Politics United States Presidential Election Thread

[miyi]

Palin was chosen for at least these four important things:

+ as a social conservative, she will re-energize the Republican base which John McCain has alienated.

+ as a woman, there's a slight chance she can take "some" of the discontented Hillary supporters, although I doubt this by itself will be enough to defeat an Obama-Biden ticket.

+ her reform credentials on the state level is almost a mirror image of McCain's reform "maverick" reputation on the national level, for which some critics accuse McCain of abandoning in recent months.

+ Palin was a risky and bold move, that nobody was anticipating. Perhaps this is what it takes to match the excitement level and curiosity the world has about Obama.


Experience? seriously? She holds executive office, as a governor.

Obama, McCain, and Biden are all legislators, applying for the highest "executive" position in the world, as President.

I think as former mayor and governor, with an approval rating of 80%, and the fact that she has actually fought corrupt Republicans, and reached across the aisle and appointed Democrats in her cabinet, speaks volumes to her credentials as a reformer, and as someone who has experience as an "executive".

Keep in mind, she is applying for the VP job. Obama is applying for the President job.

Both are relatively inexperienced compared to McCain and Biden. For the Democrats to use this line of attack, will undoubtedly backfire.

This is a chance for McCain to shore up his image as a "reformer" that he was once known for, but at the same time reassure his Republican base that he is committed to conservative values, and I think by selecting Governor Palin, fits this criteria perfectly.

And McCain has always hinted that he will choose a VP that shares his values, and he was not bluffing.

Personally, I had an inkling he will choose a woman as VP, but I didn't really gave it much thought, since there was every indication that it was going to be Mitt Romney.


On a different note, just some few comments about my opinion about the DNC convention at Colorado:

I thought Hillary Clinton gave a really good speech, and she did what she needed to do to unite her party.

I forgot which pundit mentioned it, and which channel (whether it was CNN or Fox News), but someone said that, Hillary Clinton can someday point back to this speech, and remind Democrats, that she better not get any more flack because she did what she can to unite the Democratic Party.

I think it was wise of her not to over-praise Obama too much, because if she is to attempt another shot at the Presidency in 2012, the last thing she needs is subjecting herself as someone who is "inferior" compared to Obama.

I thought Bill Clinton's speech was also good, and his delivery reminded us, how great he was at oratory.

I thought Biden's speech was a little lame, and bland.

And finally, Obama's speech, obviously another good speech, as is expected. In terms of substance, however, it's hard to tell whether he is campaigning against President Bush, or John McCain.

I understand that he is trying desperately to brand John McCain as that traditional, same-old, hardline Republican, but I doubt that argument will have any traction, when tested on facts. The claim that McCain voted "90 percent" in agreement with Bush is an outright distortion.

Overall, I thought the DNC convention was impressive, unprecedented for it's huge turnout, it was well organized, and it's difficult to say anything negative about it, other than it was too melodramatic for my taste.

Clearly, the pressure is back on the McCain campaign, and it will be difficult to match the energy that the DNC convention has had.

On the other hand, with the latest Sarah Palin nomination, I think the GOP is re-energized, and for the first time in months, I think at last McCain has a shot at defeating Obama.



And talk about the VP choice "undermining" the central message of McCain's campaign, the same applies with Obama's choice, if not more so:

See here, from the National Review, a nominally conservative publication.

To be fair, here is Politico, a liberal-leaning website, reporting the same exact thing:

See here.



and about that youtube video about Governor Palin saying she has no clue about the VP job, I don't see anything "idiot[ic]" about that.

Most VP candidates you ask, what they think about becoming potential VP picks, they'll try to pretend they know nothing about the position, as if to appear not interested. That is customary and very common.

Of course, it looks as if she dissed the job, and probably could have responded better. But Obama, Biden, and McCain are all gaffe-prone, so this isn't really that big of a deal as you make it to be.

I expect Democrats to try to minimize Governor Palin as much as possible, but it won't work.

 

[manu]

I love this women for her controversy. At this point I know that the more attention we focus on Palin means the less we attack McCain and debate about the issues that matter but this woman's gaffe's and the potential scrutiny around her is overwhelming. McCain, Obama and Biden have had their personal life dissected well over a year. I don't think Palin can survive two months of the entire media with their eyes on here.

Her credentials given to the public when she first was announced as VP were on Oil that her husband works in and how she is a hockey mom. Now, I feel slightly dirty going for this sort of attack but I just want to post this online before it becomes a national newcoverage for the sake of saying I told you so.

Gov. Palin gave birth at the age of 44. Her staff where unaware of her pregnancy as so many of the media has mentioned. To give birth to her premature child of 7 months she decided to fly from Texas to Alaska, and did not inform the airlines that she was doing so. Now here's the kicker, her daughter has been absent from school for 8 months for a case of mono.

Let that sink in, and make your own connections. Now this is a big accusation and I feel its only fair to say she's innocent of lying to all of America until I get some credible confirmation of the suspicion i found of this site http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137

Now, if she is lying to Americans about giving birth to a downs syndrome baby and using that as apart of her pro-life stance I feel real uncomfortable with this lady on McCain's ticket. Racist pastors, corrupt friends and accused terrorist as associates are clear blemish's on Obama's campaign but lying about giving birth? I hope this gets investigated.

 

[miyi]

I love this women for her controversy. At this point I know that the more attention we focus on Palin means the less we attack McCain and debate about the issues that matter but this woman's gaffe's and the potential scrutiny around her is overwhelming. McCain, Obama and Biden have had their personal life dissected well over a year. I don't think Palin can survive two months of the entire media with their eyes on here.

Her credentials given to the public when she first was announced as VP were on Oil that her husband works in and how she is a hockey mom. Now, I feel slightly dirty going for this sort of attack but I just want to post this online before it becomes a national newcoverage for the sake of saying I told you so.

Gov. Palin gave birth at the age of 44. Her staff where unaware of her pregnancy as so many of the media has mentioned. To give birth to her premature child of 7 months she decided to fly from Texas to Alaska, and did not inform the airlines that she was doing so. Now here's the kicker, her daughter has been absent from school for 8 months for a case of mono.

Let that sink in, and make your own connections. Now this is a big accusation and I feel its only fair to say she's innocent of lying to all of America until I get some credible confirmation of the suspicion i found of this site http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137

Now, if she is lying to Americans about giving birth to a downs syndrome baby and using that as apart of her pro-life stance I feel real uncomfortable with this lady on McCain's ticket. Racist pastors, corrupt friends and accused terrorist as associates are clear blemish's on Obama's campaign but lying about giving birth? I hope this gets investigated.

Wow. You have so much hatred you have the audacity to bring up an obvious rumor. Even a very liberal, and frequently vitriolic Huffington Post is rejecting this garbage:

see here.


If the Obama camp is behind these smears, I've lost respect for Obama.

And you're right, you ought to be feeling dirty for even stooping this low to even mention this unsubstantiated allegations.

