Politics United States Presidential Election Thread

[thsv]

Re: Obama, not the 'Reformer' he purports to be

My articles? I've selected the articles, but I didn't write them. And I don't work for anyone.


@Franckie:

I'm not exactly all gung ho about McCain (perhaps this is the first time that I have ever mentioned that in this forum), except I do believe, by comparison, he is a better candidate than Obama, but that's just my opinion.

But I agree with you 100%....both candidates have exhibited dishonesty in their campaign thus far, and it's not surprising....it's politics.

McCain does have a history of reaching across the aisle, but he has not been true to his maverick streak especially recently, and that's understandable, since he's energizing his GOP base.

But here comes Obama, who hasn't really been in the Senate long enough to begin with, and claims he is a reformer and a new kind of politician, and his supporters buy it.....that's what irks me. Because the fact is, he is not a reformer. Not even close.

McCains got a bit of a conundrum there. How do you reform and yet still keep true to your political roots? Lets hope he doesn't copy Tony Blair's example. The Labour party over here has never been so unpopular. And they're sinking into debt because their traditional backers, the trade unions, feel so betrayed most of their members have stopped their political donations

 

[krazykone12]

Re: Obama, race card

A Black man using the race card to bump him foward hot damn, lulz I'm sorry, as a African American I find this all too funny.

Go for Broke Obama, Go for Broke

 

[manu]

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.

Ok I wanted to say Iraq is in the past because if we keep backtracking we will get evidence proving that everyone was wrong at some point. Case in point, McCain believed that we could succeed in Iraq with 100,000 troops. An invasion of a nation which we bombed and killed its own people and we are supposed to be in his words "liberators." The fact that after everyone, even Dick Cheney admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 he was still making comments about chasing Al Queda and punishing Saddam for those attacks.

By the way, McCain and many other politicians agreed that the intelligence reports that they read were only summaries given to them through email and that they didn't actually read the entire intelligence. Is that how a president should act? As a voter I would enjoy it if my elected leader would take some damn time to do his job. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccainiraq23mar23,0,7280469.story

Maybe like so many of the intelligence officers opposing the war Obama actually did his reading, wouldn't that be a hoot.

Now do we want a president defending our country on cliff notes, and has no problem destroying our countries fundamental beliefs to do so. Obviously rhetorical because unfortunately some people do.

Oh and miyi you know that the Republican party of Abe Lincoln and the one of today are different as night and day.

Btw, was it necessary to have a 9-11 tribute by showing the collapse of the towers. I would have assumed that there is a better way to pay tribute than to show the murder of American lives. The Japanese managed to pay tribute to Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims without showing the detonation of the bomb, I would hope the republican national convention would attempt to do so also but I guess republicans run better on fear than they do on hope. Chew on that for a moment.

 

[miyi]

@manu:

McCain was techincally correct assuming the war in Iraq will be won easily.....where he was wrong was in assuming we'll secure the peace just as easy.....it turns out to be wrong.

former defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld at the outset, had a flawed plan...he disbanded the Baath and the Iraqi military, disenfranchising and creating resentment, which is why we had to fight Iraqi insurgents....and Rumsfeld did not put enough troops to secure the peace...there were other factors, but due to time constraints, I'll list only these two..

McCain began disagreeing with the Bush administration and became a critic of the mismanagement of Iraq early on.....he was among the first to say, we needed more troops.

We can go back and argue and counterargue, but the fact remains, that Obama was right about opposing Iraq, but McCain was right about the "surge".

And here is Obama's speech btw, you probably read this already (or heard it), dated before the Iraq invasion....in October 2002:

Obama's Iraq Speech

While he brought a lot of great points, I think Obama shows a narrow perspective about the Middle East.

He thinks, simplistically, that poverty and lack of education, as well as oppression of human rights, are the root cause of terrorism in the Middle East.

The problem though, is that this isn't always true. Anyway, that's beside the point.

The question remains: what information did Obama have, that he opposed an Iraq invasion?

He mentioned in the speech, that we ought to have given the UN inspectors more time to do their job.

The problem I have with this is that, Saddam Hussein have been impeding their access, since the 1990s, and have made their job nearly impossible.

How can we rely on Saddam Hussein to act in good faith, that he would allow the UN inspectors to do their job, without obstruction?

Obama says we should give Saddam more time to comply.....but how long was he willing to give Saddam? a few months? a few years?

Was Obama thinking of a "timetable" for Saddam Hussein? He was willing to give Saddam ample time to do what he wanted, yet Obama demands a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq.

Note the contradiction?


btw, the LATimes article you cited above.....well, it mentioned about the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate report, which concluded that Saddam Hussein was "reconstituting his WMD programs". Read the entire report for yourself, and try not to be like John McCain and read only the summary....and it's 28 pages long:

NIE report, 2002, de-classified

Any reasonable person who would have read that report, would have come to the conclusion, or assumption, that Saddam was hiding WMDs.

It turns out that this same report, would receive so many criticism later on, how it was very misleading.

Again, I am providing you with what politicians had access to at the time. Intelligence from the major countries all said, more or less, the same thing, that Saddam could be hiding WMDs, and is planning on reconstituting these weapons, as soon as sanctions in Iraq were lifted.


Obama made a lot of good points about everything else, such as his assumption that we were going to be stuck in the Iraq quagmire for a lengthy period......and he turned out to be correct about Saddam not having WMDs.


But again, I want to know what were going through his mind at the time.

He was willing to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt, despite the intelligence not in Saddam's favor.

Why?


And for all we know, Obama might not even had picked up the NIE report....at least McCain read the summary.

Unless you can prove that your candidate read the entire report, then you can make the claim that he did his job.

Judging from his speech, it seems as though he was indifferent to the possibility that Saddam may be hiding WMDs, just as the NIE report suggested.




re: Republicans of Abe Lincoln and of today:

and because they're different, you're content to revise history and blame all the wrongs of racism on America onto Republicans?

you'll need a better explanation.


re: 9/11 tribute:

I don't see anything necessarily wrong about it...it's part of history, and it would be a disservice if we sanitize history.

