home

Obama on Letterman

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:55:00 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Sen. Barack Obama got in a little campaigning on the David Letterman show Wednesday night:

Ultimately what we’ve seen over the last week is a concession on the part of the McCain campaign that this election is going to be about change. You’ll recall, you know, for the last two years, we’ve been talking about needing to change how Washington works, how the country is managed and people were saying, ‘No, it’s about experience, experience, experience,’ and over the last week and a half I think they recognized that, no, the American people want something fundamentally different and for a good reason. Because when you travel, it doesn’t matter whether you’re here in New York City or a tiny hamlet somewhere in the Midwest, what you find is people are just having a tough time right now.

More...

The economy is not working for middle class families, incomes have gone down, people don’t have health care, you’ve got foreclosures all across the country, and so people want something different, and whoever makes the better case that we have had enough of the last eight years, we need something fundamentally new, whoever makes that case to the American people will be the next President.

The full transcript is here.

< Thursday Open Thread | Obama: Bill Clinton Will Campaign For Me >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama on Letterman | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I saw it (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:58:33 AM EST
    I thought it was a good appearance.

    You start to wonder if laughing off this stupid "lipstick" controversy just might work.  Perhaps people aren't as dumb as the GOP takes them for.

    Let's hope so (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by themomcat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:11:16 AM EST
    Republicans will use any sound bite they can to distract from the real issues. Obama needs to stay focused on what voters find relevant not trivia.


    [ Parent ]
    As a former Midwesterner, I'd like (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:19:44 AM EST
    to point out people who live there do not refer to the place they live as a "tiny hamlet."  Also, enough already about the "middle class."  How about the working class people who are striving to become middle class.  Finally, why can't/won't Obama emphasize what he proposes to do to fix the problems he specifies?  Seems like he should use the free media exposure to let everyone know his proposed solutions.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey, I'm in the Midwest, and I know a tiny (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:31:55 AM EST
    Hamlet.  Star of the school play.  Short guy.  Had to stand on a box behind the fake shrubs on stage.  But he sure could orate him some Shakespeare.  

    He was better than the tiny MacBeth, you betcha.:-)

    (Agreeing that most of us in the Midwest live in rather large "hamlets" we call metropolises of a million or more.  As for most of the rest of Midwesterners, they live in what we call, uh, "small towns.")

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:38:14 AM EST
    the reason the Democratic Party never shuts up about the "middle class" is that, when you take a poll, pretty much everyone ends up identifying themselves as middle class!  So it's like, 90% of the country thinks that this program you're proposing is going to help them.  I hope I'm not ruining the scam by giving it away.

    [ Parent ]
    "I sense the sap rising" (none / 0) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:30:00 AM EST
    is a quote of Adlai Stevenson, Jr. former Senator from Illinois, as he considered running for president in 1976.  Maple syrup is not an agricultural product in that state (which was pointed out to him by the media), but he waxed poetic, drawing on his travels to New England.  Guess, Illinois politicians, like to romanticize their state, turning corn into good syrup and small towns into hamlets.  Don't read too much into it, however.

    [ Parent ]
    Whatever, but the Obama team (4.40 / 10) (#13)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:09:00 AM EST
    Needs to get off bashing Palin. Biden said she's a step backwards for women. The SC Dem Chair said her primary qualification is she hasn't had an abortion. The Democratic Party Blog had that pig image TalkLeft had up the day before, as well as calling Palin a pig, Bob Beckels compared her to a pig earlier in the day, then Biden did it, Mo Dowd wrote about it the day before, but Obama, of course did not mean she was a pig cough

    The point is, all the bashing of Sarah Palin, I, as a woman, take personally. There's a reason for the 20% shift of white women to McCain. I'm a white woman, and I planned on voting for Obama. Now I don't know. I am seriously put off by woman bashing and the demeaning of Palin. She's more experienced than the guy who has barely put in a day at his job as Senator, period. So that doesn't wash. The rest seems like putting her down for being a woman. You wouldn't say about a man "wow, she's got 5 kids, me and Michelle can barely keep up with 2, I admire her for that" - that's sexist. It's insulting. You wouldn't say Obama is a step back for black people, even if you disagree with his politics. It's racist. You wouldn't have your first comment about a male politician be "he's attractive, he's good looking" as Biden did about Palin. It's SEXIST dammit. The Democratic party is supposed to be the one that gets it. I don't think they do. The more I hear of this crap the more I think about voting for McCain. And the 20% movement of white women to McCain shows I'm not alone. And my friends feel the same way, and I live in a gentrified area of a major metropolitan city (13th in size). I'm not small-town or rural. But I bet smalltown and rural women agree.

    Obama is going to lose the election unless he reins in his mouth and those of his subordinates.

    Just for the record, I don't believe he didn't mean Palin. If he didn't mean it and had no idea it would be taken that way, he's an idiot. He's stupid. And he's the only person who DIDN'T. Listen to the video. The audience sure got it.

    [ Parent ]

    After the election is over, what are we left with? (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by s5 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:32:12 AM EST
    After all the silliness from the campaigns is over, we're left with the policies and their consequences. So regardless of your gender and race, I think the most important thing for any voter to do is ask themselves, whose proposals will be better for me and better for the country?

    Remember, McCain was for sexism before he was against it. Let's not forget "How do we beat the b*ch?", his trollop / c*t comments about his own wife, and the fact that he left his first wife for the crime of not being pretty enough after a car accident. (Or for that matter, his own comments referring to Hillary's health plan as "lipstick on a pig".) Are we really expected to believe that his underlying attitudes about women have changed now that he's desperate to win an election? Can we really believe that he's suddenly seen the light and plans to promote policies that benefit women after decades of voting with the same Republican party that fights against every issue that Democratic leaning women deem important?