The McCain campaign ought to release the medical records so to put this issue to rest. This is ridiculous.

This is even worse than the anti-Obama smears suggesting Obama was a Muslim, when clearly public records exist that proves he is not.

and just to be clear, the McCain campaign had nothing to do with it, but of course, everyone thought they were behind the smears.


and by the way, just to show how increasingly negative the left has become in the last week, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Don Fowler, was busted uttering something incredibly evil:

Fowler, Hurrican Gustav, RNC


Even Michael Moore echoes these similar sentiments.


Imagine if a Republican had uttered these comments, this would have been all over the news.



[UPDATE 1]

and I forgot to mention....does the Daily Kos realize who they are attacking? I suppose everything is fair game when you attack a politician running for office (in this case, Sarah Palin).

But this is not merely a personal attack on Sarah Palin....it's a vicious attack on her daughter, Bristol.

I don't often agree with ultra right-wing nutcases and I try to stay away from their websites because they spread equally disgusting rumors about Obama before. But even they have never stooped so low as to attack any of Obama's children.

Keep the children out of this. And that rule ought to apply for both sides.

Kudos for the Huffington Post for realizing how ridiculous this rumor is, and I've read in their website that they have no interest in going after this story, because they recognize how this can potentially destroy their reputation if this rumor is debunked.

Finally, I just wanted to mention that this attack is misogynistic......and supposedly the Democrats are the spokespeople for women's rights....yeah, right.


[UPDATE 2]

Are the Daily Kos happy now for what they've done? Are they that desperate that they intend to invade the privacy of a candidate, and attack her daughter, just to defeat John McCain for political sake?

First, the Daily Kos are coming to terms with the realization that they, indeed, made a big mistake, and admitted that they look incredibly stupid for pushing this rumor, as they themselves have debunked this "fake pregnancy" story, here:

Kos

And to rebut this stupid rumor, Sarah Palin and her family are making their private lives fully available to the public:

from Reuters


Go pat yourselves on the back....you've just attacked a child of a candidate. Very classy.

This of course isn't the end of the attacks from the left. They'll continue to bring down Palin on the abortion issue and the reportedly ongoing "trooper scandal". I guess these are fair attack points.

But let's be clear who is "negative" and getting increasingly "personal" in this campaign......yep, it's the Democrats. They've proved it in this latest, now debunked, fake pregnancy rumor.

This is their idea of "sticking with the issues".


[UPDATE 3]

There is no evidence that the Obama campaign had any role in pushing any of these crazy rumors, and so we have to assume they are innocent. Obama issued a strong statement recently discouraging these kind of negative and personal attacks:

See here

This clears Obama's name, and that's a smart move. The question remains, however, whether this is the last negative attack we should hear coming from the left. I won't personally hold Obama accountable for any smears done by the Daily Kos or like-minded liberal bloggers. So kudos to Obama for making this public statement defending the Palin family. I expect the same level of civility from both candidates, from now on. Anything less is unacceptable and distracts from the main issues.

 

[manu]

It wanted it investigated, and I knew this was a big ridiculous as the McCain black baby (a slander made by republicans to attack a fellow republican) but presidential elections can be decided on the trivial. For just being introduced to the national campaign on Friday though my point is that for gaffes to run from her laughing at a cancer survivor being called a bitch, fat and a cancer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKkydrUnBZE too the trooper investiagtion and finally her very ill advised trip to Alaska while in labor are not painting a pretty picture.

Yes my post was hateful, but Democrats are not perpetuating the hate persay, just more of the internet drama. for each black baby or grandmother posting on the internet there is 10 sites dedicated to accusing Obama to either being a terrorist or the anti christ meant to bring forth the end of the world. I've talked to Obama supporters who were suprised and sceptical when I mentioned the baby, so while my character is definitely in question our party is not. One theory on one website debunked by another liberal site which you posted should indicate to you that not all democrats are mudslinging. I highly doubt Obama's campaign gave the story to the Daily Kos.

In fact, here is what Democrats really just feel about Palin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thmueS0ngAs&feature=related Diddy took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[miyi]

It wanted it investigated, and I knew this was a big ridiculous as the McCain black baby (a slander made by republicans to attack a fellow republican) but presidential elections can be decided on the trivial. For just being introduced to the national campaign on Friday though my point is that for gaffes to run from her laughing at a cancer survivor being called a bitch, fat and a cancer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKkydrUnBZE too the trooper investiagtion and finally her very ill advised trip to Alaska while in labor are not painting a pretty picture.

Yes my post was hateful, but Democrats are not perpetuating the hate persay, just more of the internet drama. for each black baby or grandmother posting on the internet there is 10 sites dedicated to accusing Obama to either being a terrorist or the anti christ meant to bring forth the end of the world. I've talked to Obama supporters who were suprised and sceptical when I mentioned the baby, so while my character is definitely in question our party is not. One theory on one website debunked by another liberal site which you posted should indicate to you that not all democrats are mudslinging. I highly doubt Obama's campaign gave the story to the Daily Kos.

In fact, here is what Democrats really just feel about Palin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thmueS0ngAs&feature=related Diddy took the words right out of my mouth.

Regarding the youtube clip about Palin apparently laughing at her political rival on a radio show, here's an Op-Ed discussing the incident in its full context:

click here

I agree with the above author of the Op-Ed, and that Palin showed a lapse in judgment for apparently laughing as the radio jockey uttered disparaging remarks directed at Palin's political opponent, Lyda Green.

The Op-Ed also notes at the end, that Palin issued a statement of apology to Lyda Green, stating that she does not condone the belittling remarks by the radio host. You can take that statement at face value or remain skeptical, that is anyone's prerogative.

On the surface, it is obvious that Palin has made a lot of enemies in the state of Alaska, and her resentment clearly shows, as evidenced in the above example. Yes, it is a gaffe, and I think it is a fair point to argue she showed a lapse in judgement.

But it would be a stretch to speculate she clearly shares the views of the radio host. Yes, she laughed, but she did not utter the hateful remarks herself. That's just about all we can fault her for.

It would be an entirely different story if she uttered these hateful comments herself. That gaffe would certainly carry more weight and be taken more seriously.


I already admitted above, countless times, that the right-wing bloggers are equally guilty for spreading smears against Obama in the past, and still to some extent, today.....perhaps that is the political reality that cannot be avoided. The internet is filled with un-PC-like and hateful behavior.

But I would argue that there are more instances of negativity coming from the left, than there is from the right, but of course, this can be disputed.

I think you and I will agree that the mainstream media have overall been incredibly fair, if not over-protective, in their treatment of Obama, with the exception of FOX News, but that is to be expected.

The same is not true about Governor Palin. We are not yet a week away after the announcement of her nomination, and already, the negative scrutiny she is facing which is already affecting her family's privacy, is unmatched.