Ok, so now this is all about "fear"?

you think we are playing the "fear" card? how about the Democrats describing present economic conditions as if we're currently experiencing the "Great Depression", when technically we're not even in a recession yet.

 

[Digital_Eon]

Re: Obama, race card

Since when does Obama = Obama's underlings? From everything I've heard, it's the party who's been deflating the criticism with silly accusations, not necessarily the man himself. Yes, they're supposed to represent him, but the attacks here are starting to sound personal when it shouldn't be the case.

 

[manu]

@manu:
The question remains: what information did Obama have, that he opposed an Iraq invasion?

He mentioned in the speech, that we ought to have given the UN inspectors more time to do their job.

The problem I have with this is that, Saddam Hussein have been impeding their access, since the 1990s, and have made their job nearly impossible.

So with this logic you think America should declare war on Iran and North Korea along with any nation that doesn't hand over their weapons program? Yup keeping America safe, making one enemy at a time.

Read the entire report for yourself, and try not to be like John McCain and read only the summary....and it's 28 pages long:

NIE report, 2002, de-classified

Any reasonable person who would have read that report, would have come to the conclusion, or assumption, that Saddam was hiding WMDs.

He is amassing aluminum tubes and refurbishing buildings. Yes its the Monday quarterback analysis but thats what the 28 page "long" report said.

Obama made a lot of good points about everything else, such as his assumption that we were going to be stuck in the Iraq quagmire for a lengthy period......and he turned out to be correct about Saddam not having WMDs.


But again, I want to know what were going through his mind at the time.

He was willing to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt, despite the intelligence not in Saddam's favor.

Why?

So that the world wouldn't hate us and we don't manufacture more middle eastern hate against us.

re: Republicans of Abe Lincoln and of today:

and because they're different, you're content to revise history and blame all the wrongs of racism on America onto Republicans?

you'll need a better explanation.

What? No I never said that, lets drop this.

Ok, so now this is all about "fear"?

you think we are playing the "fear" card? how about the Democrats describing present economic conditions as if we're currently experiencing the "Great Depression", when technically we're not even in a recession yet.

I'm afraid, just as my parents are worried and my neighbors are too. I've seen way too many people losing their jobs, so when he talks about the economic conditions I can relate. He isn't giving us a story, he's listening to what voters have to say about the economy.

Unfortunately when people call rhetoric, its because they listen to excerpts. It drives me crazy, Obama wants to make it about the issues but Republicans want to make it about the pig's lipstick. I've taken your advice and looked for some pro McCain sources. They are convinced that Obama hasn't achieved anything and that he's unfit to lead and at the same time he makes empty promises. Obama's experience is on par with Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush in the number of years he's had office. He articulates his plans in speeches, something his oppenents choose not to do and he doesn't make attacks that are untrue.

Obama and Rezko, nothing illegal about it. In fact Obama ended up overpaying for the property. Palin and Stevens on the other hand is an issue of how her campaign was founded on dirty money. Let alone the issue that her food on the table is charged on taxpayers outsider of her salary.

And again there in lies the Palin success. Me, the media and the general population are way too interested in Palin. It takes away from Obama's message that the he's the better of the two men. He's being dragged down with the negativity that his supporters are producing, something McCain's camp has been able to avoid when attacking Obama. I mean lets look at the McCain condoms to fiver year olds and Obama's pig lipstick. On one hand we have John McCain the maverick defending sexual predators and on the other we have Obama using an old saying to illustrate the empty promise of republicans. How its being perceived is that we can forgive the republican, he's just doing dirty politics and that's business as usual but the Democrat just made a sexist comment. Obama is stuck in a losing double standard which he can't defend.

Speaking of impossible stances, you're talk about the troop surge success is a topic which I thought was impossible to debate. Though look into it and while the troops are securing the peace its interesting to actually look at the Iraq dynamic.

First point, why do we need to secure the "peace" when attacks are not against other Iraqis but the American troops? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/02/AR2007060201294.html

Secondly, if having our troops was the problem why send more? Now their debate is that more water quenches the fire but what if we really just added something else to the mix, not too take away from our armed forces work but how are we using them properly. http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-spies-not-surge-reduced-iraq-violence-book-20080905-4app.html

Now I would like to say Americans are succeeding, we've gone to war with a country and are going to leave it with at least an 80 billion dollar surplus. I hope the boys in Washington feel that the troops we lost were worth it. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/05/iraq.oil/

And my last point, notice that Democrats have made it an issue to focus on anti-American forces in the last election. Why is it that republican still are neglecting the issue when the frontline war against terror needs more troops. The Obama policy against terror seems to defend our homeland better. Bush/McCain want you to believe that Iraq was the front line, it isn't won't be and we can't assume safety for Americans will come from that region. I want to make this a debate but most republicans are hiding behind a foreign policy platform.GOP foreign policy doesn't do much good when our presence in the wrong areas only fuels al-Queda recruitment and our inaction lets them operate in their true bases.

 

[miyi]

So with this logic you think America should declare war on Iran and North Korea along with any nation that doesn't hand over their weapons program? Yup keeping America safe, making one enemy at a time.

I forgot to mention that before we invaded Iraq, Saddam made it appear as though he was hiding WMDs. It turns out he was bluffing. Experts was baffled by Saddam's behavior, of why he led Americans into thinking he had WMDs, provoking us to invade, and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy for him.

Experts gave some explanations as to why Saddam did this, and the primary reason they provided was that, Saddam wanted to deter his neighbors, such as Iran (Iraq's long time rival, of which they fought a bloody war with in the 1980's that killed over a million people on both sides). In other words, Saddam wanted to appear "tough" towards Iran, but at the same time, he also led Americans into thinking he was hiding WMDs, which was a grave mistake on his part. There's already tons of evidence to suggest he would not hesitate to use deadly weapons on anyone, as he commited genocide on his own people before, and so add our original suspicions about him, with his bluffing, and that was enough for most Senators, and Bush, to pre-empt.

Iran and North Korea, on the other hand, have kept telling us they won't use WMDs for purposes of war, but so they claim, it is for "peace".