    If rising to the defense of Sarah Palin is really that important to you, then by all means, factor that into your voting. But after the election is over, if McCain becomes president, brace yourself for that sinking feeling.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't understand how (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by frankly0 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:39:26 AM EST
    people can not understand that the effect of a politician and a political party is NOT reducible to their "policies".

    In fact, for many people, those policies may often have virtually no personal impact, whereas other things -- such as the general cultural acceptance of negative attitudes toward who they are -- may have a very real impact.

    Take Roe v Wade. In fact, there are relatively few women who would be affected by its demise: the vast majority of women would continue to have full access to abortion (if they were of an age in which they might need it) because of the state in which they live. In the worst case, it would be only a few, typically quite poor, women who would not be able to get an abortion.

    Yet rampant, unabashed sexism might easily affect just about any woman in the country. It affects attitudes toward women at work, and attitudes toward them in their personal lives. It can affect them every single day, both in terms of the respect, or lack of it, they receive, and in terms of their economic well being.

    So which is more important, in fact, for most women? The policies, or the underlying attitudes? Given that the policies (such as those trying to ensure equal pay for equal work) might not even be necessary if the underlying attitudes weren't in place (women can be treated as economic inferiors), it's truly difficult to see how the policies should always trump the attitudes in importance.

    So when a politician essentially encourages, or does not fight against, the destructive attitudes, how and why can women support him?

    [ Parent ]

    Such B.S. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:38:49 AM EST
    His voting record is 100% in support of women.  He has a wife and 2 daughters that, by all accounts, he loves and respects.

    He doesn't laugh when someone says "How can we beat the b!tch".  He doesn't make jokes about gorillas raping women.  He doesn't make jokes about the appearance of other politician's daughters.

    How exactly will Sarah Palin represent you better than any man?  By trying to take away your right to choose?  By opposing equal pay proposals?

    I am utterly indifferent to Sarah Palin's gender.  Before she was picked I constantly attacked John McCain yet I was never accused of being a misogynist.  Now I attack both of them. Palin is a blank slate being used in a very low sort of way.  They want people to vote for McCain because of what Palin is, not what she believes in.

    [ Parent ]

    I read an AP link the other day (none / 0) (#91)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:18:39 PM EST
    about creationism and it included the statement that Palin has not implemented her beliefs in government policy. The author of the piece was Dan Joling.  She is accused of a few other things and frankly I am tired of guys trying to use this on women now because their hotshot is getting shot down. Look, the GOP is ruining this country financially.  We may be heading for a 20yr meltdown like Japan.  The overseas war engagements are draining our treasury and will soon be making beggars of us all if we don't get a Democrat in the WH.  And climate change is a danger that must be addressed 4 years ago. So Obama is a wise ass and we are not getting what we thought we were getting, but the alternative may soon destroy our nation.

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong (4.63 / 11) (#17)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:38:27 AM EST
    If Obama doesn't get it when he's demeaning and degrading women trying to get elected, I have no confidence he'll work for me when he is in office. I am a long time reader who registered because of what Steve is talking about above. I was GALLED by the comments, and I've been really ANGRY about the attacks on Palin's family and the personal attacks on her. Obama didn't call her a pig? Does he think women are stupid? I'm not stupid. In my office this week, EVERYONE, even the 2 black women we have working there, have been critical of Obama and his campaign and their slamming of Palin. It's got to the point where I don't know if I can vote for him or not. I'm on  the edge. One more stupid crack about Palin or her family that has nothing to do with the issues and I think I'll cross over. I'm not kidding, and if you think it's just conservative women you've got another think coming. Biden adn Obama and the Dems are making a mistake. That's why so many women left Obama this week and more will follow. It's got to stop. He thinks its funny. I was getting madder and madder seeing him laughing it up with Letterman. Yeah, real funny. Well he might not be laughing after the election. I am really on the edge about this, I coudl go either way.

    [ Parent ]
    Bingo (4.83 / 6) (#45)
    by lambert on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:09:24 AM EST
    "If Obama doesn't get it when he's demeaning and degrading women trying to get elected, I have no confidence he'll work for me when he is in office."

    I think it was a two-fer:

    Smearing Palin as a woman was part one. Jeralyn's image makes that perfectly clear -- why add glasses along with the lipstick if the whole episode wasn't about calling glasses-earing Palin a pig?

    And pivoting to the economy from, as Obama did elsewhere in the transcript, is part two, as Obama explains what he really meant.

    Which is all very well, since it is the economy, stupid. But that also leaves me to wonder whether he'll pivot on my back next, and based on the primaries, I'm guessing yes.


    [ Parent ]

    The media (4.00 / 1) (#51)
    by rooge04 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:21:25 AM EST
    and left blogs have smeared her woman-ness. Not Obama. He has actually done well on this front: attacking her as more of the same and not as a woman.  The lipstick joke was a stupid thing to say, but he was not being sexist when saying it.  

    [ Parent ]
    Personalities vs Policies (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:42:28 AM EST
    I don't believe his comments were sexist anymore than I believed WJC's fairy tale comment was racist. The Obama camp had no problem exploiting that. This is the problem that comes when you chose to campaign on personalities rather than policies. Both sides just rely on playing gotcha.