Not even Senator Joe Biden, the other VP from the other side, is aggressively scrutinized as she is. I think there is in fact two layers of a double standard going on here:

First, is that she is a Republican, and naturally the liberal-leaning media is very tough on any Republican applying for public office. (Yet very lenient when it is a Democrat. Case in point, the over-protection of Obama and Senator John Edwards by the media).

Second, is that she is a woman. The notion that her mother/grandmother-hood, and at the same time, keep her professional career intact, is in doubt, is just another way of saying that women are inferior -- that they cannot keep up with men in the workplace.

It smacks of hypocrisy on the part of the left to continue to demonize the right-wingers as stereotypically all "sexists".

This is evident in your second youtube clip, P. Diddy's belittling remarks towards Governor Palin. I think it is clear in his tone, that Diddy doubts Palin's governing ability partly because she is a woman.

Granted, Diddy makes several valid points about there having probably very little African American population in Alaska.

But in defense of Governor Palin, my rebuttal to Diddy's ill-informed remarks is this:

how is the lack of African American population in Alaska relevant to the job description of being a governor of Alaska?

Since when have political leaders govern for the sake and basis of "race"? Their primary objective is to govern "all people", regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or political stripes.

I understand Diddy's sentiments, although I don't regard him as having any credible authority on the subject of governance, since his job description is that of an entertainer, not politics.



You want to have an honest and intellectual debate about politics and anything related to this election, you'll need better sources of authority than the likes of....pshh...P. Diddy....seriously?

And the Daily Kos' reputation, as far as I'm concerned, has been irreparably damaged as a result of their now debunked "fake pregnancy" story. Please don't mention their website any further...they are now a laughingstock amongst serious and credible journalists.


[UPDATE]

Wow, the Democrats have a knack for self-imploding during general elections. In a futile attempt to paint Governor Palin as anti-American by ABC's Jake Tapper, See Here, what this new gossip actually does, is to indirectly re-energize those disaffected Republicans, the Libertarian Party, in voting again for the GOP.

All of these negativity are turning into political "gifts" to McCain and Palin. Thanks, guys.


[UPDATE 2]

Expect there to be those naysayers who will accuse McCain for choosing Palin, only because she will attract some of the disgruntled Hillary supporters who are hesitant to vote for Obama.

This would suggest, if the claim is true, that McCain made a last-minute-pick, without truly considering if Palin was "right for the job".

Another implication in this accusation is that McCain had no interest in fully "vetting" Palin, since she was chosen only, and purely, for strategic and political reasons.

Well, according to the Washington Post (a left-leaning publication, might I add), writes that in fact, Sarah Palin has caught the attention of John McCain since February, mainly for her "maverick" and McCain-like resume, as well as her tough stance on particularly socially conservative issues.

First, this puts to rest the accusation that McCain chose her simply because of the "Hillary" factor.....wrong.

Second, it has nothing to do with her being a woman.....it was her political stance on issues that captivated John McCain.



Lastly, the Washington Post writes, that in fact, Sarah Palin was thoroughly vetted, as well as any of the potential candidates for VP.

Thus, it is false to say that Palin was chosen merely as a last-minute-pick.

Let's face it....the McCain campaign was much much better at keeping secrets. Unlike the Obama camp, they decided to keep the VP selection process a "private" matter...something those "Kos" bloggers obviously knows very little about.

 

[manu]

I expect Democrats to try to minimize Governor Palin as much as possible, but it won't work.

You were so wrong about this, we and the media love this women with a passion. I mean McCain is all about Country First right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI

Could Obama or Biden get away with this?

 

[mc404]

Palin is getting more and more famous for all the wrong reasons. But AHHHH, the evil Liberal media, how DARE they talk about her abuse of power? That's just not right! They should, like, totally worship her.

Can't wait for October to see Biden killing her in their first debate

 

[miyi]

You were so wrong about this, we and the media love this women with a passion. I mean McCain is all about Country First right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI

dude, did you not read my post? I already mentioned this. Jake Tapper of ABC reported about this, and I provided a link that argued against Tapper's sloppy reporting.

Are you aware at all that your party, the Democratic Party, was founded by Thomas Jefferson, and that his ideas were most aligned with the AIP?

and that there is also a Jeffersonian equivalent within the Republican Party, called the Libertarian Party?

The Republicans and Democrats have a lot more in common than you'd think. You'd be surprised.

Yes, Palin was a former member of the AIP, for about 2 years, before becoming Republican and running for Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska......which is nearly 20 years ago....just like Obama has nearly known his pastor, Rev. Wright, for around 20 years.

People's political positions evolve. Look at Joe Lieberman. If Obama can denounce his pastor for 20 years, the equivalent move for Palin, if it would satisfy the critics, would be to denounce the AIP.

But Jake Tapper is wrong to assert that the AIP is a "fringe" party. He should brush up on his history, because Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic Party's founder, could easily have been an AIP member had he been alive today.

And besides, the AIP is a recognized political party in Alaska, and as far as I know, they haven't violated any law or have blown anything up, like the Weatherman group.

Do you really want to go there? I think not.

Could Obama or Biden get away with this?

Are you kidding? Obama has not been thoroughly vetted, has gotten away with one scandal after another unscathed by the Obama-loving media. Of course they can get away with it.

btw, if you're going to spit Daily Kos material here, I visit that site on a daily basis. You regurgitate material I already know. Same with HuffPo and TPM et al.


[UPDATE]

Oops...according to the McCain campaign, they produced Palin's voting registration records all the way to the early 1990's, which proves she was not actually ever a member of the AIP party:

See Here.



I mean, seriously. This new level of desperation from the left is getting silly. Let's keep in mind who is running for President here....last I checked, it's John McCain.

In order to destroy Palin via scandal-seeking, you'll need to find all of below, to be entirely fair:

[1] a Reverend Wright equivalent
[2] a Tony Rezko convicted felon equivalent whom Palin have gotten a house deal of some sort
[3] a William Ayers equivalent of whom Palin have worked with before multiple times in her young political career.
[4] a snippet off a speech from Palin with a slight hint of being not proud of America.

This will all be difficult to match, but good luck. The Kos kids are off to a good start, as you already know.


which, by the way, I forgot to mention.....Barack Obama was once a commenter at the Daily Kos:

as seen Here.

That's another inconvenient "association" by Obama, from a now disreputable source, of which he too would later, albeit indirectly, denounce:

here


[UPDATE 2]

Oh whaaat?? It turns out those who initially said, Palin was a member of the AIP, are now admitting they have made a mistake, says the New York Times:

see here


All of this negative reporting are proving to be hasty and sloppy, to say the least. The fundamental difference between the smear done by the right wing, vs. those now coming from the left wing, is that the mainstream media are embracing this despicable behavior. Not just the bloggers.

Oh, and tabloid US Weekly goes after Palin.....hard:

see here


It's really outright sexist and despicable.