There's a big difference. And so unlike Iraq, we are less inclined to make rash decisions this time around, regarding Iran and N.Korea.

btw, N. Korea just recently decided to disarm their WMDs.

He is amassing aluminum tubes and refurbishing buildings. Yes its the Monday quarterback analysis but thats what the 28 page "long" report said.

Well, ok....I don't think I can persuade you otherwise....we are looking at the same facts, and it's understandable, and quite common, that different people arrive at very different conclusions. In this case, let's just agree to disagree about our varying interpretations of the Intelligence report.

Although if I was a politician looking at this intelligence at the time, and with 9/11 in my mind, I'd be more inclined to have made the assumption that Saddam wasn't bluffing. I would have been wrong, but so did many people, including many renowned Democrats (i.e. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton), who turned out to be wrong. Hey, it's not because we were war-mongers....it's simply that we erred on the side of caution.

So that the world wouldn't hate us and we don't manufacture more middle eastern hate against us.

Yeah, but did you know that the root cause of Middle Eastern hostility towards America dates all the way back to early 1900s? with British and France carving up the Middle East as "spheres of influence"?

Actually, it even dates back as early as the Crusades, hundreds of years ago. America did not cause all of it. We simply inherited the hostility directed against us, and we're trying our best to mitigate the problem. It's unfair to blame everything on GW Bush, since Osama bin Laden, declared war on the USA, under Bill Clinton's administration.

And I'm not sure if you have been reading the news recently, but many moderate Muslims are beginning to fight back against radical Islamists. I would argue that, although certainly there are many who hate us, there are equally as many who want to fight terrorism alongside us.

What? No I never said that, lets drop this.

Sorry, I didn't mean to accuse you of thinking/assuming all Republicans are racists, or that you believe in the revising of history regarding American's race-relations. Although it would certainly help if liberal pundits and Obama quit insisting that Republicans are using race-baiting tactics. Obama, in fact, has done this twice.

I'm afraid, just as my parents are worried and my neighbors are too. I've seen way too many people losing their jobs, so when he talks about the economic conditions I can relate. He isn't giving us a story, he's listening to what voters have to say about the economy.

Unfortunately when people call rhetoric, its because they listen to excerpts. It drives me crazy, Obama wants to make it about the issues but Republicans want to make it about the pig's lipstick. I've taken your advice and looked for some pro McCain sources. They are convinced that Obama hasn't achieved anything and that he's unfit to lead and at the same time he makes empty promises. Obama's experience is on par with Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush in the number of years he's had office. He articulates his plans in speeches, something his oppenents choose not to do and he doesn't make attacks that are untrue.

Obama and Rezko, nothing illegal about it. In fact Obama ended up overpaying for the property. Palin and Stevens on the other hand is an issue of how her campaign was founded on dirty money. Let alone the issue that her food on the table is charged on taxpayers outsider of her salary.

And again there in lies the Palin success. Me, the media and the general population are way too interested in Palin. It takes away from Obama's message that the he's the better of the two men. He's being dragged down with the negativity that his supporters are producing, something McCain's camp has been able to avoid when attacking Obama. I mean lets look at the McCain condoms to fiver year olds and Obama's pig lipstick. On one hand we have John McCain the maverick defending sexual predators and on the other we have Obama using an old saying to illustrate the empty promise of republicans. How its being perceived is that we can forgive the republican, he's just doing dirty politics and that's business as usual but the Democrat just made a sexist comment. Obama is stuck in a losing double standard which he can't defend.

Speaking of impossible stances, you're talk about the troop surge success is a topic which I thought was impossible to debate. Though look into it and while the troops are securing the peace its interesting to actually look at the Iraq dynamic.

First point, why do we need to secure the "peace" when attacks are not against other Iraqis but the American troops? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/02/AR2007060201294.html

Secondly, if having our troops was the problem why send more? Now their debate is that more water quenches the fire but what if we really just added something else to the mix, not too take away from our armed forces work but how are we using them properly. http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-spies-not-surge-reduced-iraq-violence-book-20080905-4app.html

Now I would like to say Americans are succeeding, we've gone to war with a country and are going to leave it with at least an 80 billion dollar surplus. I hope the boys in Washington feel that the troops we lost were worth it. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/05/iraq.oil/

And my last point, notice that Democrats have made it an issue to focus on anti-American forces in the last election. Why is it that republican still are neglecting the issue when the frontline war against terror needs more troops. The Obama policy against terror seems to defend our homeland better. Bush/McCain want you to believe that Iraq was the front line, it isn't won't be and we can't assume safety for Americans will come from that region. I want to make this a debate but most republicans are hiding behind a foreign policy platform.GOP foreign policy doesn't do much good when our presence in the wrong areas only fuels al-Queda recruitment and our inaction lets them operate in their true bases.

I don't mean to de-emphasize the current economic crisis, although I would argue that Democrats have in fact, been blowing it out of proportion, which is actually counter-productive and making people less and less inclined to spend, which in turn hurts the economy.

I'd be more than happy to discuss the Iraq war with you, the surge, or anything related to the war on terrorism.

The truth is, there are at least four different ways at looking at war and peace, there's the liberal, realist, identity, and critical theory perspective.

Bush employed the liberal, realist, and identity perspectives throughout his term as President, and so it's unfair to say that he's doing things only one way. He's actually done a lot of the very same things Obama proposes when it comes to diplomacy and war..

anyway, like I said, I'd be more than happy to discuss these real issues.

But don't pretend to not have stooped low....you were the first to mention about the Bristol Palin rumor. I was simply reacting to those comments, and I had to defend McCain/Palin for it.


Oh yea, and about al-Qaida....don't believe the media. To the contrary, we have demoralized them in Iraq, we've taken out quite many of their commanders, and although they are making a come-back in Afghanistan/Pakistan area, what we can take from this "Iraq" experience, is that at least now we know how we can combat al-Qaida more effectively, than we would otherwise. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan will not allow al-qaida to re-emerge, as that would undermine their authority/power/legitimacy as rightful rulers of their country, and no government is stupid enough to do that. If anything, they are more likely to continue cooperating with the effort to take out al-qaida, and so that at least is something positive we can look forward to.