    Maybe they think the issues are too complex for the "little people" to understand? (That was a constant theme in regard to the FISA bill). I hope they're wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    The Obama campaign is a seamless garment (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by lambert on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:12:05 AM EST
    If Obama wants to claim this campaign on his resume as part of his executive experience, then he's responsible for Tier One and Tier Two, and Teir Two includes the so-called "left"* prog blogs and what they say and do.

    Recall, please, that when Obama told everyone to lay off Palin's family -- though apparently Carol Fowler, bless her heart, didn't get the message -- nothing happened. Only when Biden reinforced the message was there any effect, and the Palin attacks shifted from personal smears to scandals. I think that's because Tier Two know perfectly well that Obama's mild reproofs are just there to provide him with plausible deniability; which is why the real message had to come from Biden.

    NOTE * I say "so-called" because it's totally unclear to me how you can implement progressive policies on a basis of hatred for women.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay so (4.66 / 3) (#21)
    by s5 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:52:58 AM EST
    I get what you're saying, but I would ask, if you don't think that Obama would work for you, what makes you think McCain will? Even if you don't like Obama personally or don't trust that he'd be on your side, it's hard to deny that McCain would actively work against legislation that you'd probably like to see passed. And he would most certainly put conservatives on the Supreme Court, locking in a conservative majority for a generation. It's not about abortion, either, it's about an activist Supreme Court dismantling all the progress the country has made since the New Deal.

    Heck, if you're really that driven to a protest vote, maybe a third party vote should be on the menu. I hope you'll come back around to voting for the Democratic ticket, but if you don't, there are certainly far better options than McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    The way I look at it (none / 0) (#26)
    by s5 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:12:23 AM EST
    There are lots of people I like and get along with. People I can relate to personally, and feel like I have a connection with. But when it comes to politics, when I get talking with many of those same people, sometimes it's like I have no idea what planet they're living on. I only found out recently that a close friend of mine of over 10 years is completely racist (and not just subtle "you're not PC enough" racism, but racist in the "black people are lowering my property value, load them on a bus and get them out of here" way). Are we still friends? Of course. Would I vote for him for any public office? There's no way.

    Even though I follow politics pretty closely, I make a point of not watching speeches or listening to any scripted event. I didn't even watch any of the convention speeches for either party. Because I know all the staging and scripts are designed to manipulate people. In the end, I feel like it's better cut through all the crap and base your vote on whose proposals and ideas are the best fit with yours.

    I realize that gut feeling and personality matter way more to people and I know this is a fairly trite lecture, but consider this an appeal for taking a sober look at the policies of anyone you might vote for, not just in this election. I feel like it's so easy to get wrapped up in all the media garbage, that it's too easy to make a choice you might regret later. (I'm saying this as a former Nader voter, who deeply regrets my vote. heh.)

    [ Parent ]

    sigh, it's complicated. (none / 0) (#29)
    by s5 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:20:12 AM EST
    This wayyyy off-topic, but there's a bunch of us who have been trying to talk some sense into him. Everything changed after he had a kid. We have years of history, and sometimes it's hard to cut someone loose. Unfortunately his views have been getting weirder and weirder, so the "cutting loose" may be happening on its own.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#36)
    by jb64 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:21:06 AM EST
    Bye then

    [ Parent ]
    Good points (none / 0) (#22)
    by s5 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:58:02 AM EST
    Though the flip side of that is to do pretty much what you're asking, and ignore the ridiculousness of the campaigns and look at the issues. The policies I see McCain and Palin represent are light years away from what any Democrat would want. Once you put aside the personalities and the mudslinging, I don't see how McCain or Palin could represent a single thing that a Democratic voter would support.

    [ Parent ]
    Well all I can say is (none / 0) (#27)
    by s5 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:14:11 AM EST
    I hope you'll try and keep an open mind. There are still two months left, and there certainly have been no clean hands in this election.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't Need To Stop Bashing Palin (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by daring grace on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:06:18 AM EST
    Because neither Obama or Biden IS 'bashing' her.

    Check your quotes.

    "Asked by a local television reporter in Milwaukee, Wisconsin if electing Palin would be a step forward for women, Biden said, "Well look, I think the issue is what does Sarah Palin think? What does she believe?"

    ""I assume she thinks and agrees with the same policies that George Bush and John McCain think," Biden added. "And that's obviously a backward step for women.""

    See the distinction? Her POLICIES represent a step backward for women. And whether she's a woman, a mother or anything else, what Governor Palin is now is a candidate for VP (and potentially for POTUS) so her ideas, experience and record are all  open to scrutiny and questioning.

    Real Clear Politics

    And as for the lipstick/pig comment...that interpretation of a comment Senator Obama made which had no reference to Palin whatsoever is just a very bizarre one indeed, fodder for the Roveian nstincts of McCain's handlers but not much more.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (4.50 / 8) (#14)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:14:25 AM EST
    This is what I like to call "Fairytale Part 2."

    There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Gov. Palin.  You can criticize her ideology, you can criticize her experience.  But when you insist on doing it in a nasty and dismissive way, you alienate people that you really don't want or need to alienate.

    I honestly cannot remember the last time a Democrat said anything as horrible as what Carol Fowler said.  What is wrong with people?

    [ Parent ]

    Accident or essence? (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by lambert on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:14:26 AM EST
    Bug, or feature?

    Before the Obama took the nomination, I would have said accident. Based on the primaries, I say essence. Before, I would have said bug. Now -- at least far as the D leadership goes -- I say feature. Too bad.