 

[manu]

and I forgot to mention....does the Daily Kos realize who they are attacking? I suppose everything is fair game when you attack a politician running for office (in this case, Sarah Palin).

But this is not merely a personal attack on Sarah Palin....it's a vicious attack on her daughter, Bristol.

So kudos to Obama for making this public statement defending the Palin family. I expect the same level of civility from both candidates, from now on. Anything less is unacceptable and distracts from the main issues.

Uh... Chelsea Clinton? Do we even need to talk about how she's been attack by REPUBLICANS since 13 at least. And no, not just any republicans we've even got McCain on the record

4 equivalent scandals huh?

[1] a Reverend Wright equivalent

She has said the Iraq war was an act of god, her pastor has said that anybody against Bush would go to hell. Does a Reverend Wright equivalent mean speaking biblical nonsense or does it have to be racist?

[2] a Tony Rezko convicted felon equivalent whom Palin have gotten a house deal of some sort

You know a guy named Ted Steven's? http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/palin-was-director-of-ted-stevens-527/
And Stevens was recently indicted on seven counts of corruption. Stevens had been helpful to Palin during her run for governor, swooping in with a last moment endorsement. And the two filmed a campaign commercial together to highlight Stevens’s endorsement of Palin during the 2006 race. Is using state money for her troopergate defense.

[3] a William Ayers equivalent of whom Palin have worked with before multiple times in her young political career.

Really? Are you honestly accusing Obama is a terrorist because last I checked being members of an anti-poverty group does not link you to an associates terrorist organization that was active when you were eight.

[4] a snippet off a speech from Palin with a slight hint of being not proud of America.

I'm assuming you are referring to Michelle Obama. Here husband has been a member of the AIP 95 up till 2000, which he than changed to independent but I assume he's republican now.

At least Obama had to make people believe in him, now her real test is her address to the nation. Because we know nothing about her and the American people hate to have the wool pulled over their eyes. Is she a reformer or is she not. Does she have foreign policy experience or does she even have a clue of what McCain's strategy is with the war in Iraq. I can't say much about her reformer image but I personally don't buy it but I do know this women will not be able to handle foreign policy.

In an August 14 interview with Time Magazine, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), now Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) running mate, suggested that McCain had not shared his plan for Iraq with her. Palin, who has not been to Iraq, said she does not know “what the plan is to ever end the war.” She later said its “tough” to “talk about the plan for the war” because her son will be deployed to Iraq this September. “Let’s make sure we have a plan here,” she said.

A recent BusinessWeek interview, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) admitted that she believes the Iraq war was fought because of oil:

We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.

Just this year she asked Congress 31 earmarks totaling 197 million. More per person than any other state (and you thought Obama was going to make this country bankrupt.) McCain calls the practice of earmarks disgraceful, boy does McCain know this lady well. So this lady opposes raising that tax in her state but this summer she pushed a bill through the state legislature that will give away—yes, as in “gift,” as in “free money”—somewhere around $1 billion from the state treasury to all eligible Alaskans, regardless of need or income. Which is projected to amount to more than $13,000 extra income this year for a family of four.

Shall the media go on? Apparently the McCain camp says no but I'm all for getting to know our leaders before we elect them. But really its all in good fun, its exciting actually. Obama had his "scandals" exposed over a very short period and the pressure was spread out,but Palin is getting all the attention at once.

 

[miyi]

Out of all the above you mentioned, the closest comparison is the Ted Stevens one....yes, it appears Palin benefitted from Alaska's corrupt political system, just as Obama, as hard as I assume he tried, could not resist corrupt ways of Chicago politics (which is why he's tied with scums like Rezko).

All the others are either new gossip that needs to be verified (half of them I expect to be debunked/discredited), or just really bad comparisons.



anyway, it's interesting that the best Obama supporters can come up with, strategy-wise, is to overstate all of the scandals that can be found about Sarah Palin, in order to minimize the scandals tied to Obama.

it's clever, except for one thing:

Obama is competing against McCain, not Sarah Palin. If Obama wanted the VP job so badly, he should have just allowed Hillary to run for President instead.




btw, I saw Sarah Palin's speech at the RNC tonight.....my impression is that she can take Obama herself, in a debate. Bring it on.

Forget Biden. His speech was so boring and dull, it really pales in comparison to Palin's (pun intended).

 

[Gold Knight]

I agree 100% miyi.

Can't wait for the Presdiental Debates and the VP Debate.

 

[manu]

By the way, I think I should mention I love this debate. My city of Seattle is quite liberal and any republican there is one by birth.

Moving on, the amount of influence Palin has on McCain is startling. He never had any plans on drilling in Alaska, not even when he proposed more drilling. August 25 he was moving to reconsider and now all Palin can talk about is Alaskan drilling. This means that we may have him bending on other issues. I hate to see a nation under righter policies than we have right now. Right now everyone says Palin's daughter pregnancy shouldn't be an issue but O'Reilly couldn't say it better... when he was talking about Jamie Lynn Spears http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgO2aXMFfyk

Palin is going down in the sex issue no matter how you look at it though, around 2:30 roland pretty much writes down the democratic playbook http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDTMsve1QM4

And no Palin won't be able to handle Obama, I thought her scandals gave democrats enough to chew on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HahW5Qd_-7o Also before Giuliani attack Obama's record look at McCain's voting record. You accuse the democrats from comparing Obama to Palin. The republicans can't compare McCain's record to Obama's because the same can be said for both. Republicans are out of touch, choosing to improve the community and not cash in is noble but they revealed how despicable they were. You decided to not make millions after an Ivy league education, well lets laugh at that. Palin mocked community organizers, and I assume she's going to piss off more average Americans.

Anyways there are more people in Chicago's south side then there is in Alaska and I honestly believe that Obama has led more people than Palin has. She spends other peoples money for a living, we call that leadership now? Republicans can't defend this woman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYYiw_y2qDI

Republicans have given up on the middle vote, they are running on getting as much of the social conservative and every condescending person at the polls. Does she honestly think she can attack middle America and win there votes? Of course not she was speaking for her crowd only and not for the undecided.

 

[miyi]

Yeah, that's the irony. The first line of attack Democrats leveled at McCain's choice of VP is that, he chose Palin purely because she was a woman, so she can steal some of the Hillary supporters, those who are on the middle.


Yeah, right. Nothing can be further from the truth, and you yourself acknowledged it. Sarah Palin was chosen to energize the Republican base.....but at the same time, she naturally appeals to the independents, because she's from a small town, and she can steal some of the Hillary voters, because the Democrats are throwing this election away by using the same sexists tactics they used against Hillary.

The truth is, and you guys won't admit it, that the Dems are in a state of panic about the Palin pick, because she stole Obama's thunder.......Obama is a historical candidate, but now, so is Sarah Palin, for being the first woman on the GOP ticket.