I agree with Obama that we need to send more troops to Afghanistan, but so long as we don't do so at the expense of making Iraq less secure. We have to make sure we leave a stable Iraq, and that's the bottom line.

I think even Obama would agree to that statement.

The problem though, is that he keeps de-emphasizing the importance of making sure Iraq is stable, to the point where he appears so eager to transfer most troops to Afghanistan ASAP. Now, he wouldn't, of course, say this directly, but if you listen to his speeches, that's the interpretation that one reasonable person is likely to take from his speeches.

We keep hearing about McCain taking a "hard-line" stance towards Iraq or Russia (with their recent incursion towards Georgia), but why don't we hear from the pundits about Obama's "hard-line" stance towards Afghanistan/Pakistan? That is such a counterproductive approach. These two countries are our allies. Obama needs to focus and direct his criticism towards al-qaida, not our allies.

Obama and McCain are not so much different...they just have different emphasis regarding the war on terrorism, and the strategy they want to employ. But both are pro-war. Both are hard-liners, just in a different way.

 

[manu]

And again there in lies the Palin success. Me, the media and the general population are way too interested in Palin. It takes away from Obama's message that the he's the better of the two men. He's being dragged down with the negativity that his supporters are producing, something McCain's camp has been able to avoid when attacking Obama.

Yes I stooped low, no I didn't pretend not too have. Worst part about it is that when the supporters are producing the attacks its hurting Obama but when McCains 527's are producing dirt, ads that say I'm John McCain and I approve this message they do not hurt his standing.

Factcheck is a great site, for me it completely neutralized the Rezko factor but it also makes you notice who's telling the half-truths and lies. They constantly have features fact checking McCain and Palin but from my recent search their fact checks for the democratic party is internet rumor and not Obama/Biden comments. Odd considering how often Palin is censored and how much Obama and Biden are on the road speaking.

Fun tidbit I heard on the evening news, McCain's party is looking to bunch McCain/Palin more often than not to prevent Palin gatherings from overshadowing McCain gatherings. Makes me wonder, are republicans voting for McCain or President Palin.

Again though you lost me on how a McCain selection on foreign policy alone is plausable.

 

[miyi]

Yes I stooped low, no I didn't pretend not too have. Worst part about it is that when the supporters are producing the attacks its hurting Obama but when McCains 527's are producing dirt, ads that say I'm John McCain and I approve this message they do not hurt his standing.

Factcheck is a great site, for me it completely neutralized the Rezko factor but it also makes you notice who's telling the half-truths and lies. They constantly have features fact checking McCain and Palin but from my recent search their fact checks for the democratic party is internet rumor and not Obama/Biden comments. Odd considering how often Palin is censored and how much Obama and Biden are on the road speaking.

Fun tidbit I heard on the evening news, McCain's party is looking to bunch McCain/Palin more often than not to prevent Palin gatherings from overshadowing McCain gatherings. Makes me wonder, are republicans voting for McCain or President Palin.

let's just say that, when McCain supporters attack Obama negatively, they're relatively small compared to when the entire mainstream media, plus the left-wing blogosphere, and Obama supporters, all collectively launch negative attacks on McCain/Palin. There is an obvious disparity on numbers.

I won't deny that there are idiots on the right-wing side, just as well as there are idiots on the left wing side. But relatively, there's more negativity coming from the left side....but that's just my opinion.

Again though you lost me on how a McCain selection on foreign policy alone is plausable.

what? I don't understand this question.

 

[mrcongojack]

There is mud slinging on both sides. McCain's campaign is far from clean. There is the developing "Lipstick scandal"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPd4yk0x-eg

Obama is obviously talking about the McCain campaign's policies and their similarities to Bush policies (using a phrase McCain has used no less than 4 times during this campaign), and the McCain campaign played it off as a sexist insult.

Here's the video on youtube (the actual ad starts after the "Lies Lies Lies" part and ends somewhere around 30 seconds.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbQ1OUi-j3M

(side note: at first, I thought this was made by some amateur politico. I then went to the johnmccain.com and found out this was the actual ad. Seriously, McCain campaign, get better video editors. They are using transitions that come stock on iMovie!)

And on who's being more negative:

I would agree both sides have their idiots. But I think it is pretty damn even. The Left has MSNBC, the Right has Fox. The blogosphere has an equal amount of keyboard politicos spouting insane lies about the other camp. To say either side has more or that Sarah Palin came under "attack" by the media is a stretch. To be fair, I wasn't watching the news the day the Palin pick came out. At the time I was watching a G-Gundam marathon (great show by the way) with my buddies. But, from watching the news in the days that followed up to today, I haven't seen the media do anything dirty (again, to be fair, I've pretty much nixed watching talking heads like Olbermann and O'Reilly. I just don't have the time or the patience.) I see nothing negative in reporting on things like her daughter or "Troopergate". I do have a problem with their "commentators" and how they spin things. In fact, I pretty much don't watch commentators at all. They are wrong nearly 100% of the time. My proof? If they were right, this race would be between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani and the sole issue would be the War in Iraq. Ron Paul would be running a strong independent campaign.

The problem these commentators have is they somehow do not grasp the fact that things will change between now and November 4th. They judge the campaign as if voting were going to happen in 5 minutes. Blowhards like Olbermann and O'Reilly shout back and forth, which is so obviously a ratings ploy. Heck, they brag about their ratings on air.

 

[manu]

My point is that McCain himself and Palin are responsible for outright lying on their biggest platforms, reform, their record and Obama's. I haven't seen an Obama ad that spouted lies about his opposition yet. Interestingly enough though is that Obama's financial strategy allows for unlimited ads.

I guess I'm trying to say that I don't know why vote McCain. Still, after the campaign and your defense of McCain the end result has been all but summed up with your words.

Obama and McCain are not so much different...they just have different emphasis regarding the war on terrorism, and the strategy they want to employ. But both are pro-war. Both are hard-liners, just in a different way.

Oh and Olbermann just called McCain a terrorist. Is he trying to overshadow the pig's lipstick or is he just stupid...

 

[miyi]

@mrcongojack and manu:

thanks, I appreciate that you both acknowledge Olbermann's negativity (well, that's kind of the obvious).

