagine after this week he'll gain 10 to 20 points in Dem support. Given the skew in self-identify numbers, an extra ten percente of Dem support likely would mean a win. Secondarily, he'll raise an astounding amount of money and pull in thousands of new volunteers.

Two, he had to reassure reachable independents. Based on what folks like Luntz were saying I think he did that, but we'll have to wait to know. There's a lot of people that won't vote for him no matter what, as even landslide elections still have a relatively split popular vote.

80 - Reagan 50/41
84 - Reagan 59/41
88 - Bush 53/46
96 - Clinton 49/41

Even with a best case scenario Obama can't get 40-45% of voters no matter what. What's important is looking at what support is open to him and how well he did at attracting that support. My guess is he did very well.

That being said, it's also important to remember that the debates will have an audience probably twice as large and will still play a bigger role in the outcome.

[lungs]

Let's wait until after the Republican convention before we make that comparison. He hasn't even had that opportunity. You might be right, but it's a tad premature at this point.

I definitely see your point, but people have been railing on Obama for some time about his abstract calls for change.

Then when he does, it's not enough.

[ace1914]

I wish such were the case, but this is kind of the point. There's nothing new that a person with any critical thinking skills could have taken from that speech on how Obama actually plans to make a difference in the issues that face us.Either you buy that he's the pied piper leading us from danger or you don't. There's nothing in last night's speech that really changed that.

Again I ask, what do you expect him to say? The information is there for those that are interested, but in reality, this is a political campaign. As a whole, people don't vote on the issues. People in my family didn't vote for Kerry because they thought he worshiped the devil(seriously).

The flip side is that the guy has to fight insignificant trash like, "he's a muslim, he's not REALLY American since he was born in Hawaii, or where's his American flag pin? How can talk about the issues when you've got to spend so much time and energy proving that you are as American as John McCain. How about when he tried to explain the complete futility of oil-drilling and the American people said no to rational thinking (25% of world consumption vs. 3% of reserves). Then when he changed his stance to appease more American people, he was called a "flip flopper" although McCain was against drilling just 2 weeks before. :confused:

If the issues and proposed policy changes are as important to some voters as they claim to be, get out and do the research because, NEWS FLASH, you will not find substance on the surface of any major political campaign.

[lungs]

If the issues and proposed policy changes are as important to some voters as they claim to be, get out and do the research because, NEWS FLASH, you will not find substance on the surface of any major political campaign.

I think it's more of a case of people that never seriously entertained the thought of voting for Obama wanting more substance from him even though they know they aren't going to like the substance.

[miked]

I don't know how you can have an article on his speech last night with any substantive policy debate. It was a well-delivered speech where Obama said he will be the combination of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny to all Americans.


Once McCain gives his non-substantive speech, then they can both get in to the nitty gritty.

I didn't think he was promising to be the Easter Bunny and Santa, I thought he was saying Americans have to get off their asses too and help him make "change" or something.

[ace1914]

This is the thing though, McCain has outlined what he plans to do in these comments. They make sense, and can be done. Obama has not even done this in many of his speeches. Additionally, how much more of a road map can we expect in a speech?

It is a hell of a lot easier to make promises in a speech and make it sound good than it is to outline how you plan to meet those promises.

You called that specific?

And that's the BS I'm talking about. There are not 20 new nuclear reactors being built in the US. There have been 20 applications for new reactors. I hate that kind of misleading politics.

So yes you are right, in the fact that:


It is a hell of a lot easier to make promises in a speech and make it sound good than it is to outline how you plan to meet those promises.

[Dr. Sak]

You called that specific?

And that's the BS I'm talking about. There are not 20 new nuclear reactors being built in the US. There have been 20 applications for new reactors. I hate that kind of misleading politics.

So yes you are right, in the fact that:

There are 20 applications but there are also 8 orders already booked for plants in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. I'm not pulling that number out of my butt either, the company I work for supplies the Main Coolant Pumps for Nuclear Reactors.

That doesn't mean that those 8 plants can't be canceled, but those utilities, Georgia Power being one, has already started payment.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I definitely see your point, but people have been railing on Obama for some time about his abstract calls for change.

Then when he does, it's not enough.

He didn't say anything new last night that hasn't already been said by a Democrat candidate in past elections. I'm sure he'll get more specific at some point. The major reason that there are calls for him to do it sooner is that everyone already knows McCain's policy thoughts because he's been around forever. Obama doesn't have that kind of legacy built up yet, so the public needs more info than a candidate like McCain.

I think he'll be more specific at some point, but he needs to do it sooner rather than later.

[lungs]

So if Palin is the Vice Presidential nominee does Joe Biden go after his counterpart's inexperience? :)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Just leaked: Palin is the VP selection..........