But the beauty about all of this, is that, as you acknowledged yourself, she was chosen not because she's a woman. She's chosen to energize the base, plus she reinforces the "reform" image, or rather, the "change" theme hijacked by Obama......because the real candidate for change, if you look at the record without bias, is John McCain.

Seriously, what has Obama done for "change"? Look at his legislative record. He's no centrist....and he's certainly no post-partisan politician. He's on the far left compared to his Senate colleagues, probably the most liberal. Of course, that would benefit people like you, but it doesn't benefit half of the American population who are conservatives. That is what is at stake in this election, and dammit we will fight for it, and I know McCain will do just that.

All the negatives you know of McCain are coming from sources like the HuffPo and Daily Kos, or youtube. I notice a pattern that you don't cite any other source aside from that. Have you ever looked beyond these very liberal leaning websites? Perhaps by looking at other sources, you might get a very different picture of McCain....probably you might like him, even just a little.

You're from Seattle? I'm from California.....probably the most liberal state in the USA. So you can just imagine the crap I have to go through. I was conservative not by birth.....rather, I've been on the middle all my life, but 9/11 changed everything.


and btw, we can look at this election on a positive note....whoever wins, at least we know, whether Obama or McCain wins, that the country would be better off in the long run.

This historic election has energized a new generation of young voters who otherwise would not have voted, just as they have not voted in past elections. This country is great because our government works for the people, and not vice versa....and this time, perhaps for the first time in a long while, our government will be pressured more than ever, to listen to our voices, rather than ignore them.

 

[SoulReaporKoul]

Should Sarah Palin's Daughter's Pregnancy be off Limits?

So, my question for discussion is, whether or not it is fair game to debate and/or report on Sarah Palin (McCain's VP pick) 's daughter's teenage pregnancy?

The Conservatives, of course, have gotten their talking points and are adamant about the fact that we should not bring Palin's private life into the political race.

The Liberals on the other hand (excluding Obama himself) have argued that the fact that what little we know about Palin is how fundamentally right she leans. One of her beliefs being that Abortions are infanticide and would work towards overturning Roe VS Wade, while her OWN teenage daughter had the choice to either keep the baby, or abort it, thus highlighting the hypocrisy in her beliefs. The other argument Liberals are making, is highlighting Palin's inability to properly parent seeing the predicament her teenage daughter is in (Basically, if she can't even "control" her daughter, how is she supposed to take on the responsibilities of the VP and possibly the POTUS). Liberals have also used this opportunity to highlight the fact that teen pregnancies are on the rise and are blaming the abstinence only programs, which Palin supports (and thus never informed her daughter about contraceptives, which work).

I personally agree with the Liberals on this one, (not all of their points but the fact that Palin's daughter's pregnancy should be discussed and used to open up a debate between both sides on her views on abortion and abstinence publicly vis-a-vis how she handled her daughter). I usually don't believe in bringing private lives into politics (I don't care what (or whom) a candidate did in his free time as long as they are competent, Clinton humping Monica and having a Surplus and a strong dollar VS "clean" Bush and a huge deficit and extremely weak dollar), but the fact is, BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats keep bringing retarded "lynch pin" issues such as lapel pins, pro-choice vs pro-life, Religion, and Gay Marriage to the debate rather than REAL Issues. Since the Republicans have taken and trumpeted their "pro-life" and abstinence agenda I think it is fair to attack them, and/or question them on how they incorporate their beliefs/policies in their lives (basically, are they following what they so annoyingly and forcefully preach and try to impose on everyone).

What do you all think? (Especially want to hear from you miyi )

 

[thsv]

Re: Should Sarah Palin's Daughter's Pregnancy be off Limits?

Heh, got here before Miyi

Personally I'd like to think all politician's families would be off limits in a perfect world. However we don't live in one so that's not going to happen. To be honest once they start posing for photo ops with their kids (and I mean ALL politicians) they leave themselves wide open to criticism if they step out of line (remember the Bush twins. Like they're the only under age drinkers in the entire USA or the planet for that matter. Any kid who thinks "Hey the Bush girls are drinking underage. I'm going to copy them," needs to remove themself from the genepool)

And as for teen prenancy, teach the kids to use a condom. I fail to see the problem with sex education classes in school. Most kids figure out the basics by the time they're 12. Teaching them to avoid pregnancy is probably the best move rather than hoping they'll all abstain till marriage. If their heads don't tell them to, their bodies will.

 

[miyi]

Re: Should Sarah Palin's Daughter's Pregnancy be off Limits?

So, my question for discussion is, whether or not it is fair game to debate and/or report on Sarah Palin (McCain's VP pick) 's daughter's teenage pregnancy?

To understand why this kind of attack is despicable, it is imperative to first acknowledge as to how this whole thing started.

Daily Kos went ahead with a story that is unsubstantiated, that Sarah Palin allegedly faked her pregnancy of her Downs Syndrome child, in order to gain political points for her strong stance on being pro-life..........and the media picked it up like wildfire.

Credible journalists usually verify their sources first, before releasing a story. Remember John Edwards busted for having an affair? The mainstream media refused to go along with the story for an entire year, because they view the Enquirer, which was the only media willing to chase the story, as a tabloid-like source.

Yet this did not stop the media from pushing the "fake pregnancy" Daily Kos rumor. It was all over the news in less than 2 days of the VP announcement.

This "fake pregnancy" rumor was finally debunked by the Palin family, going public about her teen daughter, Bristol, being pregnant, right now.


Ask yourself with an open-mind: what motives did the media have for pushing this rumor? Obviously, it is to discredit Sarah Palin for her "pro-life" position.

The problem, however, is that Sarah Palin passed on this test, twice. She chose life for her Down Syndrome child, and her daughter Bristol, is also choosing life, for her child.

Not only are the Palin family preaching about pro-life, they are actually living with this issue, and dealing with it, amid all this national media scrutiny.

So now, the media want to "spin" all of this, and turn it into a debate about "teen pregnancy"? Give me a break.



Here is another illogical justification I keep hearing from the Left:

Bristol Palin is "fair game" because she appeared with her mother when she was announced as the VP, therefore, she is being used as a "prop" for political gain.

Uhhmm...what? So Chelsea Clinton, who visibly campaigned for her mother, is off limits, because attacking her would be too personal and an invasion of her private life? You can't have it both ways.

And I keep hearing/reading that Republicans once maliciously attacked Chelsea Clinton.....uhmm, when? perhaps Rush Limbaugh did, although I don't listen to his radio show. And if he did, Rush Limbaugh does not speak on behalf of all Republicans, nor conservatives.

The attack on the Palin family, meanwhile, is coming from EVERYWHERE.

from CNN, MSNBC, even Fox News (Alan Colmes), and all the major news networks.

And if the Dems want to argue about using children as "props"......then why was Barack Obama so willing to use his two daughters, for an interview, at Access Hollywood?