I don't listen to O'reilly either, to be honest. But it's amusing to see him and Olbermann go at each other.

Just as conservatives have their forum to speak their opinions on talk radio (relatively far smaller audience compared to cable and mainstream TV news), I think it's fair to say that Olbermann, Chris Matthews, well, these guys are the TV equivalent of radio-talk show hosts, but of the liberal side.

There are some very good news anchors, in my opinion, who are relatively fair and tolerable, i.e. Anderson Cooper of CNN, David Gregory of MSNBC, Brit Hume of Fox News, Lou Dobbs of CNN, the late Tim Russert on NBC.

I admit that I try to watch Olbermann sometimes just to test my patience, and I've gotten used to it.


Anyway....mrcongojack, if only you were following the news media, when Palin was first announced as the VP, they adopted Fox news tactics by spreading blog-rumors about Palin without verifying.....just let me list a few of the rumors that the media was responsible of spreading:

- that Sarah Palin's Down syndrome baby was not hers, but her daugther, Bristol's (this was debunked)

- that Sarah Palin belonged to a so-called "secessionist" party in Alaska called the Alaskan Independent Party (AIP), before becoming Republican (also debunked....NYTimes acknowledged in an article that they made a mistake)

- that Palin pushed for teaching Creationism in schools (also debunked)

- that Palin demanded books she didn't agree with to be banned in an Alaskan library (also false)

- that Palin is strictly an abstinence-only and anti-contraception (a distortion. Personally, she's pro-life and yes, perhaps she believes these things, although as a mayor/Governor, there's no evidence that she allowed her personal beliefs to affect her policy decisions)

More here, at Factcheck.org


And to be fair, Obama is also subject to this so called "whisper campaign", as well.....but if anyone have been paying attention to my posts, never have I once mentioned them in this forum because I take facts very seriously........but there's a few exceptions (I think the Reverend Wright and Rezko and Ayers are all "fair" to point out....yes, they are negative, but they are not rumors because there's some truth to it).

here's some examples of the smears on Obama, which I personally think is disgusting:

Factcheck.org, smears on Obama



And although I'm very biased and openly support McCain, I do acknowledge that the McCain campaign have been playing dirty themselves.

But at the same time, when Obama mentioned twice about Republicans employing race-baiting tactics, without any evidence to support this ridiculous claim, I find that very off-putting and offensive. I think that was the last straw for me.....I've lost a lot of respect from Obama when he made those comments.

And now, these Palin smears, it's just over the top. I think I understand why the media is doing this (a retaliation for all those negativity Obama had to go through, with the Reverend Wright revelation and the repeated charges of being "inexperienced"....it's fair to say, that Fox News was one of the main culprits in that, and so this is turning into a "media war").

But then again, the media went a little over the top, without realizing the potential for back-lash, and now they continue to smear Palin at their own peril.

The Obama campaign needs to distance themselves with this negativity, because obviously it's hurting him on the polls.

If I was working for the McCain campaign, I would probably advise them to keep the mudslinging to a minimum, as well, as that too, can backfire on them.


But overall, I agree. I am getting sick and tired of this back-and-forth mudslinging on both sides. But as a student of politics, I'm in the habit of keeping up with all of this, despite my dislike for this kind of politics.




Why vote for McCain? heck, that's your decision....you vote for whoever you think is more fit to be President. I'm merely clarifying where Obama, in my opinion, is mis-representing McCain's positions, just as you are defending Obama.


If I have time, I am open to discussing Obama's strengths on foreign policy, since all this time all I've been doing is criticize him on what I perceive are his weaknesses.

But in a nutshell, I admit that he is better suited than McCain, when it comes to "diplomacy"....I think the fact that the world favors Obama more than McCain, reflects that.

But diplomacy has its limitations, and I'll discuss that too. Ideally, you pursue diplomatic path in a position of strength.

Bush did exactly this when he got China, Russia, Japan and South Korea, to persuade North Korea to freeze their nuclear ambitions, just a few months ago. That's an example of diplomacy in a position of strength.

If Obama want to achieve similar results if, hypothetically, he negotiates with Ahmadenijad of Iran, he must get Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and probably Iraq and Turkey, to sit down and talk with Ahmadenejad.....because if Obama talks with Ahmadenejad himself, then it's futile. Maybe he mentioned this, maybe he didn't. But that's something he needs to consider, if he wants to be an effective leader.


also, both Obama and McCain have not adequately discussed the Israel-Palestinian issue. That is the key issue if both want to resolve or alleviate anti-Americanism in the Middle East.

the fact that both lacks any interest in this topic shows weakness, on both candidates.

Economics, I personally can flip a coin on both guys....I think neither will do the economy any good....I think both will be massive spenders, and they'll destroy the economy, maybe even more badly than Bush.

 

[mrcongojack]

I used to really like watching Olbermann (at times he can be hilarious), but I could tell that he was obviously slanting heavily to the left so to "balance it out" I would watch O'Reilly. But this summer I was cut off from the world thanks to my job (summer camp), which was a blessing because with both primaries pretty much over the media probably started covering the kindergarten bickering between the two camps. It'll probably get a bit less "he said/she said" when they actually start the debates. Maybe.

I think what Obama needs to do is to STOP LISTENING TO THE "PARTY ELDERS". Their advice is terrible. For some reason they think they need to disagree with Republicans on everything and need to vilify everything they do. Now, obviously the Republicans do the same thing, but what initially made Obama so novel for me was the fact he was willing to agree with his opponents on some issues. I think that if Obama relegated the task of countering everything McCain/Palin campaigns say to Biden and stuck to his "Hope" message, he would stay above the fray.

 

[manu]

Fuck... Obama screwed up his latest ad. McCain can't type because he's been crippled in war. Why not attack his mudslinging, temper, policies, sexism, campaign tricks and the fact that Palin draws in more crowds than McCain? Well at least we were classy on 9-11...

---

Also i believe its unfair to attack Obama on his use of the race card. He was only mentioning what was already happening.

I knew it.

I was anticipating this moment.

Remember, I started a thread called Is the GOP Racist?