    [ Parent ]

    It made me ashamed to be a Democrat (4.50 / 8) (#15)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:25:33 AM EST
    I cringed when I heard that, the same as I cringed when I read Obama's "pig" comment. Obama is NOT stupid. It's just inconceivable he would not see how that would play. I think he was being cute, trying to have it both way, get a sly dig in and at the same time have deniability. I saw him do that time and time again to Hillary Clinton. I'm facing the sad fact that I think Barack Obama has a serious problem with dealing with strong women, that he can't take criticism from women and he reacts in a very negative and hateful way to it. How can a woman justify voting for a guy who thinks women are beneath him? I feel like my eyes are being opened, after defending him for his cracks about Clinton over the past year. I've about had it. The pig comment was like the last straw, I'm thinking, why am I defending this guy? He doesn't deserve to be defended.

    [ Parent ]
    You have got to be kidding me! (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by wasabi on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:27:31 AM EST
    "McCain made his people shut up about Rev. Wright and you don't hear jack below the belt about Obama's race, because McCain won't have it."

    Have you seen his latest ad regarding "education"?  The one where Obama is seen looking down and smiling and the frame reads "Learning about Sex"?

    Please take a look at the video and then come back and tell me that John McCain never would incorporate race into the campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    I think the ad stinks, OK? (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by tootired on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:38:34 AM EST
    But do you mean that McCain can never run an ad with Obama in it because it's racist to show his picture? This attitude is what gets us two days of lipstick, pigs, and fish instead of real issues. "I'll see you one sexism attack and raise you one racist." Attack the ad because what it says is wrong. I don't think this ad is racist, but it's terrible on other merits. White guys smirk when the topic is sex, too. Try teaching teenagers about sex. There's enough post-racial smirking for everyone.

    [ Parent ]
    I confess (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:43:02 AM EST
    I am utterly unable to see the racial issue in that ad.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (none / 0) (#81)
    by wasabi on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:24:25 AM EST
    The ad is saying that Obama wants to teach your kids about sex before they even can read.  The next frame is Obama obviously looking down at someone smaller than he is with a grin on his face and the caption is "LEARNING ABOUT SEX" with the word SEX overemphazied in type.  

    No.  NO racial overtones there.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't see it. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by indy in sc on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:42:06 AM EST
    The ad is disgusting for plenty of other reasons.  Trying to add a racial component that is a stretch at best detracts from very legitimate criticisms of the ad.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:28:06 PM EST
    Thanks for trying to explain it to me, but I still don't see the racial issue.

    [ Parent ]
    But then again, (none / 0) (#90)
    by sj on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:47:28 PM EST
    I bet you didn't even think Hillary's RFK statement was racist, so what do you know?

    /wish it was snark...

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:26:33 PM EST
    but that ad isn't racist. It's mean and lots of other things but racist it isn't. It's focused on Obama's record or twisting Obama's record or whatever.

    [ Parent ]
    Well if you (3.50 / 4) (#32)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:17:01 AM EST
     cant bring yourself to vote for Obama, I would hope at least in terms of values that if your looking for a Woman you'd vote Green they have a female on Both the Top an Bottom of the ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree on two points (4.25 / 4) (#44)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:59:55 AM EST
    I did listen to the video clip of Obama on the lipstick on a pig.  Those words were immediately preceeded by Obama's rattling off McCain policies and he then went to say ....  My perception, no way was Obama referring to Palin.  No way.

    What I find really sexist is McCain choosing Palin. She was chosen BECAUSE she is a WOMAN and BECAUSE she is PRO-LIFE.  McCain sought to siphon off Hillary Clinton supporters as if women are fungibles.  Now that is real sexism.  

    [ Parent ]

    100% right (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:33:44 AM EST
    She is the new version of Clarence Thomas.  

    [ Parent ]
    I wish I could give you a higher rating (none / 0) (#43)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:55:24 AM EST
    Excellent comment.

    [ Parent ]
    Personally (none / 0) (#58)
    by thentro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:52:38 AM EST
    You need to re-check your definitive, "She's more experienced than the guy who has barely put in a day at his job as Senator, period."

    Looking at what she has proposed, what she has done, who she has around her she is a small potatoes Governor from a an oil and federally funded state. She has only given one national speech over and over that is packed with deliberate lies. She has not shown interest in federal governing, or policy in the exact same way George Bush made it sound like governing was easy.

    So if you want to be offended, be offended by that. I know I am.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly Steve (none / 0) (#65)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:31:54 AM EST
    When you take these sorts of attacks seriously, you give them credence.  

    That was why Kerry completely screwed up on the Swiftboats. First he ignored them and let them build a narrative.  Then he got offended and angry.  

    It's the same with personal relationships.  When someone is accused of something and goes completely ballistic about the accusation people tend to think that where there's there smoke there's fire.  When a person laughs it off and treats it as being something so silly it is amusing, people tend to agree.

    [ Parent ]

    I thought he was pretty good (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:32:21 AM EST
    I wasn't 100% with your second quote. As long as he was going to do a little campaigning, it would have been nice to get a little more contrast vs "whoever makes the case". But perhaps that's not PC on talk shows? (I have no clue about the bondries etc!)

    and then this at the end:


    Dave: "Now, tell me about the big lunch with Bill Clinton. Is that tomorrow or the next day?"

    Obama: "You know, I've got lunch with Bill Clinton, which I'm looking forward to.  There's nobody smarter in politics," (audience applauds) "and he is going to be, you know, he's going to be campaigning for us over the next eight weeks, which I'm thrilled by because, you know, the race that he ran in `92 is - it was similar to what's taking place now.  You had an economy that wasn't working for people, you had a party that had been in power that didn't seem particularly concerned that it wasn't working for people, but, you know, he was new.  He was young and people were still trying to figure out whether or not the guy was up to the job, and so, you know, I think giving - having him talk about, you know, why we need to change the economy in a fundamental way so it works for middle class families so that they can get ahead, so that they can send their kids to college, I think he can be a great advocate on behalf of the campaign."