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin Is McCain's VP Pick: Source - Your Money Your Vote * News * Special Report - CNBC.com (http://www.cnbc.com/id/26454655)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So if Palin is the Vice Presidential nominee does Joe Biden go after his counterpart's inexperience? :)

Yeah, the VP debate will obviously go in favor of the Dems. The Republicans only hope is that Biden gets so confident that he ends up saying something he shouldn't, which certainly isn't out of the realm of possibilities.

Luckily for the Republicans, they'll have 3 debates to go after Obama's inexperience.

[ace1914]

There are 20 applications but there are also 8 orders already booked for plants in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. I'm not pulling that number out of my butt either, the company I work for supplies the Main Coolant Pumps for Nuclear Reactors.

That doesn't mean that those 8 plants can't be canceled, but those utilities, Georgia Power being one, has already started payment.

Well from what I read about 2-3 weeks ago,( I read about nuclear power as much as I could once McCain introduced it into the mainstream as a viable option). its only like is multiple reactors for 3 sites, GA, SC, and TX. Saying 20 new plants are being constructed is significantly different than placing reactor orders for 3 sites.

[lungs]

Wow. Just reading up on her, she was only elected Governor in 2006. Before that her only elected office was Mayor of a town of less than 10,000 people.

Granted, it's a big difference having the inexperience at the bottom of the ticket. But this is VERY inexperienced.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Wow. Just reading up on her, she was only elected Governor in 2006. Before that her only elected office was Mayor of a town of less than 10,000 people.

Granted, it's a big difference having the inexperience at the bottom of the ticket. But this is VERY inexperienced.

Welcome to the 2008 election, where race or sex takes precedence over sound leadership and experience.

[ace1914]

McCain had to do something to make people say, "Wow, look at me, I'm running too." The big if, is whether McCain and Co. can sell this as a landmark Republican decision amongst middle-aged white women.

[Dr. Sak]

Well from what I read about 2-3 weeks ago,( I read about nuclear power as much as I could once McCain introduced it into the mainstream as a viable option). its only like is multiple reactors for 3 sites, GA, SC, and TX. Saying 20 new plants are being constructed is significantly different than placing reactor orders for 3 sites.

I agree with you. I think the rest are holding off till they see how these first few reactor plants go. The nation, and world, is still a little skeptical about nuclear power, but honestly there is so much margin built into the design that it is 100 times safer than in the 70s.

[Young Drachma]

Welcome to the 2008 election, where race or sex takes precedence over sound leadership and experience.

:popcorn:

[ace1914]

I agree with you. I think the rest are holding off till they see how these first few reactor plants go. The nation, and world, is still a little skeptical about nuclear power, but honestly there is so much margin built into the design that it is 100 times safer than in the 70s.

Since you work in the industry, got a question. what's the start-up time for nuclear plants..10-20 year estimate?

[JPhillips]

It's a high risk/high reward pick, which is what he needed to do. Neither Romney or Pawlenty had the prospect of changing the race. Palin will either look great in a month or self-destruct under the pressure of a national campaign.

I imagine Don Young and Ted Stevens aren't very happy today.

[lungs]

Welcome to the 2008 election, where race or sex takes precedence over sound leadership and experience.

It's a shame us white males are losing our grip on power. At least we still have McCain.

[Young Drachma]

Dole/Ferraro 2008

[Alan T]

I agree with you. I think the rest are holding off till they see how these first few reactor plants go. The nation, and world, is still a little skeptical about nuclear power, but honestly there is so much margin built into the design that it is 100 times safer than in the 70s.

I am not sure I understand what you mean here. My father has been a nuclear licensing manager for Southern Company since the late 1970s. As far as I know there are well over 60+ nuclear plants currently in use today that provide a pretty decent chunk of our country's electricity.

I thought for the most part most of the country has gotten over the fear of nuclear plants years ago and they are viewed as safe and effective. I might have completely missed your point though.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

It's a shame us white males are losing our grip on power. At least we still have McCain.

LOL, well obviously my point was not that a minority or female can't do the job. I would simply state that there are FAR more qualified minorities or women from an experience and leadership standpoint than Obama and Palin. But, both parties are looking for the fresh (i.e. glass ceiling busting) face over experience. It'll certainly make the debates interesting.

[Dr. Sak]

I am not sure I understand what you mean here. My father has been a nuclear licensing manager for Southern Company since the late 1970s. As far as I know there are well over 60+ nuclear plants currently in use today that provide a pretty decent chunk of our country's electricity.

I thought for the most part most of the country has gotten over the fear of nuclear plants years ago and they are viewed as safe and effective. I might have completely missed your point though.