It is one thing to appear alongside your parent who is running for office for photographs (or photo-ops), and it is quite another to be publicly speaking on behalf of that parent, as "props", such as Obama's daughters, or with Chelsea Clinton when she campaigned for her mother.

So did the Bush twins by the way....as well as Kerry's daughters.

In short, I don't think it is fair to attack Bristol....attack Sarah Palin as much as possible, preferably on issues, but keep the children off limits.

The Liberals on the other hand (excluding Obama himself) have argued that the fact that what little we know about Palin is how fundamentally right she leans.

There are discreet ways to do this. One way is to look at her record as mayor/governor, and whether her record proves that she is a right wing extremist, as the Left would have us believe.

It is no rocket science to determine that Palin is a social conservative on so many issues, and it's all on public record. So why attack her personal life? As if to say that her personal life challenges, are in some way, an impediment to her qualifications as a VP.

I keep hearing/reading the meme that Bill Clinton was treated unfairly for his affair with Lewinsky....first of all, he was the acting President, and second, he lied under oath, and is thus a federal offense. He was "fair game", but Bristol Palin, last I checked, is not an acting public official.

One of her beliefs being that Abortions are infanticide and would work towards overturning Roe VS Wade

This is actually a fact, so yes, it's true.

while her OWN teenage daughter had the choice to either keep the baby, or abort it, thus highlighting the hypocrisy in her beliefs.

Please explain to me where is the hypocrisy in that?

Bristol Palin, according to interviews about their family, shares a pro-life value. It was she, who made the decision, to keep the child, not Sarah Palin or Todd (the father).

It is hypocrisy if Bristol was pro-life, but then chose to abort her baby. That isn't the case.

The other argument Liberals are making, is highlighting Palin's inability to properly parent seeing the predicament her teenage daughter is in (Basically, if she can't even "control" her daughter, how is she supposed to take on the responsibilities of the VP and possibly the POTUS).

Yes, it's true, that Sarah Palin believes in sex after marriage, and I'm sure they've been disappointed with Bristol. That being said, they discussed it privately as a family typically does, and Sarah and Todd, in an interview just recently, said they fully supported Bristol's decision to keep the baby, and will support her all the way through. That shows remarkable "responsibility", both on Sarah and Todd, as parents supportive to Bristol, and also for Bristol, who will soon become a mother.

The terms you're using, when you say, "control her daughter [Bristol]", implies that teenagers are unable to think for themselves. Bristol is 17 years old, she's 1 year shy of being old enough, legally (in USA), to make adult decisions. It's not as if Bristol is 12 years old, in which case, that would reflect poorly on Sarah Palin's mothering ability.

But I see your point though...the fact that conservatives preach about sex after marriage, when it turns out, Palin's daughter is imperfect, annoys the heck out of liberals. But again, I say, it's ultimately about the decisions conservatives make, after their mistakes, that truly count....and the fact that the Palin family decided to keep the child, is admirable, in my opinion, and does not contradict with them being pro-lifers.

Conservative parents frown upon the idea of sex before marriage, but at the same time, they are also more likely than not, to fully support their pregnant teenage daughters through the ordeal.

Sarah Palin does not need to convince the country how responsible of a parent she is, because having five children of her own, and being fully supportive of Bristol in this great challenge, speaks for itself. Again, I fail to see why this is relevant to her qualification as a VP......because if the charge against her is that she cannot possibly handle work and motherhood at the same time, then you liberal, so-called "feminists", are surely contradicting yourselves. (I've taken Feminist studies before, and this is outright hypocrisy).

Liberals have also used this opportunity to highlight the fact that teen pregnancies are on the rise and are blaming the abstinence only programs, which Palin supports (and thus never informed her daughter about contraceptives, which work).

Unfortunately, I don't know where you got this false information.

The fact is, Sarah Palin is pro-life.

Except:

when the mother's life, who is giving birth, is at stake.

When asked about cases of "rape" and "incest", Sarah Palin made it clear, that personally, she would still choose life, than permit the government to sanction abortion.

Second of all, she is not against "contraceptions", according to Anchorage Daily News:

In 2002, when she was running for lieutenant governor, Palin sent an e-mail to the anti-abortion Alaska Right to Life Board saying she was as "pro-life as any candidate can be" and has "adamantly supported our cause since I first understood, as a child, the atrocity of abortion."

Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life.

"I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life," she said.

Here's another glimpse about her view on abortion, from Politico:

Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

So, we can safely conclude, that Sarah Palin is pro-life, pro-contraception, and at the same time, pro-abstinence-until-marriage.

That does not equate to being pro-abstinence-only. That the media is falsely claiming that she is, is disingenuous.

Look....we all agree that abstinence-only programs, does not work. We can also agree that explicit sex-ed programs, does not work either. There has to be a mixture of both: abstinence education, and sex education (pro-contraceptives), and Sarah Palin, in fact, favors both.

I personally agree with the Liberals on this one, (not all of their points but the fact that Palin's daughter's pregnancy should be discussed and used to open up a debate between both sides on her views on abortion and abstinence publicly vis-a-vis how she handled her daughter). I usually don't believe in bringing private lives into politics (I don't care what (or whom) a candidate did in his free time as long as they are competent, Clinton humping Monica and having a Surplus and a strong dollar VS "clean" Bush and a huge deficit and extremely weak dollar), but the fact is, BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats keep bringing retarded "lynch pin" issues such as lapel pins, pro-choice vs pro-life, Religion, and Gay Marriage to the debate rather than REAL Issues. Since the Republicans have taken and trumpeted their "pro-life" and abstinence agenda I think it is fair to attack them, and/or question them on how they incorporate their beliefs/policies in their lives (basically, are they following what they so annoyingly and forcefully preach and try to impose on everyone).

The issue of abortion is a sensitive topic. There are two valid arguments to both side, but I won't belabor the topic, here.

The fact that Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol, got pregnant before marriage, while it is against their values, merely shows that the Palin family are humans, prone to mistakes, like all of us.

But as a family, they've dealt with this problem RESPONSIBLY, by supporting Bristol, and providing her the comfort that she needs, to get through this.

This, to me, shows that Sarah is a great mother, and therefore, the attempt to discredit her motherhood, is already a losing argument.

All that being said, I still don't see why her personal life, has any relevance to her ability as a VP. To argue that you cannot handle work and being a mom, was once considered by the Left, as "sexist", but apparently, they are quick to abandon that, as long as the sexist attack is targeted at Republicans.

Moreover, Bristol Palin is not running for public office, she did not intentionally subject herself as a "prop" in order to be publicly humiliated by the media, she did not do anything illegal, and she is a consistent pro-lifer, and therefore, if there are any hypocrites here, it's the media.

Lastly, the "conservative religious right" is not trying to impose their beliefs on anyone. Since when in this country is it permitted for the religious to impose the bible on an unwilling convert?

Yet, you see in TV multiple times obscenities directed against Jesus.

Why is it OK to mock religious people, and unacceptable for the religious to frown upon others they disagree with?