Who’s playing the race card?, Hot Air

So I'm afraid to let you all know, guys....I am a racist. It's not ok to criticize Obama or else you are just another racist.

@mrcongojack and manu:


And to be fair, Obama is also subject to this so called "whisper campaign", as well.....but if anyone have been paying attention to my posts, never have I once mentioned them in this forum because I take facts very seriously........but there's a few exceptions (I think the Reverend Wright and Rezko and Ayers are all "fair" to point out....yes, they are negative, but they are not rumors because there's some truth to it).

here's some examples of the smears on Obama, which I personally think is disgusting:

Factcheck.org, smears on Obama

At least he didn't go the republican route with a bullshit ads that keep calling sexism when it isn't there.

ad "Disrespectful" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL_PYj7zZAs

factcheck http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/belittling_palin.html

Or at least when Obama calls racism he's not directly accusing McCain. Something McCain will never admit, when he accuses democrats of sexism. See the racial/gender hate isn't form politicians but from people but the McCain campaign is trying to convince people that everything nasty they heard is from Obama which is tiring to see on tv.

 

[mrcongojack]

To be fair, you don't need to type to use a computer. Heck, my grandpa doesn't know how to type yet he still manages to use it (rarely, but mainly because he's old school.)

I really don't understand the purpose of the attack ads. Call me young and naive, but do they really have that great an effect on the, what, 50% of Americans that actually manage to vote? I'm starting to see why voter apathy is so high.

Seriously, the only positions these candidates differ on are gays, guns, health care, and abortions. Health care may be important but both of their plans will result in people paying way too much for being under-insured, people will never stop bickering about guns and abortions, and gay marriage... is anyone's life in danger either way this issue swings??!

 

[miyi]

Oh I see where this is going...

either Obama was not aware about McCain's wartime injuries, and decided to attack McCain on the "age" issue..

OR, Obama is aware of McCain's injuries, and went with it anyway, to provoke McCain to use his "POW" card, like he always do.


(just as Obama provoked McCain to overreact with his "pig" comment: see here).


Either way, this attack is calculated. I'm sure the Obama people knew what they were doing.

Because Obama is losing in the polls, this is the right time to go on the offensive, before it is too late. It is also the right time to make bold risks on the campaign.

On the one hand, McCain will probably respond in saying, that McCain cannot type because of his war injuries.

The media, as if on cue, will most likely follow up with saying, "there he goes again with the POW card, he's beginning to look like what Phil Gramm called, a whiner".


If I'm an adviser to McCain, I'll be very cautious not to overplay the POW hand. I'll let the conservative media to bring that up, but I'll prohibit all McCain staffers from ever bringing it up in a discussion.

What McCain can do to retaliate, instead, is to illustrate how Obama is constantly stoking fear in voters about McCain's age, which is to insinuate that old people are "irrelevant".

Nothing can be farther from the truth. For as long as I can remember, old people decide elections, young people stay at home and often decide not to vote, because they think they're "cool"..and typically it's young people who's the loudest complainers.

Which is why old people, are in fact, "relevant", especially in elections.

This is a perfect opportunity for the McCain campaign to hammer this point home, because what Obama has done, albeit indirectly (and probably not intentional), is to alienate old voters.

So it's not a gaffe, in my opinion, on Obama to attack McCain's handicap. I think it's safe to say, that McCain have overused his POW experience, to the point of ad nauseum.

The advantage Obama can gain from this bold risk, is that if he is successful in provoking McCain to overreact, it will diminish McCain's POW story, as merely a tool McCain is using to "advance his career" (I can just imagine the media stealing this line from Palin's RNC speech).


But if McCain does not overreact, and instead deflect the ad's message as though it's a direct attack on old people and their supposed "uselessness", Obama will lose, badly.



.....

btw, in case anyone is curious, McCain actually uses the computer (and email), quite often. I read somewhere that he and his wife, Cindy, is in the habit or ritual, of checking emails before going to bed. McCain, due to his handicap, is assisted by Cindy when it comes to operating a computer. And his aide, Mark Salter, operates McCain's blackberry....and so this notion that McCain cannot use electronics...it's technically true, but he does in fact use them regularly, with the help of other people doing the physical stuff.


[update]

lol, the ABC interview with Charles Gibson of Sarah Palin, it turns out, was intensely edited to make Sarah Palin appear "clueless" on foreign policy, and also a war-monger:

See Here

Spoiler

ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview
By P.J. Gladnick
Created 2008-09-13 07:26

A transcript [1] of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin's website [2]. The sections edited out by ABC News are in bold. The first edit shows Palin responding about meeting with foreign leaders but this was actually in response to a question Gibson asked several questions earlier:

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.


Next we see that Palin was not nearly as hostile towards Russia as was presented in the edited interview:

GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

We also see from Palin's following remark, which was also edited out, that she is far from some sort of latter day Cold Warrior which the edited interview made her seem to be:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Palin's extended remarks about defending our NATO allies were edited out to make it seem that she was ready to go to war with Russia.

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

That answer presented Palin as a bit too knowledgeable for the purposes of ABC News and was, of course, edited out. Palin's answers about a nuclear Iran were carefully edited to the point where she was even edited out in mid-sentence to make it seem that Palin favored unilateral action against that country:

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

Laughably, a remark by Gibson that indicated he agreed with Palin was edited out:

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

Gibson took her point about Lincoln's words but we wouldn't know that by watching the interview since it was left on the cutting room floor. I urge everybody to see just how the unedited version of the first interview compared to what we saw on television by checking out the full transcript [3]. It is a fascinating look into media manipulation via skillful editing.
Source URL:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gl...ws-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview

Links:
[1] http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/
[2] http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/
[3] http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

And the media is nit-picking on Palin's apparent stumble when Gibson asked her about the "Bush Doctrine".......well, it turns out, that it was Charles Gibson himself, who demonstrated ignorance on this topic, not Palin:

Washington Post, "Charlie Gibson's Gaffe", by Charles Krauthammer


Seriously, the media's attempt to manipulate Sarah Palin into something she is not, is tasteless.

The least they can do is to hide the full transcript of the ABC interview from the public, so that their outright deception isn't so damn noticeable.