When we met with utilities last year they were telling us how they were having troubles getting the licenses for new plants from the NRC. The NRC was making them jump through a lot of hoops and making it a bit difficult for them to get the licenses, unlike in the past where they didn't question it as much. I'm just going by what they were telling me.

[Dr. Sak]

Since you work in the industry, got a question. what's the start-up time for nuclear plants..10-20 year estimate?

I'm not exactly sure, this is my first time through. We are building plants in China as they were our first order. We signed the deal in December of 2006 and our shipping date for our pumps is in 2010. I'd imagine they would be up and running by 2012. So about 6 years.

[Young Drachma]

LOL, well obviously my point was not that a minority or female can't do the job. I would simply state that there are FAR more qualified minorities or women from an experience and leadership standpoint than Obama and Palin. But, both parties are looking for the fresh (i.e. glass ceiling busting) face over experience. It'll certainly make the debates interesting.

Since when did the American presidency become about "experience" though?

[molson]

How about when he tried to explain the complete futility of oil-drilling and the American people said no to rational thinking (25% of world consumption vs. 3% of reserves). Then when he changed his stance to appease more American people, he was called a "flip flopper" although McCain was against drilling just 2 weeks before. :confused:



It wasn't at all dissapointing to you when Obama talked about how ridiculous drilling was, and then decided drilling was important after all?

It was dissapointing to me. I perked up when Obama started talking about stuff like how stupid the gas tax holiday was, and how ridiculous it was to rely on drilling. I was all, "wow, this guy might actually have the courage for real change".

But he's backtracked, even DURING the campaign. While I believe that Obama might be a little more enlightened on his energy policy than McCain, I don't really believe there'd be any difference at the end of the day.

What I can't get away from is my thought that Obama has a much greater chance of being a total disaster than McCain. I can't get that thought out of head. McCain is safer, and I don't believe the "upside" of Obama.

[lungs]

LOL, well obviously my point was not that a minority or female can't do the job. I would simply state that there are FAR more qualified minorities or women from an experience and leadership standpoint than Obama and Palin. But, both parties are looking for the fresh (i.e. glass ceiling busting) face over experience. It'll certainly make the debates interesting.

FWIW, I went into this election looking at experience as a bad thing. That's why, as a former staunch Republican, I picked up a Democratic ballot during the primaries for the first time. Kinda like Obama said in his speech last night :)

[Alan T]

When we met with utilities last year they were telling us how they were having troubles getting the licenses for new plants from the NRC. The NRC was making them jump through a lot of hoops and making it a bit difficult for them to get the licenses, unlike in the past where they didn't question it as much. I'm just going by what they were telling me.


Hmm, I'm not in the industry, it just is something I grew up with I guess. My understanding was the main reason we don't see a bunch more nuclear plants today is not because of safety at all. It simply was the U.S. did not need them as we had excess energy already from "dirtier" sources of power that cause more greenhouse gases or harm the environment more than nuclear power does. With various environmental groups pushing the issue to move away from those dirtier power sources, nuclear power is getting steam again.. but I don't recall there being any safety issue at all with it for a very long time.

I have always seen it as one of those things that most people thought "Sounds great, just don't build it in my back yard" type of things.. Kind of like a landfill.

[Dr. Sak]

Hmm, I'm not in the industry, it just is something I grew up with I guess. My understanding was the main reason we don't see a bunch more nuclear plants today is not because of safety at all. It simply was the U.S. did not need them as we had excess energy already from "dirtier" sources of power that cause more greenhouse gases or harm the environment more than nuclear power does. With various environmental groups pushing the issue to move away from those dirtier power sources, nuclear power is getting steam again.. but I don't recall there being any safety issue at all with it for a very long time.

You think rationally that's why you don't see a safety concern. But mention it to a few others and I bet you don't get that far before someone mentions 3-Mile Island or Chernobyl (sp?).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

FWIW, I went into this election looking at experience as a bad thing. That's why, as a former staunch Republican, picked up a Democratic ballot during the primaries for the first time. Kinda like Obama said in his speech last night :)

Yeah, I hear there's millions of Republicans turned Democrat. I also hear there's millions of Clintonites voting for McCain. I'll believe both when I see it in November.

[Big Fo]

The Palin selection seems pretty desperate to me, I'm really looking forward to her debating Joe Biden.

[ace1914]

LOL, well obviously my point was not that a minority or female can't do the job. I would simply state that there are FAR more qualified minorities or women from an experience and leadership standpoint than Obama and Palin. But, both parties are looking for the fresh (i.e. glass ceiling busting) face over experience. It'll certainly make the debates interesting.

Again, explain how do you qualify to be president?