    It sounded like he was comparing their situations, but then says it would be great if Bill could make the case on the economy.

    I think that's the 50+1% problem. Neither is breaking 50% for a reason. I think McCain is more willing at this point to talk about certain issues in some specifics. Obama sends people out for him. At the convention and a bit since, he seems to start going down that path, and then, distractions. I've said it before, he needs to trim some of the whine/mock fat from his stump. That is what is hitting the news every darn time. If he could get some passion and pull out some inner-democrat and go down that road, he might just break the 50%. McCain gave the fight rally cry at the end of his speech. Obama needs to do something to get his "fight for the people" across. That's not negative politics, or angry or whatever. Hillary did it without being negative. Once she got in that grove, people listened and cheered for solutions. Not McCain/Bush isn't enough of a solution these days. I'm going fix x,y,z isn't either. "I'm fired up and ready to go on the economy!" with some heat and solutions behind it might just work for him. It also starts pulling away from identity politics and could pull back some Palin voters. She may "look" like someone they can relate to, but Obama's laying out answers with a desire to fight for them (the people). Strike while the proverbial iron is hot  ;)

    "The Economy, Stupid!" (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by Mitch Guthman on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:34:09 AM EST
    Jeralyn, clearly we disagree very seriously about the focus being on Palin.  But this is exactly what I've been talking about.  Why is Obama talking about the lipstick thing when he should be in Macomb County Michigan raising holly hell about this?  The lipstick, the bridge to nowhere, "troopergate"---it's drowning out his message.  He shouldn't be talking about that crap.  He should get his ass down to Maccomb County right now and get angry about some bad stuff happening to somebody else, for a change.  Getting angry on somebody else's behalf can only help him in the empathy department (where he seems seriously challenged, especially compared to the Clintons).

    He's got to say why this is outrageous, why it's wrong, and he's got to explain how it ties in with the way that McCain's party has totally, disastrously mismanaged the economy.  He should surround himself with local people whose homes have been foreclosed on and who might be disenfranchised.  He should have a Democratic state legislator appear with him on stage, promising to introduce emergency legislation preventing these people from being victimized.  

    It's got everything: Pathos, logos, and ethos!

    Above all else, he should stop wining about Sarah Palin and lipstick and all that crap. He needs to start talking about the economy.  He should talk about how bad it is and how he, Barrack Obama, has a really good plan to fix it come January.  People should vote for him because he's going to fix the economy.  Then, next day, he should get up and talk some more about the economy and the day after that and every day until the election. He needs to make the case for why he should be president.

    If Obama asks real nice, maybe Bill Clinton will lend him the famous "The Economy, Stupid!" sign.  

    I totally agree (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:12:46 AM EST
    Stop the petty stupid attacks. 8yrs of Republican leadership has given the Dem's more ammo than you could use in 10 elections.

    Macomb is just the tip of the iceberg. What have the Dem's done in the states that now have voter ID requirements? They were problems even during the primaries. And don't even get me started on paperless machines! Dem's have had 8 yrs to fight to correct these shoddy voting practices. If they lose a third presidential election due to questionable fraud, I give up.

    [ Parent ]

    Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by lambert on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:18:45 AM EST
    "What have the Dem's done in the states that now have voter ID requirements?"

    Nothing.

    And you know why? Because those are often poor and old or female people, who are exactly the constituencies that Donna, Nancy, Harry, HoHo and Obama threw under the bus in the primaries.

    The Ds don't want them voting either, because they don't want them as part of the base. Simple.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh for pete's sake (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:27:43 AM EST
    Obama's talking about the lipstick thing because the McCain campaign decided to play culture warrior and feigned indignant outrage over their own created narrative of what Obama said.

    The McCain campaign is desperately trying to make Sarah Palin the issue.  They have absolutely no interest in discussing issues, and have admitted as much.  They are looking for sympathy by trying to portray the Obama campaign as mean people picking on a soccer mom.

    And instead of calling out the McCain campaign being called out for it, we have people such as you criticizing OBAMA because he responded to the smear.   Instead of recognizing that Obama WAS talking about the economy when he made the comment you accept the McCain narrative that Obama was secretly trying to call Sarah Palin a pig.

    [ Parent ]

    nice way to keep it going (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by AlSmith on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:42:28 AM EST

    keep it going for another day, great idea.

    The only plus here is maybe the 9/11 news will save him from himself.

    "    The economy is not working for middle class families, incomes have gone down, people don't have health care, you've got foreclosures all across the country, and so people want something different, and whoever makes the better case that we have had enough of the last eight years, we need something fundamentally new, whoever makes that case to the American people will be the next President."

    This is a fundamental reason why I wont bestir myself to vote for this ticket. We dont need something "fundamentally new"- we need something better. You need to explain your plan and say why it is better than the other guys. There are 99 ways that are new and probably 4 of them are better. At least respect the voter enough to expect them to want to know what you are going to do, not just that it will be soooo much more more different than any of the other candidates.

    Sheeesh.

    This is the bankruptcy of the message. Bush 3 = "not much change"; "I must be more change, therefor I win. "

    Bush 3 isnt going to work since the guy almost was Kerry's running mate.