 

[mrcongojack]

I think the reason most young people (or people, for that matter) don't vote is because they forget, not because they think it's uncool. According to this article, most students simply overlook it because it's a relatively unfamiliar task. I know, we "vote" for positions such as student council president in school, but we didn't have to find our ward, register to vote, and then actually make it to the polls on election day. They usually just hand out slips of paper for people to write names on.

Side note: Old people do in fact vote. A lot. I was voting in the regional primaries last Tuesday and I was the only person under 70 in the polling station. No lie. Unfortunately being a local primary for things such as city council, the House seat, etc... there wasn't really anything important to vote on. I ended up voting in the Libertarian column for the one candidate for the House and wrote my name in for the rest of the offices.

Regarding McCain and the computer:
Does it have to be a) Obama was calling McCain old or b) Obama was baiting McCain into using the "POW card?" Couldn't it be a third option, such as Obama trying to make McCain seem out of touch (which could be construed as a remark on his age. Or elitism.)

In any case, Obama and McCain should be delegating the job of smear campaigning to proxies, not doing it themselves because it makes them seem childish.

Regarding the Palin interview:

They cut out about 1043 out of 3070 words, so about 1/3. You could argue that it was to make Palin look stupid, but most of what they cut out dealt with the Georgia conflict. Given the fact that most news shows are limited to time, they could've cut out that section of the interview due to time constraints. Also, many of her longer diatribes were cut out probably because this is a "sound-byte" driven media.

As for the Bush Doctrine:
Krauthammer is right: there is more than one interpretation of the Bush Doctrine. None of which deal with Islamic extremists. According to the wikipedia article on the subject (which Krauthammer cites,) the Bush Doctrine deals with acting to protect the US and its interests even if it means acting preventively. As Krauthammer mentions, the article says he was the first to use the phrase. In February of 2001, well before the furor over Islamic extremism (he says it was in regard to the Kyoto Protocol.) Gibson's definition of the Bush Doctrine was pretty spot on. Krauthammer says that the doctrine now is solely about "spreading democracy," but that is but one of the four main points (including Preemption, Military Primacy, and New Multilateralism.)

EDIT: And the students who are the loudest complainers are usually voters. The students who usually forget to vote are just too wasted to remember. That's the problem with putting elections on Tuesdays: people are still hung over from the weekend. If they would just put them on Wednesdays it would make it so much easier for everyone.

 

[miyi]

Regarding McCain and the computer:
Does it have to be a) Obama was calling McCain old or b) Obama was baiting McCain into using the "POW card?" Couldn't it be a third option, such as Obama trying to make McCain seem out of touch (which could be construed as a remark on his age. Or elitism.)

all the above. Obama is trying to make the argument that McCain is out of touch (with the economy, even not up to speed on electronics), and essentially, as you mentioned, it's to say that McCain is an "elitist". But this ad has many layers.

It also attacks McCain directly based on his "age", and the obvious reason why Obama would do this is to appeal to the younger voters.....but this is where he made a big mistake. It seems to me that Obama already has the young vote kind of locked....what he needs to do more than ever, is appeal to the old voters, and instead, he did the opposite...alienate them, with this insulting ad on old people.

Third reason, which is my theory, is that Obama is provoking McCain to over-react so that he pulls another POW card, and judging from how McCain tends to over-react sometimes, perhaps the Obama staffers saw this as McCain's weakness...

Soon, even the "sexist" card will be overused, and I think McCain needs to just ignore the criticisms and realize that this is the kind of political environment that he and Palin will be dealing with, whether they like it or not. They need to expect the worse, and combat Obama, the media, and his linkage to the unpopular President Bush. Very tough political environment to be in, for a Republican, yet it's surprising to me why he manages to stay ahead in the race. I guess it's all about the Palin-effect.

In any case, Obama and McCain should be delegating the job of smear campaigning to proxies, not doing it themselves because it makes them seem childish.

Yeah, I agree. But there's still roughly 60 days left, and this will only get more intense. This is testament to how divided our country is, and how unique and important this election is for many people. It's definitely historic, and even though the political aspect of it all is ugly and disgusting, I guess it's far preferable that we duke it out peacefully, than we would otherwise, if this country was not a democracy (heck, we'd be in a civil war).

Regarding the Palin interview:

They cut out about 1043 out of 3070 words, so about 1/3. You could argue that it was to make Palin look stupid, but most of what they cut out dealt with the Georgia conflict. Given the fact that most news shows are limited to time, they could've cut out that section of the interview due to time constraints. Also, many of her longer diatribes were cut out probably because this is a "sound-byte" driven media.

I don't buy that argument. Yes, they need to edit things out, like they always do....but to cut out crucial parts of the interview? Even an idiot can read the full transcript, compare it with the final edit, and conclude that she's been made to appear stupid, a war-monger, and a religious extremist.

It's also funny how Gibson deliberately tried to mis-quote her regarding her speaking in a church and praying for the troops in Iraq (I mean, for godsakes, she's speaking in a church....what was she supposed to do!? not mention God?)

How does that make her a religious fanatic hell-bent on, what Gibson calls, a "Holy War"?

Fox News reveals how Gibson intentionally tried to mis-quote Sarah Palin's comments.

And then the part where Sarah Palin objected to Gibson's intentional mis-quote, that of course was edited out. Go figure.

Anyway, to misquote/mischaracterize someone, that's probably just as bad as plagiarism (probably worse, in my opinion)....when I write a paper, I make sure I don't mischaracterize the person I'm quoting.

So, without even knowing it, Gibson insulted a host of Christians probably watching that interview. I've lost respect for him...and I actually thought he was among the decent anchors.

As for the Bush Doctrine:
Krauthammer is right: there is more than one interpretation of the Bush Doctrine. None of which deal with Islamic extremists. According to the wikipedia article on the subject (which Krauthammer cites,) the Bush Doctrine deals with acting to protect the US and its interests even if it means acting preventively. As Krauthammer mentions, the article says he was the first to use the phrase. In February of 2001, well before the furor over Islamic extremism (he says it was in regard to the Kyoto Protocol.) Gibson's definition of the Bush Doctrine was pretty spot on. Krauthammer says that the doctrine now is solely about "spreading democracy," but that is but one of the four main points (including Preemption, Military Primacy, and New Multilateralism.)