There is no job in the world that's going to prepare you to be the most influential, and quite possibly, the most powerful leader in the world. By the way, didn't Bush have consecutive term experience as Texas Governor? Also, his dad was president too so I guess that made him qualified too. On the other side, didn't carter have 2-3 terms as senator and was a governor too? Experience is overrated.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The Palin selection seems pretty desperate to me, I'm really looking forward to her debating Joe Biden.

Is it more desparate than selecting an inexperienced minority for President?

FWIW.....neither are desparate moves. Both are well-calculated political moves aimed at capturing a part of the electorate that the party wants to capture. Anybody who says either move is desparate is using the biased side of their mouth to talk.

[lungs]

Yeah, I hear there's millions of Republicans turned Democrat. I also hear there's millions of Clintonites voting for McCain. I'll believe both when I see it in November.

Well, my turning against the Republicans is more of a result of my going through the liberal education system. I was brought up Republican, but came home from college a Democrat.

Education in America is indoctrination into the liberal ideology.

[Alan T]

You think rationally that's why you don't see a safety concern. But mention it to a few others and I bet you don't get that far before someone mentions 3-Mile Island or Chernobyl (sp?).


I guess people could bring up the Titanic as reasons they don't want to go on a boat as well. I bet if I lived next door to a nuclear power plant I'd be a bit nervous as well though. Maybe I was brainwashed on the subject growing up by my father though. :)

I'm don't really have a dog in this fight either though, just was a bit suprised that people still really feel nuclear power (that we have used since the 1950s or 1960s) safety is more of a concern than the dependance on foreign fuel sources or the environment is all.

[MrBug708]

I'd hit her now which makes her even more hittable as evidence as to her Miss Alaska 1982 photo (runner-up)

http://wonkette.com/assets/resources/2006/12/Miss%20Wasilla%201984.jpg

[Alan T]

Well, my turning against the Republicans is more of a result of my going through the liberal education system. I was brought up Republican, but came home from college a Democrat.

Education in America is indoctrination into the liberal ideology.


It was different for me. I was pretty much classified based on where I lived. In Georgia, I was a moderate democrat, living in Texas I was considered very liberal Democrat.. now in Massachusetts I'm considered very conservative now... go figure. :)

[molson]

Education in America is indoctrination into the liberal ideology.

It depends on your personality I guess.

Three years in Eugene, OR definitely turned me more conservative because I just got so sick of obnoxious liberals. They poisoned me forever. So condescending, so dismissive of every other view, so arrogant that THEY know every single thing about how the world works, and if you so much as suggest an alternative, you're a "neo-con" or worse. On a college campus it's even worse, because they think they're smarter than everyone else too.

Conversatives want to talk me into to joining them, liberals want to attack me for disagreeing with them (It's a dynamic I feel costs liberals elections).

I sometimes want to vote liberal, but they turn my stomach. Of course, I'm not a christian right guy. There's no political party for me, and no vote that really feels right.

[Big Fo]

So condescending, so dismissive of every other view, so arrogant that THEY know every single thing about how the world works, and if you so much as suggest an alternative, you're a "communist" or worse.


It works both ways.

[ace1914]

It wasn't at all dissapointing to you when Obama talked about how ridiculous drilling was, and then decided drilling was important after all?

It was dissapointing to me. I perked up when Obama started talking about stuff like how stupid the gas tax holiday was, and how ridiculous it was to rely on drilling. I was all, "wow, this guy might actually have the courage for real change".

But he's backtracked, even DURING the campaign. While I believe that Obama might be a little more enlightened on his energy policy than McCain, I don't really believe there'd be any difference at the end of the day.

What I can't get away from is my thought that Obama has a much greater chance of being a total disaster than McCain. I can't get that thought out of head. McCain is safer, and I don't believe the "upside" of Obama.

Safer? Can we agree that we are in deep sh** as a country, already behind a "safe" pick?

Insanity defined: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[Vegas Vic]

For those of you who think that McCain picked Palin solely on her gender; she is is the youngest governor in Alaska history and she was elected largely on the issue of ethics reform, one of McCain's longtime caucuses. During her time in the governor's mansion, Palin has also fought "pork barrel spending," another top McCain issue.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Well, my turning against the Republicans is more of a result of my going through the liberal education system. I was brought up Republican, but came home from college a Democrat.

Education in America is indoctrination into the liberal ideology.

So you went to Boulder and came back a weed-smoking liberal? Am I right? :D

I remember a quote about this very topic. If I remember right, it was golfer Tom Watson.....

"If you're under 25 and aren't a liberal, you don't have a heart. If you're over 50 and aren't a conservative, you don't have a brain."