The truth behind all of this is that, the left wing media is using Bristol Palin as a pretext to wage war on the religious right-wing conservatives. On a political level, it's also a tactic to bring down the ascendance of Sarah Palin.


If the Dems want to open a debate about abortion, keep Bristol Palin absolutely separate from the discussion. And for crying out loud, please keep the Downs Syndrome child out of it, as well. The kid is absolutely innocent. Don't stoop that low.




p.s.

SoulReaporKoul, my frustrations in this post was directed at the media, not at you. So when I referred to those "liberals" critical of the Palins, I was really addressing those media pundits. Just to avoid any confusion.

 

[Nomad Soul]

Sarah Palin gave one speech and the Republicans already thought she's the next superstar who will help them win the White House. By that logic, Barack Obama should have locked the presidential race a long time ago.

The thing is, as provocative and aggressive as Palin's speech was, she's opened herself to much harsher critics by telling a bunch of lies and distortions in her speech.

Here are a few ones:

1) Palin was against "bridge to nowhere"...

is a lie.

The Fact:

In a questionnaire published in the October 22, 2006, Anchorage Daily News, then-gubernatorial candidate Palin answered the question, "Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?" by writing: "Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now -- while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

In an October 5, 2006, article, the Anchorage Daily News noted that Palin had addressed the issue at a gubernatorial forum hosted by Alaska Conservation Voters the previous day, and quoted Palin as saying, "I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for." The News added that Palin "said the projects link communities and create jobs."

In assessing Palin's claim that "I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere," PolitiFact.com reported: "By the time Palin pulled the plug on the Gravina bridge project in September 2007, much of the federal funding for the bridge had already been diverted to other transportation projects."

It further stated that "[w]hen Palin says ‘I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere,' it implies Congress said, ‘Here's a check for that bridge' and she responded, ‘No thanks, that's wasteful spending; here's your money back.' That's not what happened. Fact is, Alaska took the bridge money, and then just spent it on other projects. Palin did make the final call to kill plans for the bridge, but by the time she did it was no longer a politically viable project."

2) Palin opposed earmarks...

is a lie.

The Fact:

Gov. Palin's administration has acknowledged it requested federal earmarks in 2008. In a March 18 Juneau Empire op-ed, John Katz, Alaska's director of state-federal relations and special counsel to Palin, wrote that in 2008, the Palin administration "request[ed] 31 earmarks, down from 54 last year."

Additionally, The Washington Post reported on September 2 that Palin also oversaw the procurement of federal earmarks while Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska: "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group."

3) Palin is a reformer...

doesn't account for the fact that she's under state ethics investigation.

The Fact:

The Washington Post reported on August 31 that a "bipartisan state legislative panel has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate whether Palin ... and her aides pressured and ultimately fired the public safety commissioner, Walter Monegan, for not removing Palin's ex-brother-in-law from the state police force.

Interviews with principals involved in the dispute and a review of court documents and police internal affairs reports reveal that Palin has been deeply involved in alerting state officials to her family's personal turmoil." According to the Post: "In July, Palin's chief of staff told Monegan he was being fired because the governor wanted to ‘go in a different direction,' Monegan said. Monegan went public, alleging that his firing was connected to his failure to remove Wooten. The state legislature launched its investigation, and the governor asked the attorney general's office to conduct an internal investigation."

The New York Times reported on August 29 that Palin "initially denied there had ever been pressure applied to Mr. Monegan," but later "disclosed [that] there had been more than two dozen inquiries from members of her staff to the public safety department about" Wooten.

4) Palin has "executive experience" because she's commanding the Alaska National Guard...

is a gross exaggeration.

The Fact:

Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, the adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard said that Palin plays no role in directing the guard's national defense activities. According to an August 31 AP article, Campbell "considers Palin ‘extremely responsive and smart' and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder. But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations."

In fact, when asked to name one decision that Palin made concerning the Alaska National Guard that would qualify her for VP, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds couldn't give any answer.

--------------------

But lies aside, the more interesting question should be: What do Americans think of Sarah Palin after her speech. Republicans love her, that was to be expected. Democrats not so much, not very surprising either. However, the most intriguing voices come from independent, swing voters.

Here are some of those voices:

“Sarah Palin came across as the small town girl who made good. I knew that I disagreed with her on some issues before this evening. After listening to her speech … it appears that once she makes up her mind, that is the end of it. We live in a gray world, not every answer is black and white.”

-- Diane Murphy, 42, Sterling Heights independent

“I was completely underwhelmed. She was a Republican novelty act with a sophomoric script. It was not even a speech I would expect for a someone running for the local PTA, much less for vice president.”

-- George Lentz, 66, Southfield independent

“Who is Sarah Palin? I'm sorry but I still don't know anymore about this young woman tonight than I did last night ... The way it looks to me, she's the Republican vice presidential nominee for one reason: because Hillary wasn't selected.”

-- Mike Kosh, 38, West Bloomfield independent

"Sarah Palin is a self-described ‘pitbull with lipstick.’ She spent little time helping Americans learn who she is. She is a cool, poised speaker, but her speech contained few statements about policy or the party platform. … I am not convinced that Palin's experience as a mayor or governor in Alaska meet the qualifications to be vice president much less one stroke or heart attack away from being commander in chief.”

-- Ilene Beninson, 52, Berkley independent

“Nothing worked for me. I found her barrage of snide remarks and distortions to be a major turn off. She is not a class act. The most important point she made is that she will be an effective attack dog.”

-- Jan Wheelock, 58, Royal Oak independent

“Sarah got as much applause as Hillary did, and had a friendly, appealing appearance. Her delivery style reminded me of a high school valedictorian who also might have been a cheerleader. I thought she would appear more professional, more statesmanly. She's no match for Joe Biden.”

-- Joellen Gilchrist, 64, Beverly Hills independent

Think what you want about Sarah Palin, it's become abundantly clear after her speech that she's a polarizer, a demagogue and political ploy. The McCain campaign itself has admitted more than once that she's chosen not for her ability to lead but to win votes ("energizing the base").

Well, this trick might work for a short time as the poll numbers will show in the next few weeks, but the Republicans have the math against them. In a year when Democrats are ahead of Republicans in almost every poll, you need more than your base to win the election. The Republicans will soon enough realize that Palin will lose them more voters than she wins them.

The biggest irony is that McCain's pick has made the prospect of an Obama presidency much more viable. For most conservatives, the idea of voting for a black man is almost as "problematic" as voting for a woman. McCain thought Palin's gender would be an asset for his campaign when in fact it's as much a liability. He thought he could ride on Hillary's coattails without realizing that he also inherited her gender issue. His campaign's feeble attempts to paint anyone who questions Palin's records and experience (or lack thereof) as sexist only reinforces the notion that Palin is not an able politician, but a woman who needs protection from the big bad media and other predators. The more they try to defend her the more they push this image.