Gibson's one-dimensional definition of the "Bush Doctrine", when in fact, most experts cannot agree on one single definition, and even his definition of it is out-dated....reveals hypocrisy. More than that, it shows his utter condescension and desperate attempt to destroy Palin on the spot......I don't recall him giving this kind of harsh interrogation when he interviewed Obama.


I mean, perhaps I can understand this tough questioning if Palin was running for the President, and that all the other candidates is getting roughly the same kind of harsh treatment by the media.

But that is hardly the case. Plus, she's only running for VP. I didn't know that it's more difficult to run as a VP than a President.

 

[manu]

I don't think anyone believes that she's running for VP. The Palin effect, how McCain can't draw the same sized crowds as Palin, why all the media and all of McCain's staff are making about Palin. Hell SNL hit it right on the mark, McCain would probably be behind the polls of Palin. We need to know who this lady is with people throwing out statistics from 1/6 chance of McCain's inability to finish his term to some predictions saying 1/3.

Other than that, Gibson's interview was a little hard to look at but not as childish as O'Reilly's Obama interview or ass kissing as Olbermann's.

Still wondering what anybody thinks about my remarks about Obama's alleged race card using. Was he or wasn't her right about republican's spreading hateful smears? Aren't republican's accusing Obama of sexism when their is ample evidence that its the supporters responsible for the hate on both sides of the party.

 

[miyi]

I don't think anyone believes that she's running for VP. The Palin effect, how McCain can't draw the same sized crowds as Palin, why all the media and all of McCain's staff are making about Palin. Hell SNL hit it right on the mark, McCain would probably be behind the polls of Palin. We need to know who this lady is with people throwing out statistics from 1/6 chance of McCain's inability to finish his term to some predictions saying 1/3.

Ok, so Palin is much more popular among the Republican base, she's a social conservative and appeals heavily towards the evangelicals. It's no secret that McCain isn't that popular with his base, heck, he's angered so many Republicans while he was Senator, hence they called him "maverick".

But I assure you, nobody watching the election closely, is confused at all what office she's running for....and that's for the VP.

Also, surprise surprise, McCain is old. He'd be the oldest Presidential candidate running for office, at 72....Ronald Reagan was 71 when he ran for reelection. So it's expected that Obama supporters will waste no time reminding everyone how old McCain is, that he's about to die very soon, that the chances of him not completing his "term" is higher than Obama......all speculation and all valid assumptions.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. McCain's mother is quite old, she's 90+, and she looks much healthier than other old people I know. McCain's father died in his mid-70's.

On the other hand, I've read somewhere that Obama's parents, both, died in their mid-40's.

How old is Obama now? mid-40's? So if we're in the business of speculating here, it'd be fair to include in our equation the biological aspect.

But in my opinion, I think all of this speculation is nonsense. What we must rely upon are the candidate's medical records, and from what I recall, both have openly released theirs in public, and what it shows is that both candidates are relatively healthy.

It makes Obama supporters seem as though they wish McCain would just get old and die. Keep harping on his "age" problem and surely you'll be perceived as doing exactly that.

Do so at your own peril. Independent voters, who'll likely decide this election, are already getting sick and tired of this negative politics.

Other than that, Gibson's interview was a little hard to look at but not as childish as O'Reilly's Obama interview or ass kissing as Olbermann's.

Yeah, I actually saw some parts (not all) of O'reilly's interview with Obama.

With O'reilly, you know what to expect. He'll be tough on Obama, unlike the other anchors (like Charles Gibson, or Katie Couric, et al), who only asks the "easy" and "gentle" questions.

But surprisingly though, I thought that despite O'reilly's conservative bias, he was more accommodating to Obama, minus all the condescension crap with Gibson staring down at Sarah Palin.

With the mainstream media, especially highly credible programs such as ABC News that presents itself as though they are "non-partisan", you expect a little better.....instead, Gibson revealed just how biased he is....he's as bad as the rest of the TV anchors on Fox News or MSNBC.

Still wondering what anybody thinks about my remarks about Obama's alleged race card using. Was he or wasn't her right about republican's spreading hateful smears? Aren't republican's accusing Obama of sexism when their is ample evidence that its the supporters responsible for the hate on both sides of the party.

I agree with you that it's most likely the "supporters" spreading the false "smear" rumors, but not coming directly from the candidates, or their staff, themselves.

But here again, let me quote, Obama when he accused Republicans for using race-baiting tactics in the campaign (emphasis mine):

It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy

[...]

We know what kind of campaign [Republicans are] going to run. [Republicans are] going to try to make you afraid.

[...]
[Republicans are] going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?

source: Reuters

Note that Obama kept attributing the "smears" to Republicans........not just the McCain campaign, but ALL Republicans.

According to Factcheck.org, these "smears" did not come from the McCain campaign, nor is there any evidence that it's a view shared by all Republicans, because these "rumors" was spawned by two anonymous emails.

Did I mention that these "rumors" started circulating way before the General Election? It started circulating during the "Primaries", when Obama was still campaigning against Hillary Clinton.

The fact that Obama would attribute these "smears" to an entire group of Republicans is offensive. He did this "twice", by the way.

And he claims to be post-partisan? Give me a break.

That's sort of analogous to McCain, hypothetically, if he had attributed the entire Democratic Party, to the 9/11 Conspiracy "Truth Movement" Theorists, simply because there are more Democrats, than Republicans, who had opposed the Iraq War.

Which I would then say, is absurd. In my family, all are Democrats (except me), but they certainly are not "Truthers".


Yes, it's the supporters who are spreading these "smears". To the extent that even the media are perpetuating those smears by writing stories about it.

So for McCain to accuse Democrats, or the Obama campaign, of using "sexist" tactics (i.e. the "lipstick on a pig" comment), is sort of equivalent to Obama attributing the entire Republican Party for using race-baiting tactics, just months ago.

I guess we can say, it's ALL EVEN now.