[molson]

It works both ways.

I'm sure it does. I always feel it more from the left, but maybe that's just because I where the liberals are super-aggressive, and conservatives are kinder/gentler (perhaps out of fear that their tires will get slashed).

I lived in an environment where cars with Bush bumper stickers were vandalized, and students with conservative leanings were harrasssed to the point where the administration has to get involved.

The reverse doesn't seem to be true in Idaho, a classic Red State.

My experiences are limited though.

[JPhillips]

For those of you who think that McCain picked Palin solely on her gender; she is is the youngest governor in Alaska history and she was elected largely on the issue of ethics reform, one of McCain's longtime caucuses. During her time in the governor's mansion, Palin has also fought "pork barrel spending," another top McCain issue.

She's also pro-life. Picking a pro-choice VP would have guaranteed a loss for McCain.

[Big Fo]

Winston Churchill had a similar quote once, with the ages at 30 and 40 respectively.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Safer? Can we agree that we are in deep sh** as a country, already behind a "safe" pick?

Yes, all of us that watched the Democratic Convention are now fully aware that everyone is losing their jobs and homes, the soup kitchen lines go on for blocks, and we have no military or political allies. Our country is in ruin.

[ace1914]

For those of you who think that McCain picked Palin solely on her gender; she is is the youngest governor in Alaska history and she was elected largely on the issue of ethics reform, one of McCain's longtime caucuses. During her time in the governor's mansion, Palin has also fought "pork barrel spending," another top McCain issue.

Well not solely. I'd say about 92.5%, though. The other 7.5% is because she's a pro-life woman.

[molson]

Safer? Can we agree that we are in deep sh** as a country, already behind a "safe" pick?

Insanity defined: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

My view only makes sense if I believe McCain is better than Bush, which I do. Even Obama has acknowledged such.

Just because Bush sucks, doesn't mean all Republicans would be a comparative disaster. I'm not compelled that McCain "votes with Bush 95% of the time", what does that even mean, since when does Bush cast Senate votes? If they mean McCain votes "conservatively" 95% of the time, ya, no shit.

[ace1914]

So you went to Boulder and came back a weed-smoking liberal? Am I right? :D

I remember a quote about this very topic. If I remember right, it was golfer Tom Watson.....

"If you're under 25 and aren't a liberal, you don't have a heart. If you're over 50 and aren't a conservative, you don't have a brain."

That's real. When you are young, you don't have anything. As you grow older, you want to keep the stuff you've worked for, forgetting the fact that your wealth, if you didn't start with anything, was helped built by the taxes and hard work of those who had more than you. I see the ideals, just don't agree.

Democrats----->Republicans.

[lungs]

So you went to Boulder and came back a weed-smoking liberal? Am I right? :D

I remember a quote about this very topic. If I remember right, it was golfer Tom Watson.....

"If you're under 25 and aren't a liberal, you don't have a heart. If you're over 50 and aren't a conservative, you don't have a brain."

I smoked weed when I was a conservative too.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

That's real. When you are young, you don't have anything. As you grow older, you want to keep the stuff you've worked for, forgetting the fact that your wealth, if you didn't start with anything, was helped built by the taxes and hard work of those who had more than you. I see the ideals, just don't agree.

Democrats----->Republicans.

Well, you'll come around. I voted for Bill Clinton twice in my younger years. :eek:

[SFL Cat]

okay, looks like McCain is picking a hottie to be his VP running mate...he's got my vote now.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I smoked weed when I was a conservative too.

But did you wait to inhale until you became a liberal? :D

[ace1914]

My view only makes sense if I believe McCain is better than Bush, which I do. Even Obama has acknowledged such.

Just because Bush sucks, doesn't mean all Republicans would be a comparative disaster. I'm not compelled that McCain "votes with Bush 95% of the time", what does that even mean, since when does Bush cast Senate votes? If they mean McCain votes "conservatively" 95% of the time, ya, no shit.

So isn't working across aisle and voting conservatively 95% of the time, mutually exclusive?(Not trying to be an ass, just asking a question)

[ace1914]

okay, looks like McCain is picking a hottie to be his VP running mate...he's got my vote now.

She is kinda sexy, though.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

okay, looks like McCain is picking a hottie to be his VP running mate...he's got my vote now.

I just had a thought. Will the press attempt to get Palin crotch shots to post on the internet much like the Britney Spears fiascos?

[larrymcg421]

Conversatives want to talk me into to joining them, liberals want to attack me for disagreeing with them (It's a dynamic I feel costs liberals elections).

Another stereotypical view of liberals. Good work.