    Bestir yourself....please:-) (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by PolSynth on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:42:29 AM EST
    No, Obama is not perfect. Sure, he could get his message across better. But if you don't bother to vote and put someone in the White House who actually cares about having each of us re-engage in service to our communities we may be faced with another eight years of deepening disillusionment and disaffection as we watch our country decimated by the Republicans.

    Are Obama's imperfections so odious that we should should just hold our noses and hand our country over to another set of the same people who got us where we are? How does sitting on the sidelines at this moment in history benefit your country and the country your children will inherit?

    In spite of his missteps the reality is that our only shot at rescuing some portion of our government's respect for civil liberties and the needs of working people is to put a Democrat in the White House.

    Your vote counts here. Each of our votes counts. Don't throw away my child's chance to grow up in a place where rights matter. Please, I beg you, vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Voting for FISA is not a misstep (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by lambert on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:19:27 AM EST
    So I think you can cross civil liberties off your list.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's FISA Swerve (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by daring grace on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:32:26 AM EST
    from his previous position is wrong.

    But his ACLU ratings--lifetime and for this session are good--especially compared to McCain's

    Obama:

    Lifetime: 82%
    110th Congress: 80%

    McCain:

    Lifetime: 22%
    110th Congress: 17%

    I'd rather Obama scored closer to 100%, but compared with the alternative, this is great.

    [ Parent ]

    Averages are deceptive (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by lambert on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:14:26 AM EST
    When it really, really counted, where was he?

    Retroactive immunity for the telcos destroys the rule of law. Without that, you don't have anything. So what do votes in the past matter, when votes in the present can undo all the good done back then?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm voting Obama, but it's frustrating that (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by jerry on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:05:15 AM EST
    he's discussing the foreclosure problem when his running mate's odious bankruptcy bill has been blamed for a good amount of why people are paying off credit cards and not mortgages.

    Still the economy (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Mitch Guthman on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:10:58 AM EST
    Oops! Sorry, my other post was supposed to go in the thread about the Macomb County thing.  But the point actually does apply here, too:  This was a perfect opportunity to talk about the economy and maybe even use what's happening in Macomb County as a way to humanize the broader questions about the economy.  He needed to talk about the credit crisis, much more passionately about the wave of foreclosures sweeping the nation, about job losses.  He needed to talk about how he had the best plan to fix the economy and about how he (and not McCain) was going to fight for ordinary people.  Fight to save their homes. Fight to save their jobs.   Fight to save their retirements.  Fight to save their kids' education and fight so their kids would not have to be the first generation of Americans since the great depression to experience a declining standard of living.  I don't know, maybe he could have just read selection of Paul Krugman's greatest hits.  

    But what was the point of this?  He was very charming but also very aloof about everything except himself.  Too much of the "rock star" thing.  He's already a "rock star" and he's moving down in the polls even so.   Being a rock star is not helping him to reach the people outside his personal fan club.  And, as the polls show, he still needs to show the people something.

    I mean, I got the impression that he was going to use his dinner with Bill Clinton to line him up to campaign on the economy because he (Obama) couldn't even be bothered to campaign on economic issues---like they bored him and distracted him from what's really important: Lipstick!

    So, to repeat myself yet again, Obama needs to borrow the "It's the economy, stupid!" sign from Bill Clinton.

    Recently (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:40:13 AM EST
    It occured to me that Obama in Sept. 08 is in a very similar place as Hillary in December 08.  Both had been "rock stars" and were being overshadowed by hot new things.  Both were on the defense.  Both were seen has having previous "sure things" not seem so sure.

    Hillary came back by "finding her voice" - which really meant that she listened to the problems of the people and started to fight on their behalf rather than stick to a script.  She developed better empathy skills (which she already had, I believe, she just got better at showing them).  Of course, she was still beset on all sides by a hostile media and antagonist party, but she grew in stature as she became better at relating to people.  It helped tremendously that she would get outraged on behalf of others, not just herself (and really not herself at all - one of her best moments was that "That hurts my feelings" exchange because it was said with humanity, humility and humor).

    Obama doesn't have near the disadvantages Hillary did.  He can turn this around by focusing on issues and the politics of contrast.  But he needs to "find his voice" - his reason for wanting to be president, his outrage for the common man.  I seriously don't know what drives him.  I mean "hope" "change" "service to communities" - that's all nice, but it's not enough.  He needs to find it and communicate it to people in a language they can relate to and in a manner that shows he cares.

    It's not enough for him to get angry when he's insulted - he needs to get angry at the way the Republicans have trashed our country.  And then he needs to show he can LISTEN, RELATE and PROPOSE a better, Democratic way.

    Can he do it?  I don't know.  

    [ Parent ]

    I've been thinking something similar... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:14:46 AM EST
    Bill Clinton had his moments when he was tested as a candidate in 1992. These tests, if one passes them, seem to bring a fundamental change to a candidate. Although it is scary because I really don't want to see McCain in the White House, I am coming to believe that this difficulty is necessary to strengthen Obama. As a politician, he has had things come too easily. I know some may disagree with me, but I believe that he won the primary election with a great big assist from the media and the DNC. Palin has neutralized one of his enablers (the media) and the DNC is powerless beyond the primary process. So here is a massive challenge. The one that Hillary supporters knew was coming in the GE, and the one we believed she was better equipped to overcome. But it is not her challenge. It is his. I'm pulling for him and I'm hoping that, as my boss always says, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

    [ Parent ]
    Is it possible (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by smott on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:25:20 AM EST
    ...that the extreme lack of detail re policy from Obama is because....well, he just doesn't like to study up? It's clearly a lot of hard work to keep on top of the various points and so on, and let's face it, he doesn't have much of that stuff drummed into him yet because his record is so light he hasn't actually worked on too much legislation in the Senate.