Not only that, picking Palin also neutralized almost every line of attack the GOP was hurling against Obama:
* Poor judgment concerning pastors
* Shady political associations
* Celebrity status
* Inexperience
* Lack of foreign policy credentials

It's almost like the McCain-Palin ticket is an exact mirror of the Obama-Biden one (in every sense) and therein lies McCain's potentially fatal mistake.

Before McCain made his Hail Mary choice, his campaign was boring and predictable, but it was at least a picture most people were familiar with. They might have been lukewarm about him, but they would have voted for him anyway since the alternative would be voting for someone with a funny name who doesn't look like themselves.

By choosing a woman as his running mate McCain tried to regain his image as a maverick and reformist and for the time being it might seem to work, but when November comes around and the undecided voters ask themselves "So what's the difference between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden anyway?" McCain will realize that he himself has leveled the playing field, but it's his opponent who's still in possession of the ball (=the issues).

For all we know, McCain could be the anti-Bush, but it certainly doesn't look that way. Obama has spent his entire campaign trying to hammer this point home. Agree with it or not, his message sticks. McCain realized that the experience card doesn't work against Obama so he now tries to co-opt Obama's change mantra. Unfortunately for him, Obama has owned this slogan for so long that any attempt to "copy" it just winds up looking cheap and unconvincing.

 

[manu]

All the negatives you know of McCain are coming from sources like the HuffPo and Daily Kos, or youtube. I notice a pattern that you don't cite any other source aside from that. Have you ever looked beyond these very liberal leaning websites? Perhaps by looking at other sources, you might get a very different picture of McCain....probably you might like him, even just a little.

You're from Seattle? I'm from California.....probably the most liberal state in the USA. So you can just imagine the crap I have to go through. I was conservative not by birth.....rather, I've been on the middle all my life, but 9/11 changed everything.

I don't know why but this was harder than it sounds. I can't find a publication pro-McCain that I could actually agree with. I mean maybe of old McCain but proper research of his current policies provide a disturbingly conservative picture that is way to radical for my tastes. An example is of a LA Times article that supported McCain's plan above Clinton/Obama's. Now the main issue that the author agreed that Clinton/Obama plan benefited more people than McCain's. See this is the part where I'm lost, if the President is meant to serve the majority why are we electing officials that make the upper class richer and the lower/middle class more miserable?

Now you said 9/11 changed your view on politics. I assume you share many conservative belief that a republican would better protect the nation. How is America defended better if we become isolated? Excuse me if I sound a little uneducated in the topic but McCain doesn't seem to be a man listening to the facts. Iraq is in the past, so we can't even begin dispute if McCain or Obama was right because Obama wasn't there. What we do know is McCain's foolish remarks over the Georgian/Russian comments is not going to make America any safer.

Though mostly I hate the way Republicans run their campaign, makes me wonder why republicans can get away with bloody murder but Obama is accused of using the race card by republicans. Obama is the elitist and McCain isn't? John Kerry is a waffler and McCain is the patriot. Its a double standard that everyone accepts.

 

[redcometfm]

Iraq is in the past

Thats where youre so wrong. Youre in such a rush to deal with domestics that youre going to set something up to fuck us over the in future, namely bite us in the ass, which of course any such problems would be blamed on the Republicans. Thats whats wrong with liberal thinking. THATS ISOLATIONIST.

Plus I think Republicans would be better to defend this nation and handle foreign affairs since liberals and liberalism is what caused the world wars.

 

[miyi]

@Nomad Soul:

that's the first post you've written that I fully appreciate. It was fair, and you brought up very valid points.

We can agree to disagree on a lot of the things you've mentioned. I can offer a counterargument for each of the list of things you brought up, such as the Palin-flip-flop on issues and her exaggerating many of her claims, and I would probably say.......Obama and Biden are guilty of the very same things.

but ultimately, it's all a matter of different perspectives, and we just simply look at things a little differently.

However, I take issue with this comment:

For most conservatives, the idea of voting for a black man is almost as "problematic" as voting for a woman.

You imply that conservatives are racists. If I provide you with a different set of facts, for example, that in history, it was the Democrats who resisted Civil Rights legislations since the 1860s (and the opposing party, the Republicans, who were in favor of it), would you then, reconsider your already deep-seated prejudice about the Republican/conservative Party?

Now you said 9/11 changed your view on politics. I assume you share many conservative belief that a republican would better protect the nation. How is America defended better if we become isolated? Excuse me if I sound a little uneducated in the topic but McCain doesn't seem to be a man listening to the facts. Iraq is in the past, so we can't even begin dispute if McCain or Obama was right because Obama wasn't there. What we do know is McCain's foolish remarks over the Georgian/Russian comments is not going to make America any safer.

Though mostly I hate the way Republicans run their campaign, makes me wonder why republicans can get away with bloody murder but Obama is accused of using the race card by republicans. Obama is the elitist and McCain isn't? John Kerry is a waffler and McCain is the patriot. Its a double standard that everyone accepts.

Ok, I'm curious. I still have not yet heard a logical, coherent, and consistent explanation as to why Obama was among the few Senators, to have opposed the invasion of Iraq.

France, Russia, China, Australia, US, Birtish - intelligence, on a consensus, all believed and suspected, that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs....even the UN inspectors believed, to an extent, that Saddam was hiding WMDs. (Please look this up, in case you're thinking I am making all these things up).


Given this, why did Obama opposed the invasion?

Yes, I concede, that the intelligence turned out to be imperfect. But if you were the President, and you had to make a judgment call, and you're pressed for time, what to do, or what not to do.....what would you do?

Either, you invade....OR, allow UN inspectors a little more time to verify with certainty, that Saddam indeed, had WMDs (with the risk of Saddam using the WMDs before you have enough time to react.)

Now, all political and foreign affair analysts will tell you, that as a political leader, you will inevitably have to rely on suspect intelligence....they won't be 100% accurate...intelligence will never be 100% accurate. The difference maker is, what decision the leaders ultimately make. Bush chose to invade, your candidate...Obama, said NO.

Explain why he said no.

Was he a prophet or something? Did he know something at the time that he kept only to himself? If he did, I'd like to know what was going through his mind.

What are his justifications for opposing an invasion, in year 2003 (not year 2008, when you have the luxury of hindsight)?


This is what makes me different from the Democrats, which is why, still to this day, I support Bush, and because of the "surge" and McCain's excellent gut instinct -- that we are on the verge of a stable Iraq -- that I'm now rooting for McCain.

You can disagree with me, but don't assume I support McCain because I'm blood-thirsty. My priorities going into this election is, which President can protect the homeland, and make the world a safer place for Democracies. Obama is a big question mark regarding this issue, and which is why I feel less safe about him......it has nothing to do with his "race", as you people keep bringing up. I know that Obama is an intelligent man, and a well-meaning person, however, he just lacks foreign policy cred.