[molson]

That's real. When you are young, you don't have anything. As you grow older, you want to keep the stuff you've worked for, forgetting the fact that your wealth, if you didn't start with anything, was helped built by the taxes and hard work of those who had more than you. I see the ideals, just don't agree.

Democrats----->Republicans.

That's part of it, I guess.

But believe me, it's also true that as people get older, they believe more that the liberal "direct" approach to a strong economy just doesn't work as well.

It's liberal propaganda - you're not the only side that wants to reduce poverty and help the economy, you're just not. Conservatives just think it's not as simple as "take money from rich, use it to help poor". If that was true, we would have solved poverty by now.

I think as you get older, you give up on the "ideals" (because nothing ever REALLY changes), and you want a system that just works somewhat.

I'm reminded of a quote in a chick flick my gf dragged me to this week called Brick Lane. The guy said something like, "when you're young, everything is possible. When you're older, you just want a few things to be certain".

[SFL Cat]

Just read she worked for a while with her husband as a commercial fisherman. Love the Deadliest Catch on Discovery. McCain has finally done something I like.

[molson]

Another stereotypical view of liberals. Good work.

I qualified it as being my own experiences (and also by an acknowledgment that Eugene is not an ordinary place). It's 100% true, and my own PERSONAL reasons why I have a hard time accepting Democrats.

[molson]

So isn't working across aisle and voting conservatively 95% of the time, mutually exclusive?(Not trying to be an ass, just asking a question)

No idea, I'd have to delve into that 95% (and further back) to see.

I do wish that I had the option to vote for the McCain of 2000 instead of the McCain of 2008. I do think there's some degree of him doing what he thought to do to win the nomination. I don't have a great sense of how much.

[ace1914]

okay, looks like McCain is picking a hottie to be his VP running mate...he's got my vote now.

Like your vote was ever in question.

[larrymcg421]

It's liberal propaganda - you're not the only side that wants to reduce poverty and help the economy, you're just not. Conservatives just think it's not as simple as "take money from rich, use it to help poor". If that was true, we would have solved poverty by now.

Liberals don't think it's that simple either, but I wouldn't want to stop you from stereotyping them. You seem to enjoy doing that so much.

[SFL Cat]

My big problem with liberals...Democrats in particular, whenever someone proposes a tax cut, the mantra in Washington becomes, "how are we going to pay for these tax cuts?"

What the reply should be is, "you need to justify to us (the people) why we shouldn't be keeping more of what we earn."

[Big Fo]

I saw this on another board, some positive aspects of the Palin selection if you're rooting for Obama:

-the gop have only 2 months to inform the american public of who she is
-she'll have an ethics investigation going on in the background (which I'm sure will quietly go away)
-she has no natural geographic support of importance
-her appeal to independent women will be hurt by her strong anti-choice stances
-she has literally no record on foreign policy - good luck at the debates
-she's spent less time in office than obama
-she and mccain don't know each other
-her pick reinforces 1) his age 2) he had to pick a woman 3) his desperation to make a splash
-this pick also reinforces how poor the gop is doing on national leaders - everyone else was passed over for a reason
-alaska's gop scandals will be brought out to a national audience

[molson]

Liberals don't think it's that simple either, but I wouldn't want to stop you from stereotyping them. You seem to enjoy doing that so much.

I was responding to a specific post, and a very, very common liberal rallying cry.

"We care about the poor more because we want to tax the rich", etc.

That's bs.

Conservatives don't hate poor people and want to blow rich people just because they think that the government can't be trusted with money. I totally respect a liberal argument that the government CAN be trusted, and that their policies work. But all I ever here is how conservatives are in bed with the rich, democrats are about the people, etc. It's not where the argument is.

[SFL Cat]

I saw this on another board, some positive aspects of the Palin selection if you're rooting for Obama:

-the gop have only 2 months to inform the american public of who she is
-she'll have an ethics investigation going on in the background (which I'm sure will quietly go away)
-she has no natural geographic support of importance
-her appeal to independent women will be hurt by her strong anti-choice stances
-she has literally no record on foreign policy - good luck at the debates
-she's spent less time in office than obama
-she and mccain don't know each other
-her pick reinforces 1) his age 2) he had to pick a woman 3) his desperation to make a splash
-this pick also reinforces how poor the gop is doing on national leaders - everyone else was passed over for a reason
-alaska's gop scandals will be brought out to a national audience

All this is canceled by the fact that she's a hottie!!! woooo! :cool:

[Schmidty]

So what's the stupid nickname going to be - McPalin, or McCalin?