    I recall reading somewhere that he was worfully behind on the salient issues re health care at a UHC Senate committee meeting, just didn't have a clue. That's when I first got really worried about him and started looking more closely at his record.

    But listening to both Obama and Clinton on the stump prior to PA (my state) it was striking the difference in their command of the issues. He barely went there at all, and she was like a frickin' machine ticking off all the points in all her plans. She really knew her sh-t. Like Big Dawg except less gifted at speaking.

    I think issues are the only thing that can save Obama now, and I just don't know if he has much command of them.

    Oh brother (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:20:33 AM EST
    It gets tiring seeing people such as yourself saying the same false claims over and over again.

    NO POLITICIAN gives detailed expositions on their policy solutions in interviews or speeches.  You know why?  It's boring and most people find it too wonkish.

    If you want to know the specifics of his campaign then I suggest you go to his website and read the detailed proposals as laid forth.

    [ Parent ]

    he doesn't do it anywhere. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:56:27 AM EST
    There are forums where he can go into great detail.   Some forums he can be glib and superficial.

    you don't understand the difference between these forums clearly.

    [ Parent ]

    Which forums are you referring to? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:23:40 AM EST
    What issues do you not know his position on and which he doesn't have a policy for?

    [ Parent ]
    He does talk about the issues -- (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by rennies on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:42:54 PM EST
    a lot. Perhaps the problem comes back to the old character stuff: he doesn't seem to have any real emotional connection to issues.He does come across to me as cold and calculating. The only time I see Obama fired up is when he is defending himself against a perceived (or real) injury to himself. Which is why I believe he has no core values except his own ambition. That is the one of the reasons I can't vote for him (not McCain, ever, but Cynthia McKinney).

    And perhaps that's why he can't seem to get traction with voters (the gun toting, bible-loving folks), but manages with more cerebral people.

    [ Parent ]

    You must not be paying attention. (none / 0) (#89)
    by prose on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:42:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    DavId Letterman (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:02:24 AM EST
    did a effective interview job using self-effacing humor and understated knowledge of politics.  Senator Obama effectively combined campaigning, getting in salient points, and showing an attractive side to his personality.  This good performance relieved  anxiety regarding upcoming debates with McCain. The primary campaign debates showed that venue was not the best for him, but he did improve, thanks in no small measure to practice with an expert,  Senator Clinton.   It is evident that McCain is a dud in the speaking department, although he can hoof it, making mistakes with the good fortune of even whoppers going unnoticed by the media, or at least until long after and the impact is lost.  I hope Senator Obama will allow the videotapes of his Letterman appearance be his debate coach.

    Sadly (3.50 / 2) (#37)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:24:15 AM EST
    Too many of our allies already think we've gone over the deep end. They lost faith in us in 2004 when we reelected Bush. Most can't understand our preoccupation with religion in politics anyway, so Palin would probably just confirm the opinion they already have.

    I sincerely hope that Obama puts a top notch team together in the State Depart. We have years of rebuilding ahead of us.

    I checked out the link (3.50 / 2) (#46)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:12:42 AM EST
    Here is what I strongly disagree with:

    "I admit it: I do not agree with most of Palin's political beliefs...on many issues, Palin and I are on opposite sides of the fence...but I have done extensive research on her, and I have heard her speak, and I know that what Palin respects, above-all, is MY CHICK CHOICE TO CHOOSE WHAT IS BEST FOR MY LIFE."

    I assure you Palin does not respect your CHICK CHOICE TO CHOOSE WHAT IS BEST FOR YOUR LIFE.  

    Vote the issues, not the personalities.    

    Yes and if we'd hear jack (none / 0) (#56)
    by smott on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:45:50 AM EST
    About Obama's plans on the issues, maybe the campaign could move in the right direction.

    But let's spend another day playing D on lipstick, and pigs, and kindergarten sex ed, and...and...

    [ Parent ]

    He is having lunch with Bill Clinton tomorrow (none / 0) (#4)
    by Amiss on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:27:38 AM EST
    He was young and people were still trying to figure out whether or not the guy was up to the job," Obama said of Clinton. "And so I think having him talk about why we need to change the economy in a fundamental way so it works for middle-class families so that they can get ahead, so that they can send their kids to college, I think he'd be a great advocate to have on behalf of the campaign."

    LINK

    Lies? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:21:59 AM EST
    Really, in what way were the comment on Plain's ingorance willful or otherwise (she seems smart enough to know its real and human influenced but just to say its not because she needs to keep the oil flowing) in regards to global warming untrue?

    Heck how are any of the things listed lies?

    For one, Sarah Palin does believe (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Inky on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:45:10 AM EST
    in evolution. She has talked about how her dad was a science teacher who showed her fossils and taught her about evolution. She just also happens to believe in "intelligent design"--the helping hand of God, which, for better or worse, puts her in the mainstream of American opinion. Here, btw, is what she has had to say about the teaching of creationism in public schools:

    "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

    She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

    Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

    "I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

    Palin has occasionally discussed her lifelong Christian faith during the governor's race but said teaching creationism is nothing she has campaigned about or even given much thought to.

    Link


    [ Parent ]

    Believing in intelligent design doesnt mean (3.50 / 2) (#74)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:37:06 AM EST
    You dont believe in evolution. I believe in God and I believe God created the universe and everything in it. But i still believe in evolution, dinosaurs, cavemen, whatever.