[molson]

I saw this on another board, some positive aspects of the Palin selection if you're rooting for Obama:

-the gop have only 2 months to inform the american public of who she is
-she'll have an ethics investigation going on in the background (which I'm sure will quietly go away)
-she has no natural geographic support of importance
-her appeal to independent women will be hurt by her strong anti-choice stances
-she has literally no record on foreign policy - good luck at the debates
-she's spent less time in office than obama
-she and mccain don't know each other
-her pick reinforces 1) his age 2) he had to pick a woman 3) his desperation to make a splash
-this pick also reinforces how poor the gop is doing on national leaders - everyone else was passed over for a reason
-alaska's gop scandals will be brought out to a national audience

This pick is shocking, really. I can't believe it.

I have absolutely no idea how this will turn out, but I look forward to the SNL skits

[ace1914]

That's part of it, I guess.

But believe me, it's also true that as people get older, they believe more that the liberal "direct" approach to a strong economy just doesn't work as well.

It's liberal propaganda - you're not the only side that wants to reduce poverty and help the economy, you're just not. Conservatives just think it's not as simple as "take money from rich, use it to help poor". If that was true, we would have solved poverty by now.



So what do conservatives think can help alleviate or help those less fortunate?

The US is a capitalist society. Those that are on top have made their money by providing a good or service to a large amount of people. This applies from McDonald's to Walmart, actors to drug dealers. The point is that if the bottom economic rungs of society do better, the top will do better.

Do conservative see that?

[ace1914]

So what's the stupid nickname going to be - McPalin, or McCalin?

what about PaCain?

[Fighter of Foo]

During her time in the governor's mansion, Palin has also fought "pork barrel spending," another top McCain issue.

:lol: Good one Vic.

[molson]

So what do conservatives think can help alleviate or help those less fortunate?

The US is a capitalist society. Those that are on top have made their money by providing a good or service to a large amount of people. This applies from McDonald's to Walmart, actors to drug dealers. The point is that if the bottom economic rungs of society do better, the top will do better.

Do conservative see that?

I respect that opinion. I of course, think that Walmart with billions of dollars helps EVERYONE more than the government with billions of dollars, in a capitalist society.

THAT'S a good/fair debate though. Much different than what how the discussion usually goes. People (both sides) usually just argue in terms of an end result that everybody wants. It's extremely misleading. Democrats saying that they're "for working people" is the same as a Republican saying they're "anti-terror" (which a lot do).

That's actually a good comparison - how annoyed are you when a Republican goes off on a terrorism/defense rant, as if you're in favor of more 9/11s happening. Sure, their solution may be a little more "direct", but that doesn't mean they're the only one that cares about the end result.

[timmynausea]

So either Joe Biden, a two-time primary loser candidate from Delaware (Delaware!) that stole speeches, or I-don't-even-know-her-name from Alaska (Alaska!) with 2 years under her belt as governor is going to be the Vice President of the USA. Has the whole world gone insane?

[JPhillips]

So what's the stupid nickname going to be - McPalin, or McCalin?

McPain?

[SirFozzie]

Apropos of nothing, they selected someone who fired a state officer because they wouldn't fire someone going through a messy divorce with a member of the governor's family? Are YOU SERIOUS???

Ugh.

[JPhillips]

This is admittedly taken out of context, but I'm sure it will come up over and over again.

Palin on her VP chances:
I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the V.P. does every day?

[ace1914]

I respect that opinion. I of course, think that Walmart with billions of dollars helps EVERYONE more than the government with billions of dollars, in a capitalist society.

THAT'S a good/fair debate though. Much different than what how the discussion usually goes. People (both sides) usually just argue in terms of an end result that everybody wants. It's extremely misleading. Democrats saying that they're "for working people" is the same as a Republican saying they're "anti-terror" (which a lot do).

That's actually a good comparison - how annoyed are you when a Republican goes off on a terrorism/defense rant, as if you're in favor of more 9/11s happening. Sure, their solution may be a little more "direct", but that doesn't mean they're the only one that cares about the end result.

Agreed. That does piss me off.

[larrymcg421]

Sure it bothers me, but I don't suggest that all conservatives think or say that.

[MikeVic]

I thought I read in here that this Pain person is hot. Pics?

[ace1914]

I thought I read in here that this Pain person is hot. Pics?

Palin is her name...lol.

Pic:

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:I4yYivccrAoJ::rattlergator.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c838c53ef00e5529557888834-pi

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:5IjheNLpxmsQcM:http://bp2.blogger.com/_uExTzMIDd1Y/R2O5nKq9_tI/AAAAAAAAATE/At2bb_K_3ao/s400/Sarah-Palin-Vogue.jpg on cover of Vogue in 2007.

[molson]

I really like a lot about this pick, but I really don't know if she is ready to be President.

I wonder if she'll be asked who'd she chose as VP if McCain croaks.

[cartman]

GIS for Palin:

http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/Sir_robin_part_3_pic.jpg

:D

[SteveMax58]

I thought I read in here that this Pain person is hot. Pics?


http://askpang.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/sabine5.jpg


http://www.palmerelks.org/images/wwp-photo2.jpg

[molson]

Sure it bothers me, but I don't suggest that all conservatives think or say that.

When people say "Americans like this" or "Liberals think this" or "Conservaties think this" they don't litterally mean that every single one, without exception, do.

I mean, we could all qualify our statements that way, every single time (and I try to remember to do that sometimes), but I think most people accept the reverse default. That unless someone specifically says "without exceptions", they're conceding that there's some exceptions.

Sterotypes are extremely helpful in informal discussions, and they're not meaningless. You can hardly say ANYTHING without grouping views of people together. "The Red Sox wanted Manny gone" - well maybe there was a few that didn't. "Democrats like the Biden pick" - well I'm sure there's a bunch that don't. Obama says "the people are ready for change" - well actually some aren't. "Republicans are pro-life" - many aren't. Yet all of those statements tell us something useful about a general truth regarding the consensus of those groups.

[ace1914]

Obama' has McCain reactive now.

McCain says Obama has little experience, so he picks Joe Biden.

Obama says you're old, so he picks Paulin.

+1 Obama.

Hell, what the first thing people said about her, "she's hot."

[timmynausea]

First VP with cankles?

[molson]

Obama' has McCain reactive now.

McCain says Obama has little experience, so he picks Joe Biden.

Obama says you're old, so he picks Paulin.

+1 Obama.

Hell, what the first thing people said about her, "she's hot."

If McCain picked someone with experience, we'd certainly hear "more of the same, business as usual".

[ace1914]

First VP with cankles?

What are cankles?

[molson]

First VP with cankles?

You're forgetting about Nelson Rockefeller.

[Flasch186]

okay, looks like McCain is picking a hottie to be his VP running mate...he's got my vote now.

as if this vote was ever in any sort of doubt.

[ace1914]

If McCain picked someone with experience, we'd certainly hear "more of the same, business as usual".

Do you really think she's going to have any influence on McCain's decisions? I'd have felt better with Lieberman.

[Galaxy]

I really think the Dems attacking a VP pick (last time I checked, the president runs the country, not the VP) over inexperience would really do them no good. They would just be asking for an aggressive attack that highlights Obama's inexperience.

Palin need to take her glasses off.

[MikeVic]

Not bad. What is she, late 30s, early 40s? That first big picture is the most flattering. Kind of a school teacher look going on.

[MikeVic]

I really think the Dems attacking a VP pick (last time I checked, the president runs the country, not the VP) over inexperience would really do them no good. They would just be asking for an aggressive attack that highlights Obama's inexperience.

Palin need to take her glasses off.

Nonono, that gives the naughty school teacher look.

[timmynausea]

What are cankles?

Basically fat ankles. When the calf kind of just merges into the foot without getting much skinnier, so it's more of a cankle than an ankle.

Finally some real substance in this thread.

[ace1914]

Is it me or does it seem like McCain made this pick last night right after Obama's speech?

[ace1914]

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l15/ffivnik8/CANKLES.jpg

lol.

[molson]

Do you really think she's going to have any influence on McCain's decisions? I'd have felt better with Lieberman.

I'm kind of like her, I have no idea what a VP does day-to-day. (and the Constitution certainly doesn't define that role)

The President has an inner circle - VP, various cabinet members. I'm sure every administration is a little bit different in terms of who the president listens to, who has the most power, etc.

No, I don't think she'll have any influence over McCain's decisions. She's there to try to connect the administration to the people. Even during a McCain presidency, I think that's what she would do - be off doing her own thing, meeting with various important domestic people, probably a lot of support for charities and stuff.

[KWhit]

How long will it take before someone Photoshops her head on a porn actress?

[MikeVic]

I can't fully see her ankles to comment about that accusation.

[Flasch186]

Watching the speech and she seems very amateurish in the start of her speech but Ill cut her some slack since she's probably blown away by her selection as well.

[molson]

Bob Barr just announced a crippled gay guy as his VP.

[timmynausea]

The truth is shrouded in pantsuit! America thinks they are voting for a hottie, but I know there are cankles under there! These Republicans will stoop to anything.

[ace1914]

So she's going to be McCain's "attack dog?"

[Flasch186]

....she's finding her groove now half way through.

[Young Drachma]

http://www.johnmccain.com/Images/HP3/hp3_lo_logo.jpg

[MikeVic]

She can attack me. But I'm not American and don't really know anything about the election, but she can still attack me for being a bad student.