    And I wouldn't say she's out of the mainstream:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
    Poll: Majority Reject Evolution
    51 Percent Believe God Created Humans
    (CBS) Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.

    You're the one out of the mainstream buddy.

    [ Parent ]

    ha (none / 0) (#76)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:40:06 AM EST
    Check the numbers on UFO visitation and Astrology. I guess we should "teach the controversy".

    [ Parent ]
    I'm a science teacher, and I (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by tootired on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:29:24 AM EST
    teach both of those topics. I save astrology for April 1st. I have a field day on Friday the 13th. You can't debunk something if you don't talk about it. When I teach the big bang theory, I tell the kids that since scientists don't know what came before that, I'll leave that to the philosophers- for now.

    [ Parent ]
    Reread my comment... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Inky on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:55:30 PM EST
    I just said that she DOES believe in intelligent design and that her views ARE within the mainstream.

    So don't attack me falsely and then call me buddy. OK, pal?

    [ Parent ]

    Oops! (none / 0) (#88)
    by Inky on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:57:59 PM EST
    I meant to say that I indicated before that she does believe in evolution (as well as intelligent design).

    [ Parent ]
    What "Should" _We_ Be Talking About? (none / 0) (#34)
    by PolSynth on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:38:21 AM EST
    It's interesting to note that so many of us, instead of focusing on the many central defining issues at stake in this election, seem more intent on dwelling on this one issue.

    Shouldn't we be actively steering the discourse to the range of topics that this country needs to address? How does this bitter bickering help us reach our goals?
    Can we please stop playing into the hands of people who are intent on dividing us?

    All of this is very old; divide and conquer. Get people so hell-bent on attacking each other that they lose sight of their common interests and we get to hold on to power.

    Let's not fall for this, people! We started this fight against Republican corruption and abuse of power because our country is at stake. Let's not give in to the fractiousness that will give them four more years to undermine this country.

    McCain and Palin have enough wrong in their policy positions to galvanize us in our shared desire to keep them out of office. For starters, McCain criticized the time wasted on the Bridge to Nowhere as being potentially one of the contributing factors to the bridge collapse not long ago. Palin was in support of the Bridge to Nowhere at that time (before the cost exceeded the mid $200 million mark). So how can his campaign claim that she fights earmarks?

    McCain personally expressed doubts regarding the surge's likely effectiveness, yet now he claims credit for it as if he was always confident.

    McCain said he doesn't know much about the economy, yet now he claims he's got deep experience in economic matters.

    McCain has sunk so low as to state that it's permissible for the CIA to waterboard and perform other forms of torture after explicitly stating that waterboarding is torture. So, after making a strong argument regarding the likelihood that our troops would be put in harm's way if we tortured people, he turns around and let's it happen.

    Palin is on record with her opinion that Polar Bears do not deserve to receive special protection because their numbers have increased. She's also on record disputing the contribution of human actions to Global Warming, in contradiction of the general (not universal) consensus in the community of scientists who study this problem.

    So we have a denier of torture, a denier of science and a campaign doing its best to divide the electorate along cultural and gender lines.

    Anyone care to talk about any of these issues?

    More to the point (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:26:42 AM EST
    Can Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    What "should" we be talking about? (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by smott on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:46:54 AM EST
    IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID
    -J. Carville

    [ Parent ]
    I hate to introduce facts into any discussion (none / 0) (#40)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:44:47 AM EST
    of demographics, but here's a link to David Frum's rundown on changing party demographics:

    The Vanishing Republican Voter

    By DAVID FRUM, The New York Times, September 5, 2008

    (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07Inequality-t.html)

    Without reading the piece. . . (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:51:15 AM EST
    I would say if you want facts, don't consult David Frum.  He's a propagandist first, last, and always.  If the facts, by coincidence, fit his message he's not below using them but if they don't he'll simply concoct a new set of facts.

    [ Parent ]
    Anti-Abortion activists tend not to be (none / 0) (#59)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:55:12 AM EST
    liberal imho.  

    These snarky one-liners (none / 0) (#77)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:42:46 AM EST
    are the sort of thing that Jeralyn has cautioned against.

    Some Ruminations (none / 0) (#92)
    by WakeLtd on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:03:50 PM EST
    Matt Damon reads a parody site of alleged Sarah Palin "quotes" that was even titled "Fake Sarah Palin Quotes", and then goes on to ask, "Can Sarah Palin explain why she thinks dinosuars existed 4,000 years ago...." And this made the news.

    Eyeglass companies are reportedly being swamped with requests from women with orders for the style of glasses worn by Sarah Palin. Could this be an "under-the-radar" sort of cultural marker indicating how a democraphic (women) will vote? I don't know...

    Charlie Gibson is asking Sarah Palin to explain what the US commitment to NATO is,  in the hypothetical situation that Russia invades a NATO member. Wouldn't this question have been reasonably asked of the two men at the top of the ticket? And when is a treaty not a treaty?

    In all the attention about Sarah Palin, has anyone else noticed that the Obama Team has not laid a glove on McCain (you remember him, he is the one running for President)? "Phony outrage" or not, the past week has given one candidate a chance to look Presidential and the other candidate the opportunity to discuss...lipstick?

     

    Napoleon I think it was (none / 0) (#93)
    by WakeLtd on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:28:11 PM EST
    Asked an astronomer (LaPlace)  "where God fit into his plan" (rough paraphrase).

    The answer was along the lines of, "I did not have need for that hypothesis". That's sort of how I feel about it, but I don't make a religion out of it either.

    Obama on Letterman | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment