home

Saturday Evening Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:49:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I survived the McCain/Palin campaign event in Colorado Springs. While I'm writing up an article about it for Salon, here's an open thread for you.

I'm humming, With G-d on our side.

What else is going on today?

This is an open thread.

< Palin Criticized From the Right Before Criticism Was Withdrawn | Obama's Palin Plan >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saturday Evening Open Thread | 198 comments (198 topical)
    Survived Tropical Storm Hannah (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:24:34 PM EST
    Well, that sounds a little dramatic, but TS Hannah washed out a  Saturday plan of taking part in a mini-beach volleyball tourny organized by some colleagues. It's now moved up north into the New York area. I shouldn't really complain because Hannah devastated Haiti and claimed some lives there.

    Hurricane Ike has now picked up strength as a Cat. 4 and is headed towards Key West and the Gulf Coast. Those folks just cannot get a break.

    And Josephine, another weather depression, has formed and picked up strength in the lower Atlantic. This is a really busy storm season.

    Hannah brought much needed rain to NJ, but in (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jawbone on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:12:01 PM EST
    Haiti it brought severe flooding and now people are suffering on rooftops with no foor or water. Gustav apparently did tremendous damage in the parts of Cuba that it struck, tearing off roofs and damaging the electrical infrastructure.

    Independent article. Via The Agonist.org News section.

    Parent

    It's starting to break up here. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:07:51 PM EST
    I heard on the news it was moving through the area quicker than expected, which is good! My kitchen started leaking, so mid-week or so after it dries out, roof/ceiling detail for me :p Oh well, better to know now than when I have a couple feet of snow melting, lol!~

    Parent
    We've gotten about 3 inches of rain (none / 0) (#135)
    by Mshepnj on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:05:03 PM EST
    from Hanna so far here in Somerset County. The Weather Channel guy said we could get up to 5 inches. Our basement has about 1.5 inch of water in it.

    It was worse during Floyd, I think, but we haven't left the house, so I don't know that for sure.

    Like you said, this is really nothing compared to what the folks in the Caribbean are suffering.

    Parent

    Mshepnj...another Somerset county person here..:-) (none / 0) (#185)
    by vml68 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:47:02 PM EST


    Parent
    JimWash...always enjoy your posts... (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:08:46 PM EST
    better put an email address in your info so we can check on ya, just in case :)

    Parent
    Aww, thanks. Back at'cha! :) (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:42:06 PM EST
    E-mail? Done.

    Parent
    glad it wasn't worse (none / 0) (#9)
    by bjorn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:25:53 PM EST
    I hope something breaks up Ike!

    Parent
    Not going to happen. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Fabian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:48:17 PM EST
    It's the northerly path that puts storms at risk from wind shear.  Storms that stay south run a much safer path.

    Sorry.  I wish I had better news.

    Parent

    Ike's current path looks real bad for Cuba (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by BrianJ on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:12:34 PM EST
    Which will cause it to get a little weaker.  Right before it hits Louisiana as about a Category 3 next weekend, extrapolating for the NHC forecasts

    NOT AGAIN...

    Parent

    On the gulf coast of Florida (none / 0) (#205)
    by Amiss on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:28:11 AM EST
    We still have homes flooded by Faye, doesnt seem that anything is being done about it either. Maybe if Ike heads this way, those folks can get the help they need. Hoping selfishly that Ike will brush the Keys and head to the Mexican peninsula. It would be truly devastating for it to turn Northerly after it comes into the Gulf.

    I always pray for those in South Fla and the Keys. Those Conchs are tough tho.

    Parent

    Please don't Barack! (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by nell on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:31:56 PM EST
    I saw these comments earlier, but I thought maybe the McCain camp hadn't noticed since they hadn't said anything about it. But alas, they did hear about them.

    Barack said:

    "I know that I'm not your typical presidential candidate," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told executives and employees of the Schott glass company Friday afternoon, "and I just want to be honest with you. I know that."

    "And I know that the temptation is to say, `You know what? ...The guy hasn't been there that long in Washington.,' You know, `he's got funny name,' You know, `we're not sure about him,'" Obama continued. "And that's what the Republicans, when they say, `This isn't about issues, it's about personalities,' what they're really saying is, `We're going to try to scare people about Barack. So we're going to say that you know, maybe he's got Muslim connections or we're going to say that, you know, he hangs out with radicals or he's not patriotic.'

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-says-mcca.html

    And, according to Mark Halperin, Rick Davis of the McCain campaign has called him out on this race-baiting again. I do not know why the Obama camp does not understand that this DOES NOT HELP HIM. It just makes people feel irritated that he is playing the race card again! The only thing I could think of, given the way it blew up in Obama's face a few weeks ago, is that he did it knowing that the McCain campaign would respond, and the media would likely cover this, so it would get the focus off Palin?

    NEVER raise questions (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Fabian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:37:57 PM EST
    that you are NOT prepared to deal with!

    So, yes he needs to shut up unless he's going to deal with those issues right then and there.  No "muslim", no "radical".

    Just "I'm Barack Obama and here is what I plan on doing for the American people.".

    Can I keep on hammering home that Obama needs to Own The Issues and define himself in a Strong, Positive manner?

    Parent

    Thanks for your concern (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by nalo on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:45:58 PM EST
    Once Sarah Palin repudiates and leaves her church, and explains herself on why she thinks we are in a holy war in Iraq, get back to me.

    Parent
    What are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:58:01 PM EST
    What about Palin's church?
    And when did she say that about the "holy war?"

    Please post some quotes and links 'cos that just sounds
    without any context and facts. Thanks.

    Parent

    Here ya go... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:07:42 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/palinpastorproblem

    Relevant Quote: Kroon placed Zephaniah in a modern context, warning that the sinful habits of Americans would invite the wrath of God. "And if Zephaniah were here today," Kroon bellowed, "he'd be saying, `Listen, [God] is gonna deal with all the inhabitants of the earth. He is gonna strike out His hand against, yes, Wasilla; and Alaska; and the United States of America. There's no exceptions here -- there's none. It's all.'"

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#42)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:11:32 PM EST
    this

    Palin's presence at Wasilla Bible Church has not been confirmed for the days Kroon warned of God "striking out his hand against... the United States of America" and "rais[ing] up" an alliance of nations to ruin America.

    contrasted against

    You can choose your pastor

    So my question is - what do people who spent months defeding Rev Wright on DailyKos and TPM say now? And what do Hillary supporters who spent months hounding Obama over Wright say now?

    Parent

    I say... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:22:02 PM EST
    ... Let Palin comment on it (like Obama did).

    ... Let the press Question her on it (like they did for Obama).

    Oh... that's right. She's not speaking to the press.

    Oops.

    Parent

    That wasn't my question (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:26:04 PM EST
    at all.

    But I wonder if she's planning to make a major speech on something

    Parent

    The Jews for Jesus thing (none / 0) (#59)
    by nalo on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:24:57 PM EST
    is big.  Her attendance is confirmed and she needs to explain herself.  Of course, no one's pored over every sermon she's attended yet either.

    Here's Sarah Palin talking about sending her son to Iraq:

    "our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God, that's what we have to pray for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
     

    Parent
    Uprated (none / 0) (#149)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:17:44 PM EST
    for unnecessary and unexplained troll rate.

    Parent
    "Holy war" -- not (none / 0) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:08:37 PM EST
    nytimes

    Parent
    Wait, so I'm voting AGAINST Palin... (4.66 / 6) (#47)
    by lambert on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:15:36 PM EST
    ... instead of FOR Obama?

    This is really confusing.

    Parent

    Seems that way, but (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by YesVirginiaThereIsASanta on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:35:09 PM EST
    this time the Democrats gave us a candidate who they were POSITIVE would sweep this election without the slightest problem.


    Parent
    i'm so old i remember when kerry (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by sancho on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:54:47 PM EST
    was electable.

    Parent
    I'm so old I remember (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by tootired on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:11:28 PM EST
    when McGovern was electable. (Couldn't help responding 8^)

    Parent
    Virginia- if you read a lot of the blogs (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by kenosharick on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:07:02 PM EST
    even this one, there are MANY of his diehards who still think they are sweeping this election and that they will win in a 49 state blowout! If you try to explain that this will be a close election, they stick their fingers in their ears and cry "LA,LA,LA,LA"

    Parent
    I'm guessing (2.67 / 3) (#53)
    by nalo on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:19:54 PM EST
    that you're voting FOR McCain.

    Parent
    it is not just that (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:58:39 PM EST
    He keeps repeating the same mantra!!  I think everyone has heard this before. It is boring!!  He needs new lines.  

    Parent
    I said this before (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:37:29 PM EST
    Stupid of him to do this again- especially in PA.  Guess what?  LOTS of people there have "funny names" - lots of Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Slavs - they all have "funny names".

    He has not been successful with this theme the last 2 times he tried it - why is he trotting it out again?

    McCain is not Hillary.  He has no reason to bite his tongue.  He has the freedom that Hillary did not have during the primaries to call Obama on this, and he will not hesitate to do so (again).

    Does Axelrod think the third time is a charm?

    Parent

    He's tried it more than twice (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:00:21 PM EST
    it may have been conceived during the primaries. It just doesn't always make it as the snippet on the MSM or some other hype overshadows it

    Parent
    If he thinks his "funny name" is (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by esmense on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:49:49 PM EST
    a problem he would do better to approach it in a positive way. As you point out, lots of Americans have "funny" names, and, like Obama, fathers or mothers or both fathers and mothers or grand parents from foreign lands. Many have experienced distrust of their faith because of distrust of their names, appearance and ethnicity. If he could talk about his "foreigness" in this context it wouldn't be so foreign. The immigrant experienced is the American experience. The fact is, in the most essential ways there's nothing all that odd, or all that unique, about Obama and his story, really. He is just one of many variations of the American melting pot. And he should stress that.

    He keeps presenting this in a negative way perhaps because is looking at things from the wrong end of the telescope. He sees the problem as one in which ethnic and other working people won't be able to relate to him -- will see him as too foreign and exotic. But it may just be that he can't relate to them -- can't access this commonality, can't relate his story in a way that relates to theirs, because to him they appear too different (from him), too exotic -- and even too threatening. Or, it may be that in recognizing what he has in common with others, he loses the sense of himself as someone rare and special.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#179)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:31:45 PM EST
    I think he's anticipating some howard ford style commericals, which isnt farfetched.

    A GOP congressmen did just call Obama and his wife "uppity" so I really wouldnt be shocked by some dodgy stuff.

    I think there is much more mileage in some of McCains comments like "I voted with Bush 90& of the time", followed with, "the country is worse off..".  That's a killer combination.

    Parent

    Take note. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by lentinel on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:34:56 PM EST
    Everything here today (and on CrooksandLiars) is about Palin or McCain.

    There is not much we can say about Obama.

    His last jaw-dropper was on O'Reilly's program - where he proclaimed that the "surge" was a success "beyond our wildest dreams".

    He is accumulating so much depressing baggage that he does not seem to be even worth talking about.

    Out of Context... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:18:00 PM EST
    He said it was successful beyond our wildest dreams in terms of reducing violence..

    BUT...

    He also said that the surge hasn't succeeded in terms of making the Iraqis responsible enough for their own security so it hasn't accomplished ALL of the goals of the "surge".

    Parent

    Actually, this is what he said (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:33:09 PM EST
    "I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated," Obama told O'Reilly of President Bush's decision last year to increase troop levels. "It's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

    I can't say for sure, but I'm going to guess that someone may argue that he anticipated how the surge would have succeeded....Can't think of who that might be right now......something tells me it might end up in a commercial though.

    Parent

    I'm quite confident that Obama could (5.00 / 18) (#75)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:46:20 PM EST
    have put his fingers in his ears and made raspberry noises while hopping up and down on one foot and flapping his elbows and there would be people only too happy to explain it in a way that cast Obama as beyond brilliant.

    Part of the problem with "support the ticket or be vaporized" is that it inhibits constructive criticism and encourages groupthink.  

    And I agree that what Obama said about the surge will be seen in commercials - for McCain.

    Parent

    If I Could Give You A "10" (5.00 / 7) (#87)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:05:04 PM EST
    I would. Especially for this:
    Part of the problem with "support the ticket or be vaporized" is that it inhibits constructive criticism and encourages groupthink.



    Parent
    I just got a legit post (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by fercryinoutloud on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:34:35 PM EST
    deleted in this thread. It spoke of Obama's playing the race card in the last few days and was responding to a post that quoted him playing the race card. That post was not deleted and neither were other similar post were not deleted. The censorship is disturbing.

    Parent
    I'm sorry, Anne, but that is nonsense. (2.25 / 4) (#184)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:45:31 PM EST
    Part of the problem with "support the ticket or be vaporized" is that it inhibits constructive criticism and encourages groupthink.

    Now come on. No one has suggested even mild corporal punishment -- much less the totally hyperbolic "vaporization" -- for Democrats who don't support the ticket. There is only one thing we who do support Obama/Biden can possibly 'threaten' you with. That is the knowledge that if you and people like you don't support our ticket, our ticket is less likely to win.

    -----

    Anne, I don't know you, nor have I bothered to research your earlier posts. But if you think your post above constitutes anything remotely like "constructive criticism," you are mistaken.

    I take it from your post that you do not favor the Obama/Biden ticket. Do you really prefer McCain/Palin? If so, that's fine by me; but it's a bit dishonest to pretend you are interested in constructive criticism. (And you're supposed to be limited to four posts per day here, but who's counting?)

    The other possibility I can see is that, like the prototypical Nader voter in 2000, you think the major candidates' differences -- on the economy, on the war, on health care, on choice -- are insignificant. Do you really believe that? Cause I don't.

    I don't care about groupthink. I know different people are going to vote for and against the Democratic ticket, for a wide variety of reasons, some more reasonable than others.

    I DO want to encourage people -- especially people on the fence -- that they should vote Democratic. Anne, if that goal strikes you as unpalatably totalitarian, then until Nov. 2, you might want to find another web site more to your taste.

    Parent

    You really should go back and read Anne's (5.00 / 5) (#189)
    by tree on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:54:39 PM EST
    comments over the last few months. They have been cogent and constructive criticisms. If you really want to know where she's coming from, so to speak, I recommend reading her past comments rather than just making wild assumptions about what her views are.

    If you are discouraging those who don't agree with your viewpoint from posting here, then you are encouraging groupthink, whether you realize it or not.

    Parent

    In your haste to chastise me for (5.00 / 9) (#191)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:00:48 PM EST
    any number of things which you created out of thin air, you completely missed the point.

    With the kind of encouragement you bring to the table, and the accompanying condescending attitude, I wouldn't count on convincing too many people to see things your way.

    I will give you a little hint about the comment you took issue with: "vaporized" was in reference to the disappearance of many commenters who used to post thoughtful and reasoned arguments here.

    And for the record, this will be the third comment I have posted today, assuming I get in in before midnight, so counting doesn't appear to be among you strong suits, either.

    Parent

    commenters disappear (5.00 / 4) (#200)
    by S on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:31:29 PM EST
    Anne, there seem to be fewer and fewer places for opinions that are not completely on board with the obama talking points...

    I know I have read you here and elsewhere and it is getting very precarious for independent thinkers these days...that does not sound like a progressive atmosphere to me...

    do not let anyone discourage you...

    Parent

    Sorry if I offended you, Anne. (3.50 / 2) (#203)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:38:07 PM EST
    I concluded, and said in so many words, that I think you are a McCain/Palin supporter. You certainly didn't deny that; do you deny it now?

    You are pretty unspecific about what exactly I said that rose to the level of 'chastising' you, or what all were the things I "created out of thin air".

    My tone, I confess, sometimes does come across as condescending. That was constructive criticism, though of course I'm unhappy to hear it. Thank you for that.

    If you're saying that you don't enjoy having your posts 'vaporized', I understand you completely, and I sympathize. I have seen my own posts disappear -- it's frustrating, isn't it? I am regularly on thin ice myself, especially with BTD. Please understand, I have no power to vaporize your posts, and no real desire to do so.

    I do know how to count posts -- I explicitly said that I didn't research your past posts. Your parting dig was, forgive me for saying so, a bit of a cheap shot.

    Parent

    Ironic (1.50 / 4) (#80)
    by nalo on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:53:31 PM EST
    You just described the mirror of yourself.  Did you actually watch the interview, or just read spun account foxnews.com (or somewhere else)?

    Parent
    Do you know me? (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:06:07 PM EST
    I think not.

    The point of my comment was that there are a number of people here who, no matter what Obama says, find a way to spin it to his advantage, even if they have to dislocate logic's arms to do so.

    I watched the interview, thank you; I am not in the habit of talking out my a$$, which is more than I can say for you.  Clearly.

    Parent

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#94)
    by nalo on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:09:34 PM EST
    I said the exact thing that you said.  You made the exact same assumptions about me.

    Parent
    Not that I care about ratings,.. (none / 0) (#92)
    by nalo on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:07:47 PM EST
    But JAB, why did you give Anne a 5 and me a 1 for making the exact same comment?

    Parent
    Not that it matters (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:31:09 PM EST
    But Anne made a valid point - a feeling which many share, but your comment seemed to be accusing her of being dumb and not knowing what she was talking about. I apologize if that was not your intent.

    Parent
    I was simply (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by nalo on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:37:04 PM EST
    asking here if she had read the spun foxnews.com article which gives the impression that you are proposing.

    or seen the video (she answered that she had seen the video).

    For many people the video doesn't give the same impression.

    Here are one example from Time:

    O'Reilly led him through questions on Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq, occasionally bickering with Obama ("You're not going to send ground troops [into Pakistan], and you know it!") or making a pronouncement without asking a question. Obama pressed his case that the war in Iraq had misdirected America's resources, saying that the surge had worked "beyond our wildest dreams" but placing that in the context of the cost of the preceding five years of the war and reminding O'Reilly that the Iraqis have not yet stepped up to self-governance. (And, in what was probably an intentional dig at McCain, making the point that he knew the distinction between Sunni and Shi'a.)

    If you have seen the video and think that the foxnews.com article is not a spin, then I guess we have a disagreement.  But, in making my case I was equally rude to Anne as she was to me.

    Parent

    He also said... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:04:44 PM EST

    O'REILLY: You and Joe Biden, no surge.

    OBAMA: Hold on a second, Bill. If you look at the debate that was taking place, we had gone through five years of mismanagement of this war that I thought was disastrous. And the president wanted to double down and continue on an open-ended policy that did not create the kinds of pressure on the Iraqis to take responsibility and reconcile.

    O'REILLY: But it worked. It worked. Come on.

    OBAMA: Bill, what I've said is -- I've already said it succeed beyond our wildest dreams.

    O'REILLY: Why can't you say, "I was right in the beginning, and I was wrong about the surge"?

    OBAMA: Because there's an underlying problem where what have we done. We have reduced the violence.

    O'REILLY: Yes.

    OBAMA: But the Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility, and we still don't have the kind of political reconciliation. We are still spending, Bill, $10 to $12 billion a month.

    Parent

    Yup and that is exactly why (none / 0) (#113)
    by Fabian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:40:55 PM EST
    we will leave, plus the whole destroying the military thing.  Very bad for national defense, don't you know.

    We are still spending, Bill, $10 to $12 billion a month.


    Parent
    John McCain's a Republican (none / 0) (#78)
    by nalo on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:51:06 PM EST
    He's going to take things out of context no matter what.

    The people who watch the interview (and O'Reilly) know what Obama said.

    Parent

    Of course they are (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:56:21 PM EST
    Just like those who take McCain's definition of someone who is rich to be those making $5 million or more.

    Their politicians.

    But, the point was that Obama keeps giving them ammo to use on him and then complains when they actually use it. He's never had that before in his Chicago-style campaigns.

    Parent

    Rather (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:56:49 PM EST
    they're politicians.

    Parent
    Ha, yeah (none / 0) (#84)
    by nalo on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:59:47 PM EST
    John McCain's never complained that one of his quotes was taken out of context.  What about how he spun 100 years in -2 years and even sort of supporting a timetable? All because the mean Democrats were taking his quotes of context...

    Parent
    I'm not defending McCain (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:06:10 PM EST
    But for some reason, people seem to think that when Obama speaks, it is all truth and goodness, until he has to clarify it several times (hence the acronym, WORM - what Obama really meant) - but everytime McCain speaks and isn't clear, or is taken out of context (such as the the latest where he said at a rally that Palin sold the Alaska jet on ebay for a profit), we are supposed to take it at face value and jump all over him.

    Hypocrisy is thy name.

    In this case however, Obama was not speaking at a campaign rally or press conference giving off the cuff answers (at least I hope not).  He knew he was going to be interviewed by Bill O'Reilly (one of the few media talking heads not friendly to him), and he had to know this kind of question was going to come up. So giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to guess that he prepared for this answer in some way, which means that this was clearly a bone-headed answer.

    Obama has shown time and again that he doesn't do off-the-cuff very well.  Not a criticism - just a fact.  It's not one of his talents.  It just means he should prepare harder.

    But this one was a big oopsy and I predict will come back to bite him in the form of a commerical.

    Parent

    Obama doesn't complain (1.00 / 1) (#96)
    by nalo on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:14:40 PM EST
    half as much as McCain.  But you implied that he complains more and John McCain doesn't complain  Obama completely accepted the blame for entire the bittergate flap and never once has complained that his comments were taken out of context.

    By contrast, John McCain's answer for everything (including his (100 year gaffe) is to say...I was a POW but I don't really like to talk about it.

    The $5 million quote was legitimate to use against because when specifically asked and pressed for an exact number, John McCain refused to give a number, and tried to joke his way out of it...  

    Parent

    Obama doesn't complain? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:28:04 PM EST
    Ok, I guess we'll agree that we have been watching two different election seasons, because the word I was going to use was "whine", but I thought I would be too harsh.

    Parent
    Sorry, my title ran into the text (1.00 / 1) (#125)
    by nalo on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:51:08 PM EST
    I did not mean to imply that Obama doesn't complain at all, but that he roughly half as much as McCain.

    For evidence, I used the two biggest gaffes which have been attached to each.

    1. Bitter - Obama was trying the make the 'What's the Matter with Kansas argument' was surreptitiously taped and taken out of context.  He explained and clarified his comments but never complained for his opponent to stop using his quote out of context.

    2. 100 years - John McCain was trying to be military tough and said that he would stay in Iraq as long as needed, even 100 years with no timetable.  He regularly complained that his opponents should stop using his quote out of context.  


    Parent
    Hadn't heard of WORM (1.00 / 1) (#102)
    by nalo on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:27:31 PM EST
    before, I guess that's kind of funny :)))

    Fact of the matter is....Obama is professorial and a slow, deep thinker.  He changes his mind, and makes compromise decisions.     Obama is the opposite type of thinker as McCain (or Bush) who make quick judgments (that are often impulsively wrong, in my opinion.

    If this causes you to switch your vote to McCain that's your prerogative.  I doubt that Obama will ever change his style.  Just keep in mind that many people are also voting for Obama for the opposite reason as you.

    Parent

    Oh good g*d! (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by kredwyn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:21:58 PM EST
    I'm a professor (and I've been one for a heck of a lot longer than Obama)...and believe me, a number of us professors are not that slow moving or that slow in deliberation in spite of our deep thinking capabilities.

    I liked Kerry...but the meme of his slow "deliberative" thoughtfulness used to drive me nuts...particularly when mixed with his inability to formulate a clear message.

    Parent

    Actually, the 100 year comment (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Radix on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:02:13 PM EST
    Was widely misrepresented.

    Parent
    The entire quote was clipped (none / 0) (#172)
    by wasabi on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:06:39 PM EST
    I saw the long version Obama gave when talking to O'Reiley and ther is more to the quote.  However I did see FOX broadcast the shortened clip makiing it appear that he just agree that "the surge was succesfull beyond our wildest dreams".  Suprise, suprise that, eh?

    Parent
    Hello (none / 0) (#51)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:18:40 PM EST
    Anbar??

    Parent
    He pointed up the fact (none / 0) (#62)
    by TomStewart on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:29:39 PM EST
    that the 'surge' was supposed to give the Iraqis room to get their political house in order. That didn't happen. The 'surge' can only be counted as a partial success, and that was achieved by a ceasefire with the insurgents and by paying off a bunch of them.

    I wonder, do those who supported the 'surge' be called in'surge'nts?

    Parent

    Thank you. I knew that earlier (none / 0) (#133)
    by WillBFair on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:03:09 PM EST
    report of his comment had to be only part of the story.

    Parent
    I don't need to talk about (2.66 / 3) (#28)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:57:41 PM EST
    Obama. He has my vote. This site supporting the Democratic ticket.  Why would we need to talk about Obama's policies?  The only thing not worth talking about it your attempt to mischaracterize the O'Reilly comments.  And McCain/Palin are both crooks and liars so...

    Parent
    Well, I'm still undecided (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:02:31 PM EST
    is it OK for me to here?

    Parent
    You bet!! (none / 0) (#35)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:04:43 PM EST
    I just checked in at the Volokh whatever it is.  God, I fled very quickly.  People are more balanced here than any site I have visited, despite favoring Dems.  

    Parent
    Great! :-) (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:06:13 PM EST
    Because I was getting ready to go to my room and think about what I've done

    Parent
    Hey! I came here during the (none / 0) (#43)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:11:33 PM EST
    primaries.  This site was very pro-Clinton and I was voting for Obama.  If it was ok for me to be here then , it sure is ok for you to be here now.  

    Parent
    So, basically... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:03:51 PM EST
    you're looking to TalkLeft to become your McCain/Palin "Bashing" haven, is that it?

    And because Obama's got your vote already, he could say or do something that is completely against the platform of Democrats, and you wouldn't question or discuss it -- because he already had your vote?

    That's good to know. I trust, and I hope, the authors of this blog do not share your sentiments, and will be willing to hold his feet to the fire -- like when he voted for the FISA legislation.

    Parent

    come on now (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:05:42 PM EST
    That is not how you influence people.  ?????

    Parent
    First (3.00 / 0) (#54)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:20:45 PM EST
    the poster said the following
    "He is accumulating so much depressing baggage that he does not seem to be even worth talking about. "  I was merely pointing out that there may be other reasons for not focusing on Obama in every discussion.  

    Second, I only have 2 choices -- Obama or McCain.  Given that choice, Obama has my vote.  Do I agree with everything he has done?  No. And it is fine to discuss and criticize him.  I think he made a mistake in not picking Hillary, for example.  But the differences I have with Obama pale in comparison to the danger I see in electing McCain/Palin.

    I support the Dem ticket. It is either vote for them or stay at home for me.  The Repubs have no chance at my vote.

    Parent

    If you support the Dem ticket, why (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by sallywally on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:15:50 PM EST
    aren't you pushing for Obama to competently campaign on that ticket? He's totally lame anymore.

    I'm voting Dem, and may volunteer for the Dem ticket, but I am not sold on Obama, and he's done nothing to give me any stable reason for enthusiasm.

    But we must win this. He needs to hear he's got to be willing to fight for the country, the Constitution and the people.

    He has not done this. If he cannot do it, or someone isn't allowed to do it on his behalf, the Dems will lose.

    Parent

    Well everything (2.00 / 0) (#98)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:14:53 PM EST
    McCain does is against the Democratic Platform.

    Criticizing Obama for doing and saying things to win the White House serves no purpose.

    Parent

    I don't need to talk about Obama (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by lambert on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:20:52 PM EST
    He has my vote.

    And there you have it. An echo chamber if ever I heard one.

    Parent

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:13:06 PM EST
    That doesn't make much sense. Some of you are interested in pointlessly criticizing the Obama campaign. Most of us are interested in Obama winning because McCain winning would be absolutely awful on nearly every level. When Obama wins we can focus on his actions in the White House.

    Parent
    That's interesting (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:23:18 PM EST
    When Obama wins we can focus on his actions in the White House.

    Ok.  Let me ask you this.  There are those who think that Obama is not up to the task of doing the job of POTUS, nor do they trust those who are advising him. Based on his resume and little experience, he is going to face tough challenges (and so would McCain to be fair) and may very likely come up lacking. Also, the mess in Iraq and the economy are going to get laid at the feet of whoever occupies the oval office in the next 4 years.  Neither is going to turn around in that period of time.

    Now, with a Democratic Congress, who will be so happy to have a Dem president, they will certainly not act as any kind of check on him (again, to be fair, they haven't done that with Bush either). So, here's what many people think could happen:

    The Democratic Congress already has a lower popularity rating than Bush and is around Cheney numbers.  When Obama doesn't deliver (and he can't on everything, and those who are swept up in "hope" and "change" will be the most disappointed), in 2010, and then there's a real possibility that the Republicans take over Congress.  It also sets up a very real possibility of a Republican president in 2012, and then we have another 10 years or so of them back in power.

    So, it is not far-fetched to say a Dem in the WH could be good in the short term for the party, but in the long run, this could really hurt the party, and, more importantly, the country.

    You may say this will never happen.  I say the possibility is there.

    Parent

    Sure it's possible (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:31:06 PM EST
    It's also possible that McCain takes the White House, battles with Congress, and manages to convince the American people that it is the do nothing Congress that is the problem and they kick them out.

    If you don't feel that Obama is capable of doing the job, that's your choice.  I am curious as to who the advisers of Obama are that you don't like.  

    But if you've already made your mind up on a personal level, what is the point in discussing issues?

    If you are simply looking to campaign against Obama, this really isn't the appropriate forum for you.  

    Parent

    Obama advisors (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:36:44 PM EST
    Goolsbee, Liebman, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Susan Rice, to name a few.

    I haven't made up my mind, and I think (despite what some people around here think) that it's good to discuss issues.  I am very concerned that many who support Obama appear to be all-loyal in their support and will tear you down and throw personal insults if you do not agree.  I hate the term "cult" but that's what it has become with some of the supporters that I know in my life and here.  There is no questioning, we must all fall in line. I've never seen anything like it - his campaign is like something out of 1984.

    Parent

    Well I can tell you (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:45:44 PM EST
    that comparing me to a some Big Brother like figure isn't exactly a compliment.  

    Regardless you just said that you don't believe that he is capable to be President.  So what is the point of discussing issues with you?  Even if he is 100% in agreement with on issues, it doesn't matter if you feel he would be an incompetent.  He is not an acceptable choice to you.  So why do you care about the issues?  And how can you possibly not have decided.  I can tell you that if I felt that Obama incapable of being a good President, I would not vote for him.

    Every major politician has a legion of devoted followers.  Obama does. Hillary does.  McCain does.  George Bush does.  Attacking them is a cheap stunt.

    There is nothing cultish about Obama or his followers.  All populist movements operate on essentially the same principles.

    Parent

    i think JAB was comparing (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by sancho on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:05:50 PM EST
    some Obama followers, not necessarily you, to Big Brother-like followers.

    Parent
    What's populist about Obama? (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by sallywally on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:27:20 PM EST
    That was Hillary. That's why she had the working class vote. If Obama were populist, he'd have those voters too, as well as his other constitutencies.


    Parent
    I call them Obama's worshippers. But I do agree (none / 0) (#132)
    by WillBFair on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:59:57 PM EST
    with them that now is not the time for criticism. It's a close and critical election. Let him tack to the center or even the right to get elected. I don't care about that. Once he's in, I'll be the first to make a fuss, as I did over the dirty primamry camapign he ran.  

    Parent
    But wouldn't it be nice... (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by lentinel on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:37:53 PM EST
    if Obama said something that we could get excited about?

    How about something like, " When I get into office, the first thing I'm going to do is set about withdrawing our troops from this illegal and senseless war in Iraq. The second thing I'm going to do is to set about undoing the damage to our civil liberties embodied in such legislation as the Patriot Act and FISA. I will also move to severely limit the power to wiretap American citizens and will see that this is done only when necessary and when a warrant has been obtained.
    I would also like to state that I believe unequivocally in a woman's right to choose. I will do everything within my power to see that her rights are protected and that no legislation is passed that will limit her human and civil rights."

    I think some such expression would warrant attention from democrats and people hoping for some kind of different direction in Washington.

    Dream on.

    No. We're consigned to talk about Palin and McCain the evil ones.

    Parent

    You hit the nail on the head (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:40:58 PM EST
    Obama doesn't seem passionate about anything except getting elected.  What is he about?  What drives him?  He gave us hope and change, and now he's giving laundry lists, but what gets him up in the morning and makes him want to work for us?

    Parent
    Just upthread (1.00 / 2) (#137)
    by nalo on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:06:27 PM EST
    you said that people who are excited about Obama are cultists (so you must admit there are some).  As with any candidate who is getting tens of millions of people voting for him, Obama has a range from devoted supporters and those who will hold their nose to vote for them.

    It is perfectly fine for you to vote for Obama and not be completely on board.  

    Parent

    Joe Biden looking out for Joe Biden. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by LatinoVoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:52:56 PM EST
    Biden said he and Obama agreed on his high-road campaign approach. "That was part of the deal," Biden said. "I'm not going to fool with my brand."

    Sen. Joe Biden says he's not going to play the attack dog and that he's going to protect his "brand." So why are there so many bloggers on the net who are willing to tarnish their brands for politicians who won't fight for themselves?

    Thank you! (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:55:48 PM EST
    for making me laugh so much.

    The Brand!

    Best line of the day.

    Parent

    What is his job? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by BrianJ on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:15:49 PM EST
    (And Palin's for that matter?)

    A VP has exactly two jobs in the Constitution-  cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate (which no 20th century VP has done more than once a year) and wait for the President to drop dead.  Anything else is up to the President.

    We know what McCain's plan for Palin is, namely to put lipstick on the pig and attack when McCain doesn't feel like it.  That's not unusual for VPs.  What is Biden's deal?  What did Obama see in him?  Even Biden doesn't seem to know.  This is not a good sign.

    Parent

    Daily Telegraph (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:18:01 PM EST
    said today that McCain will Palin in charge of energy independence initiative.

    I don't know about Biden. I can be snarky and offer comprehensive overhaul of Bank of America.

    Parent

    Biden won't "fool with my brand"??? (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by lambert on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:21:33 PM EST
    Can you imagine if Hillary had said that....

    Parent
    spit would be flying on MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by kempis on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:58:47 PM EST


    Parent
    It's clearly (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:58:51 PM EST
    an attempt to inoculate himself, in my view.

    That seems to be the theory (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by BrianJ on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:10:09 PM EST
    But it's backfiring something fierce, since McCain, Palin, and even the usual sleazy suspects on the right haven't actually done it!  As a result, Obama is slandering people for things they haven't done-  and now that we're into the final turn, won't do.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by TomStewart on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:22:10 PM EST
    You mean the right hadn't been calling Obama a 'secret Muslim', calling him unpatriotic or making fun of his name, his religion and 'slyly' hinting he may be black?

    Good to know.

    Parent

    Don't forget the rumor (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:30:09 PM EST
    circulating that he is the Bibical anti-Christ?  I don't think it isn't McCain doing that, but some of his followers are.  

    I mean when he says "they" he doesn't mean just McCain, but anyone who is afraid of his color/name/the unknown/a Democrat, etc.

    Parent

    I use to love the websites documenting why (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by esmense on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:36:53 PM EST
    Bush is the anti-Christ. Early in his presidency there were, may still be (I haven't checked in years), many, many such sites and references.

    I don't think such speculations really should be considered political attacks. They are just examples of the nuttiness at the fringes of our culture.

    Parent

    You saw McCain's Ad? (3.50 / 2) (#64)
    by TomStewart on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:32:35 PM EST
    'The One'? It's what the anti-christ is called int eh Left Behind books. I don't supposed McCain and his followers knew that?

    Parent
    Oprah called him (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by fercryinoutloud on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:44:16 PM EST
    The One.

    So it is fair to say that is where McCain got that phrase from.

    Parent

    I forgot about the ad. (none / 0) (#69)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:39:57 PM EST
    The first time I heard the anti-Christ thing was a caller on the radio when Obama was running for his Senate seat.  Then during the primary I read a few comments in the newspaper saying the same thing.  


    Parent
    What's wrong with me??? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:28:45 PM EST
    Today I read transcripts of Obama convention speech and McCain convention speech.

    I hate to say it, but I liked McCain's speech more.

    Am I a closet Republican? Or conservative Democrat?

    Why can't I make myself like Obama?

    This is really bothering me, honestly.

    It's Not That (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:44:56 PM EST
    you're a closet Republican, but a jaded Democrat who has heard all that Obama said before. I read his entire speech last Tuesday while waiting for my turn at the DMV (time well spent, if I may say so) but every couple of paragraphs, I kept thinking, "Pfft, I've heard this before."

    I haven't printed out and read McCain's entire speech yet, which I plan to do tomorrow or Monday, but I can remember feeling extremely bored and on the verge of a coma listening to it on Thursday. I guess that says more about his delivery than the content of his speech.

    Parent

    you have heard this before...1992 (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by S on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:18:48 PM EST
    Jim Walsh says:

    you're a closet Republican, but a jaded Democrat who has heard all that Obama said before. I read his entire speech last Tuesday while waiting for my turn at the DMV (time well spent, if I may say so) but every couple of paragraphs, I kept thinking, "Pfft, I've heard this before."

    *************

    Jim, you sure did hear it before, Obama lifted almost all of it from Bill Clinton's 1992 playbook called 'Putting People First'

    not trying to be cynical but that's the truth...

    Parent

    A quandry (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by themomcat on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:14:41 PM EST
    I'm still in the "unconvinced by either one of them" column. I read both speeches and was unimpressed by both. I think they are both bad choices. I think the is blatantly obvious McCain's VP choice was to pander to undecided women and the religious right. I think Obama chose Biden because he couldn't bring himself to pick HRC and needed to bolster his inexperience image. Neither of which matters to me at this point. They both need to speak to the issues of the economy, health care, foreign policy and Iraq in specifics. And I am very tired of being told to go to their web sites, been there and I am still here typing this comment. I'm waiting for the debates after that I will mostly likely make a decision about voting for Obama. I won't vote for McCain but I don't know if I can pull the lever for the lesser of 2 bad choices. So in some ways, you are not alone.


    Parent
    It's very interesting (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:31:06 PM EST
    how you are describing  this.

    For me it's different and after McCain speech I think I'm leaning more towards him.

    His speech made me think that he has no personal motive to do it. He's too old and too rich, he doesn't need to jump through the hoops. Kerry had no personal motive to do it. Hillary, even Biden.

    But with Obama, I can't shake off the feeling that this guy is doing it to prove something to himself or others. He has a direct personal interest in it.

    It took me a long time to admit this even to myself. But I think McCain's speech made me look at it this way.

    We'll see I guess

    Parent

    I am not supoporting McCain (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by themomcat on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:50:09 PM EST
    And has nothing to do with his age, personality or wealth. It has to do with his politics. He has supported the Republican agenda 90%. His advisers are all Republicans whose agenda would further destroy the middle class, increase poverty, make the environment worse,, in other words it would be more bad Reagan/Bush/Bush policies. Look where that has gotten the US. There was a lot missing from McCain's speech because he doesn't want to talk about those issues. Take a better look than one speech that was written for Prime Time.

    Parent
    I hope I don't offend you (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:09:27 PM EST
    when I say that I don't subscribe to a binary worldview of Evil Republicans/Saintly Democrats.

    The 90% meme is a soundbite, sorry. That doesn't work for me. And I also don't believe that half of this country is simply (1) stupid or (2) so brainwashed that if only they could understand...

    I suspect that the reality is more complicated and the point I was making refers only to how I think I respond to the candidates on some kind of emotional level.

    Parent

    No the 90% isn't a sound bite (none / 0) (#168)
    by themomcat on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:44:43 PM EST
    It is McCain's Senate record. I have looked at his records, speeches (both public and on the Senate floor) as well as Sen. Obama's. I don't deal in "sound bites". I like reality. One of the reasons that I haven't been won over by Sen. Obama is that I have kept my emotions out it. Hoping for change doesn't quite do it for me, substance and facts do.  
     And I am so pleased you don't subscribe to a binary world view, neither do I.
     As for the rest of this response, I never said anything about thinking: "that half of this country is simply (1) stupid or (2) so brainwashed that if only they could understand...".
     My first response to you was that you are not quite alone about which candidate you want to vote for and why I am still undecided. Obviously, you have taken this in another way.
     Since I do find your response offensive this will be my last comment to you. Have a nice night.

    Parent
    That's okay (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:01:18 PM EST
    It's entirely possible that we misunderstood each other because the "stupid voter" line wasn't meant personally or offensively, just an observation of what most liberal blogs advance by way of explanation.

    As for the 90% soundbite, what is an acceptable rate for voting in line with Bush?

    Biden did it I believe 70% of the time. Obama did it more than 50% of the time.

    I call this a soundbite because any senator votes with or against a sitting president. It's so relative, I don't think it has a substance to become an argument.

    Parent

    direct personal interest (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by S on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:11:42 PM EST
    yes, it is called unbridled ambition...

    the tale of a guy in a big hurry to do too much too fast regardless of who (Clintons) get in the way...

    Parent

    You are making the choice too (4.00 / 2) (#116)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:43:49 PM EST
    dependent upon the candidates. I am voting the issues and I know where the Dems stand and where I stand.  That makes it much more palatable. I have never been high on Obama.  I think all the snaz and hoopla turned me off.  I always went for the issues and substance.  I never hero worship so I won't be sooo disappointed.  Look at the issues; look at the parties and their positions.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#128)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:58:11 PM EST
    it seems that "issues" is a way to rationalize "character" according to this

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#130)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:59:42 PM EST
    wrong link

    Parent
    Just a question (none / 0) (#145)
    by themomcat on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:12:37 PM EST
    Are you basing a preference for McCain solely on his acceptance speech?

    Parent
    I haven't decided yet (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:19:38 PM EST
    But I think there are several things that I'm thinking about:

    • I like the old-Republican libertarian ideas, but I don't like the evangelical and religous wing that has dictated their social policy (god, in particular)

    • I like the Democratic ideas on social policy but I don't like their ideas on regulation and many of their control systems (e.g. schools)

    • I think McCain is not a born-again evangelical like Bush. I maybe wrong, but I think he wants to change the direction of the Republican party.

    • I don't care about the soundbites like 90%, industrial complex and all the other kindergarten arguments

    • I don't think either party has any clue about energy policy.

    • I think Obama has a personal interest to run while McCain doesn't

    Is this enough?

    Parent
    McCain and Desire (3.50 / 2) (#169)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:56:49 PM EST
    "Bomb, bomb, bomb
    Bomb, bomb Iran."

    The line about cigarettes being a good way to kill Iranians.

    Also, within twenty-four hours of the Russia/Georgia incident he was running his mouth as if it was all black and white, good and evil.  To be fair, a lot of politicos ran their mouths almost immediately, but not all of them said "we're all Georgians today."  What a War Dog that man is.  The way he talks about foreign policy you'd think the world is a giant Lord of the Rings movie.

    You were impressed with his Convention speech?  Did you especially like the Henry V bit at the end where he used the word FIGHT, like, twelve times.  Screamed it, screamed the word.  Perhaps those who don't care about anything but finding sexism everywhere will be happy to know that we found McCain's climax on the SHRILL side, the carping about FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT.  

    His convention speech was about as thoughtful as
    a bag of hammers.  All these probmes we've got after eight years of misgovernment and all he's got to contribute is let's fight some more.
    His view of the world is dictated by conflict. Without it, he brings absolutely nothing to the table.  Par the course, today's GOP.

    Obama was right.  "Enough!"  

    But on the bright side, did you know he was a POW?

    Parent

    This conversation (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:04:45 PM EST
    is becoming confrontational, so I will only tell you that I read both speeches with an open mind.

    It seems that you probably listened to his speech with your mind already made up and looking for things to harp on.

    Which is what you just did.

    Parent

    My Bad (2.00 / 1) (#174)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:12:31 PM EST
    for harping on body counts.  It degrades the political discourse to bring something so crass to the table as the corpses at stake in his election.

    But let's be open-minded here.  After all, did you know he was a POW?

    Parent

    Your moralizing (5.00 / 4) (#175)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:20:36 PM EST
    has exactly nothing to do with my original post.

    Nothing.

    And the talking points that you are so breathlessly reciting are so old, I know them by heart, believe me.

    Parent

    Has Everything to Do With it (none / 0) (#182)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:35:28 PM EST
    What you left out matters. Because what you left out is the core of his vision.  It was the bif climax of his speech.  The FIGHT theme is really all he's got, when you boil him down.  

    And yes, the Talking Points about body counts mattering has gotten old.  It has already been done to death, this wish to avert unnecessary killings.  When will everyone stop worrying about such things and start celebrating how he's a "Maverick. who. bucks. his. own. party."

    And let us never forget he was a POW.

    Parent

    Your Warrant (none / 0) (#190)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:54:52 PM EST
    I think Obama has a personal interest to run while McCain doesn't

    But his personal investment in War and in Fighting is palpable to any who would look.  It shines through all his speeches, through the meme that national security is his strong suit(talk about old talking points!). It shone through the convention speech you are pretending to address with an open mind.

    Parent

    Perhaps you're not delving deep enough... (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Dadler on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:59:42 PM EST
    ...into your own psyche.  Really delving deep and asking yourself why you'd prefer the speech of a man who has a proven track record of being the poster child for the military industrial complex, who thinks the military is THE answer to the problems of the world.  Who, in an obviously twisted psychological state, supports full normalization of relations with Vietnam, but toes the ridiculous Republican party line on Cuba (to cite an obvious example of how is he no maverick at all, even on the easy things like Cuba); who picks as his VP candidate someone who thinks Creationism should be taught in public schools alongside evolution (this alone, to me, is tantamount to the Dark Ages); a guy who, when push comes to shove, voted for Dubya's agenda 90% of the time, and on and on; a guy who will appoint more judges of right-wing natures to the court and is anti-choice himself.  If you liked Clinton's policies (a man who worked his way from relative poverty to being a Rhodes Scholar), why wouldn't you prefer a guy who did much the same in working his ace off to Harvard Law (and rising to the top there) while ALSO dealing with racial prejudice from both sides of his identity?  

    I may not be an Obama partisan, and he drives me nuts in this campaign sometimes, but McCain is such a proven malevolent guy, who is now lying about what Obama will do (when Obama will lower taxes for working families like Clinton did) and the war in Iraq (talking this disgusting bullsh*t about how Obama would rather lose a war than blah blah blah...which is truly and unmistakably wretched lying crap), and on and on.  

    On intellectual acheivement alone, I want someone as president who will return, at least, to a standard Clinton set for brains and tolerance and thoughtfulness and not being a reactionary.  While I have a humane sympathy for what McCain endured as a POW, I can't blind myself to what he represents -- a born and bred product of what Eisenhower warned us darkly against more than half a century ago.  

    And perhaps Obama is frustrating many of us because he, like any human being, is merely a flawed product of his own divergent experiences -- how would YOU do with that much political weight on your shoulders.  McCain admits to things that everyone already knows, that happened long ago and don't matter anymore.  If McCain stood up and talked about his foolish support for Iraq and what a horrible move it was, maybe then I'd buy his maverick crap -- but he keeps talking tough, as if he really doesn't know it's over, that the Shiite majority now rules and that means, as it ALWAYS WOULD HAVE, that Iran and Iraq are now partnered like never before (only a fool would not realize this, and I can only surmise he is one).  But he won't be that big a man, because he doesn't have it in him to really be self-critical WHEN IT MATTERS, which is now.  At least Obama has acknowledged that he has made some of his supporters unhappy with some recent votes -- myself included.  And this isn't the lesser of two evils, since I see neither one as evil, simply that I see one, McCain, who falls very short when it comes to economic policy, the right wing, militarism, intellect, you name it (and smarts, to be certain, are what we need by the truckload right now in the White House).

    To me, on issues AND temperment, Obama is a clear choice, not a perfect one, but clear in this case.  If you don't think so, then you'll have to cast your vote for McCain, or someone else.

    Good luck on your deliberations.

    Parent

    Polkan- don't feel bad (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by kenosharick on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:25:11 PM EST
    Obama's convention speech was an extension of his stump speech,which has pretty rhetoric- but never actually says anything. As for mccain- his speech didn't put you to sleep? Maybe it was more exciting to read than to watch live.

    Parent
    Sounds like you have some issues (1.33 / 3) (#74)
    by DanR3 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:45:02 PM EST
    Please, just vote for McCain and go away.

    Parent
    Don't know. (none / 0) (#70)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:41:07 PM EST
    But I didn't like Kerry, yet I still voted for him.  

    Parent
    I actually really liked Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:49:15 PM EST
    and voted for him.

    Maybe it's because I got so invested in Hillary's campaign that it became impossible for me to see things for what they are.

    Or maybe it's because I respond to a victim button, both from Hillary and from McCain.

    Or maybe it's because I get a sense of maturity from each of them and not from Obama.

    Parent

    OK, OK, we get the hint. (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:51:18 PM EST
    Judging from this comment and your previous comment, you want us to pat you on the back for being one of those good Democrats who always votes for the candidate with a (D), right?

    Well, you're not getting that from me, but I'm sure there are plenty others here who will. I do not believe in rewarding anyone, especially politicians, for something they are totally capable of not doing.

    Because that one vote -or two- is really all they want and need. After that, it's carte blanche to do and say whatever heck they like.

    Parent

    Yep I always vote Dem for president. (none / 0) (#117)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:43:55 PM EST
    Though I have sometimes split my ticket. My grandfather was a Dem mayor (shout out Lincoln Park Michigan).  Though it was before I was born, I was raised to be partial to the Dem brand.

    Sorry if it offends you.

    Though I am curious, what is it you say I should do?  Stay at home and not vote?  Or are you implying that McCain is a better choice.

    Parent

    I'm In No Position (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:03:28 PM EST
    to tell you, or imply, what you should do. You own your vote, as much as I do mine, and I'll respect whatever you do with it, as you should mine.

    I am not voting for the Presidential ticket because I do not support McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. I think they are both beneath what we, as American people, deserve after the last 8 years.

    There's nothing that Obama has done that can tell me he will "change" anything. He's a follower and a position-shifter, and you can bet that if he wins this year, he'll begin shifting to serve his reelection campaign in 2012.

    And McCain doesn't represent me on several issues, especially health care and privacy rights, but having said that, his resume shows he's worked with the Left and actually worked to pass helpful legislation.

    And I think someone who stands by his convictions and beliefs (whether I identify with them or not) shows a lot about a character and leadership than someone who drifts with the wind of opinion and polls.

    Having said that, I plan to vote down-ticket for DC's representatives. I think they will be more responsible to their constituents than Obama or McCain will be.

    Parent

    Hillary 2016 (none / 0) (#112)
    by WS on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:39:33 PM EST
    My coping mechanism is that I think Hillary is planning a 2016 run.  Start thinking that and you can come around to supporting (if tepidly) Obama.

    Right now, I support Obama because the right needs to be stopped.  

    Parent

    Did anyone else know this? (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:43:56 PM EST
    I thought it was a drunk driver that killed Biden's first wife and baby daughter, but it turns out the guy wasn't drunk at all.  Biden apparently has insinuated that the truck driver was drunk at least a couple of times over the years, but when the truck driver's family called him on it, he profusely apologized.  It's such a sad story.

    Link

    That's so sad (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by YesVirginiaThereIsASanta on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:45:53 PM EST
    I saw that same link in the Sisterhood group. The family of the driver must be devastated by what Biden has said. I know I've thought for years it was a drunk driver who took his wife and daughter.

    It would be so hard to have a deceased family member used in such a harsh way. Maybe Jeralyn's dislike for Biden was actually founded in who he is at the core.

    So, when we all hear him say he has a son serving in Iraq, we can all rest because we know he is safe in the Green Zone as an Administrative member of JAG, too. I saw that twice on the news.
     

    Parent

    Something New I Learned Today (none / 0) (#151)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:18:34 PM EST
    So, when we all hear him say he has a son serving in Iraq, we can all rest because we know he is safe in the Green Zone as an Administrative member of JAG

    And here I though he was actually going to be on the front-lines. I'm not implying anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq who isn't, doesn't deserve our support, prayers and good wishes ... but from how the campaign and the media spun it, it seemed Beau Biden was in some combat unit or something. Well, he is Delaware's Att. Gen.

    Anyone know if Palin's son, Track, will be serving on the front-lines or he'll be in a Greenzone position? From what I've seen, he has been training as a combat soldier.

    Parent

    New Zogby poll: McCain/Palin 50%, Obama/Biden 46% (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by haner on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:11:17 PM EST
    Zogby: The McCain/Palin ticket wins 49.7% support, compared to 45.9% backing for the Obama/Biden ticket, this latest online survey shows. Another 4.4% either favored someone else or were unsure.

    http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548

    We all know how accurate Zogby was during the primary, but Zogby was the most accurate in the 2004 presidential election.

    Obama made a fatal mistake in not selecting Hillary Clinton for VP.  There would be no Sarah Palin if Clinton was on the Democratic ticket.

    No it wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:24:56 PM EST
    Zogby was terrible in 2004.  

    Parent
    Yep. I remember showing my Republican (none / 0) (#204)
    by Teresa on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:44:34 PM EST
    boss Zogby's state by state exits on election day, confident that Kerry had won. I was in for an unpleasant surprise later that night.

    Parent
    zogby (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by S on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:24:35 PM EST
    haner, zogby is the worst of all ... however i completely agree with you...if our ticket was

    Clinton/Obama we would be coasting to victory right now...i would bet my house on it...

    why, or why, did the DNC force us into this gamble?  do the insiders hate the Clintons that much?

    Parent

    Online Polls Not Trustworthy (none / 0) (#148)
    by WS on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:17:35 PM EST
    ^ Its an online poll and its Zogby.  RCP won't even list it on their poll of polls because its Zogby Interactive.    

    Parent
    I'm aware (none / 0) (#155)
    by haner on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:22:28 PM EST
    Zogby Interactive is still a scientific poll, not like a CNN online poll.  Zogby Interactive was really accurate in 2004.  

    Regardless, the Gallup tracking poll for tomorrow will either show a tie or a McCain lead.  McCain got at least +4% in yesterday night's interviews when you extrapolate from the 3 day tracking average.  He ties tomorrow if he holds a +2% lead in tonights interviews. Chris Matthews is right, prepare for McCain to be ahead by the end of the weekend.

    Parent

    Don't you remember the primaries? (none / 0) (#161)
    by WS on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:32:21 PM EST
    Zogby's polls were always the worst during the primaries and I remember Zogby proclaiming on the Daily Show that Kerry was going to win four years ago. Fool me once...

    We'll find out how much of a convention bounce the Repubs get. I expect O to continue his slight lead by the next week.  Oh and Hillary helps Obama out a lot.  He always gets spikes in support when she vouches for him (Bill too).  If I was Obama, I would make the Clintons more prominent.  

    I do agree with you that Hillary would have been the best choice for VP.      

    Parent

    Gallup has O with a 2point lead (none / 0) (#152)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:19:21 PM EST
    and a 2point MOE.

    I think mid-next week or so, things should shake out a bit, or not  ;)

    Parent

    misleading (none / 0) (#159)
    by haner on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:27:13 PM EST
    That 2-point lead Obama has will evaporate by tomorrow.  I calculated that McCain got at least a +4% day last night.

    I thought McCain's speech was more effective than Palin's in pulling independents to his side.  Palin's speech was red meat, McCain's was vote getting.

    Parent

    Convention Bounce (none / 0) (#164)
    by WS on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:34:35 PM EST
    Convention bounces come and they go.  Stop getting so excited at a possible tie.  

    Parent
    His stump is getting better also (none / 0) (#197)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:13:17 PM EST
    he's getting some catch lines.

    "By your side, not in your way" is effective, imo. And he's going "populist/fighter". Hmmmmmm . . .  Somebody was paying attention.

    Parent

    The Skinny on Palin & Wolves (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by BlueMerlin on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:18:30 PM EST
    There's a meme out there that Palin kills wolves for fun.   I did a little research and -- not that I'm a huge Palin fan, but -- Dems should beware how they attack people in western/rural states.   Alaska has 10 time more wolves per unit area than Montana (with a Democratic governor) and culls a far smaller proportion of them than MT (and Wyoming which also has a Dem gov).

    According to Defenders of Wildlife, there are 7,000 - 11,000 wolves in Alaska.  With 656,424 square miles and (on average) 9,000 wolves, that is 0.01 wolves per square mile.   Under Republican governor Sarah Palin, each year about 1,000 wolves are killed legally as part of wolf population management.   This represents 9-14% of the population culled each year.  

    http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species/wolves/wolf_rec overy_efforts/alaska_wolves/background/index.php

    Meanwhile in the June 2, 2008 issue of "EnviroWonk.com", Democratic Governor Brian Schweiter of Montana states that Montana does a better job than Wyoming (where wolves can be 'shot on sight') and is "committed to maintaining over 100 individuals or 15 breeding pairs and currently has 'close to five times that'." This is 150 wolves.     With an area of 147165 square miles, Montana has 0.001 wolves per square mile or 1/10th as many wolves per unit of area as Alaska has.  Nevertheless, even with such a small number of wolves, MT Fish & Game are planning to allow hunting of up to 75 wolves this year.    That is a 'cull' of 50% of the wolf population.      

    http://envirowonk.com/content/view/229/1/

    Any one else sick of Palin? (2.00 / 0) (#3)
    by vj on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:00:29 PM EST
    I think understand her appeal, but I also think she's over-exposed already.

    I understand her appeal (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Fabian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:22:30 PM EST
    even if it is a LOT more carefully cultivated than most people realize.

    Has anyone questioned her "ambition" yet?  I think that attack on Hillary's "ambition" is only second to "B-b-but BILL...!" in my most loathed memes.

    Going have to ponder why it is acceptable for Sarah Palin to be "ambitious" enough to be VP, but not Hillary Clinton.  (First thought - "ambitious" is used to mean "dangerous" in Clinton's case, but why?)

    Parent

    My girlfriend says (none / 0) (#11)
    by vj on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:32:21 PM EST
    that it's because she is pretty.

    I think it's because she is a republican and, after all, they are the ones that usually launch these types of attacks.

    Parent

    Your girlfriend is right... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Aqua Blue on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:55:28 PM EST
    Several people I know think Pallin will get votes because she is pretty.

    The Country has become a giant reality show.

    Parent

    Maybe their children (none / 0) (#22)
    by Fabian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:52:19 PM EST
    make her seem "tied down" and less of a threat?

    Hillary is obviously a career woman with no family obligations and she's already walked that path with Bill.  I guess it makes it seem more certain that Hillary's sights are set high.

    Parent

    Ah, you have a family forever (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:02:58 PM EST
    it never goes away; it just changes over time.  I have my 90 year old mother living in the same household.  We are still a family with obligations.  Hillary still has a family, Bill, Chelsea, and mother.  

    Parent
    Wow (1.00 / 1) (#120)
    by rdandrea on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:46:05 PM EST
    A lot of "McCain Points" must have been awarded here tonight.

    Are you just passing through from DailyKos? (none / 0) (#165)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:35:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Newsweek (none / 0) (#1)
    by bjorn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:53:53 PM EST
    Newsweek  I thought this was interesting, confessions of a Palin admirer but not Palin voter.  

    Also, great game between Ole Miss and Wakeforest!

    Good one (none / 0) (#4)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:01:49 PM EST
    Key quote

    I'm not sure what's wrong with me

    :-)

    Parent

    And this: (none / 0) (#5)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:03:40 PM EST
    But I can't help myself. I'd rather crack open a Red Bull and sit down with her than with Barack Obama.

    Could that be it? Guilt trip over Sarah?

    Parent

    From the Newsweek article: (none / 0) (#14)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:36:06 PM EST
    I am aware that I am responding to carefully crafted political images. I actually know very little about Sarah Palin's ideology, and what I do know I don't like: the extreme anti-abortion stand, her belief that creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution. In the next eight weeks any number of things could emerge that will turn me off completely.

    But I can't help myself. I'd rather crack open a Red Bull and sit down with her than with Barack Obama. Likability counts in electoral politics -- especially for voters who are on the fence. It worked for George W.

    There it is. The exact same shallow reason W was elected over Gore in 2000: some voters' secret fantasy to share a mood-altering drink with the candidate. Note how the author knows full well she is being played, and yet is somehow ineluctably drawn to vote against her own beliefs.

    But if I'm really honest with myself, I'm mostly just happy that there's another woman on the national political stage. I think it's good for my 8-year-old daughter, who has called Hillary Clinton her idol. She doesn't love Hillary because of her health-care policy or pro-choice stance: she loves Hillary because she thinks girls rule.

    And there it is again: As good a capsule definition of "identity voting" as one could ask for. It's a perfectly natural, understandable reaction, too -- in an 8-year-old girl or boy.

    I believe the outcome of this election largely hinges on whether Hillary Clinton's voters will, in the end, go for the candidate who shares most of their positions on the issues; or whether, as the Republicans hope, they will make their decision based primarily on personality.

    Parent

    Hillary voters are only symbolic (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Fabian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:46:48 PM EST
    of a larger, disenchanted group of D, R and I voters.

    The real question is how one woos those voters?  Right now Palin is playing the same game that Obama did - come on strong and let the media momentum carry her.  It only has to last fifty-odd days and looking at Obama's primary experience, that's about right.  Scary thought.

    Obama needs to come on strong too - but he has to use the Hillary game.  Stay strong on the issues and connect with as many of the voters as he can.  Press the flesh.  Be consistent.  Forward his own agenda and avoid responding to the GOP's attacks unless he can do so well.  There's going to be hundreds of attacks and most of them are intended to distract Democrats from The Issues.  Do NOT be distracted.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:53:19 PM EST
    Stay strong on the issues and connect

    and therein lies a problem

    Parent

    Yeah, it's what some of us (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Fabian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:55:47 PM EST
    "Hillary voters" have been saying for months now.

    I keep waiting for it to catch on.  

    Parent

    Barack is (3.66 / 3) (#46)
    by pennypacker on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:13:18 PM EST
    extremely strong on the issues.

    Parent
    So why didn't he bring the issues up (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by sallywally on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:07:12 PM EST
    with those working class voters he was talking to? He was so lame - when he could have been telling them what he would do for them vs what McCain and Palin would do for them on so many issues - from the war(s) to health care to pension security to union strength to giving them a rebate AND a tax cut to keeping them in their houses, stabilizing the economy, helping them keep their jobs, on and on and on. And all he could do was passionlessly say "judgment."

    Hell, I heard McCain doing a better job of representing the Dems' values today than Obama is doing. For instance, he just said, "We've got to keep them in their houses" and that made even me feel comfort.

    As a Dem, Obama is strong with the issues, but he seems unwilling or unable to actually campaign aggressively (or sometimes even at all) on them.

    The Clintons gave a one-two punch at the convention that laid out the talking points for the entire campaign - a jump start, really.

    The Dems need to get everyone out there who can talk this talk, whether they "like" the folks or not - both Clintons, Wes Clark, Gore, Biden, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Michelle can campaign on issues better than her husband.

    He cannot be this lame and win the election.

    And it's not just about him. It's about the nation. This is a fateful election.

    Parent

    I so agree. But he never was good (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by WillBFair on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:50:30 PM EST
    at policy debate. He just swiped the Clinton agenda from day 1, recited the liberal wish list, and threw in a ton of shallow cliches. It was brutal, and I will so miss the Clintons' clear and precise discourse.
    You're also right about getting the good talkers out there. And there are plenty of them. What are they waiting for?  

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by sallywally on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:15:41 PM EST
    to be asked? By Obama and the DNC?

    Parent
    all about him (4.25 / 4) (#194)
    by S on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:03:13 PM EST
    SallyWally says:

    He cannot be this lame and win the election.

    And it's not just about him. It's about the nation. This is a fateful election.
    ************

    but that is the problem...it is all about HIM...from the start and right to the finish line...every time I hear him he is talking about himself...either defending himself, explaining himself...he cannot help himself...he communicates from a very self centered core...

    that closing ceremonies extravaganza said it all (and that was after the European victory lap)...it is like he has to keep outdoing himself...what's left for an inauguration?

    ...and then there is simple, plain speaking, war hero McCain...no frills, no hoopola...just his message of "getting back to basics" with his young rebel reformer and wife who has a long history of saving children

    now, what do you think hurting, lower and middle class voters are going to relate to?  who are they going to believe?  trust?

    Parent

    Hmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:51:45 PM EST
    There's so much hype going on right now that it's difficult not to become partisan.

    I disagree with you, however, when you say that "character" voters will go for McCain and "issue" voters will go for Obama.

    If it's nearly impossible for the professional politicians to articulate the nuances of policy, how can we expect an ordinary voter to do it?

    They are going to approximate everything into a simple question: who do you I trust more (a) not to screw me and (b) fix the problems

    So yeah, you can call it character, but it works the same for all average voters out there and, frankly, I can't see how it can be done any other way in this country, given the size of our Government.

    Parent

    Yes, it certainly (none / 0) (#67)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:34:35 PM EST
    has been a whirlwind of craziness the last 2 weeks.  The media seems like they are running around like chickens with their heads cut off.  Who knows what the voters are thinking about all the spectacle.


    Parent
    I didn't mean to imply (none / 0) (#195)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:06:20 PM EST
    that in general, "character" voters will go for McCain, or that all "issue" voters will go for Obama. I myself prefer Obama to McCain, as much for reasons of character as anything.

    I do think Obama's positions on the issues are close enough to Clinton's (and Edwards's) that among former Hillary Clinton supporters, the "issues" voters will -- for the most part, already have -- come around to support Obama. (With varying degrees of enthusiasm, to be sure.)

    Parent

    F&F went t*ts up today, unemployment is at 6% (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by lambert on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:19:21 PM EST
    banks keep failing, and the price of fuel is at an all-time high.

    And the best and the brightest are discussing Sarah Palin.

    Just shoot me.

    My question keeps being: "And we get?"

    Where's the help coming from? What's the policy? Palin has an answer "Drill now!" Does Obama have an answer that he can articulate in less than a paragraph?

    Time's getting short.

    Parent

    Obama is in trouble if she goes (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:57:16 PM EST
    beyond the hype. I think she has the skills and natural ability to articulate the issues clearly. If they decide to play the issues game, Obama's going to need to be sharper, and consistent on the issue delivery.

    Today I heard him saying McCain thinks we're stupid, yesterday it was the funny name BS, and before that, more about what's wrong with McCain. I know they say he's focusing on the economy, but that's not coming through. Unless they consider going to small towns and dissin' McCain, talking about the economy. If he has any meat in his stump, he may want to trim so fat so the right message is hitting the news.

    Parent

    Kind of pathetic that it "depends on Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Angel on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:35:22 PM EST
    Clinton voters...."

    I said in an earlier thread today (and have posted similar thoughts) that it keeps coming back to Hillary.  You have to ask yourself "why" this is.  The answer is because Hillary should have been the Democratic nominee.  This is not sour grapes.  This is fact.  She would be at least 10 points ahead in the polls right now and would easily get the necessary 270 electoral votes.  Again, it's pathetic.  

    Parent

    Yeah, (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by coolit on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:53:01 PM EST
    why doesn't anyone care about this? I guess it's personal.  if people admit this is true, then they have to take responsibility.  And no one in our society will ever take responsibility or apologize for anything.  So instead, they just yell back instead of thinking, "hmm, that's true, maybe we all made, one. huge. mistake."

    Parent
    winning elections (5.00 / 4) (#201)
    by marian evans on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:31:35 PM EST
    From my perspective as a non-US left voter and observer, the left wins in liberal democracies when it pulls in BTD's "big tent" voters.

    Sen. Hillary Clinton is a "big tent" politician - she campaigns on issues that have the widest reach, that hit the "average" voter at home in their lives (and particularly this year she has just blossomed as an "outreach' politician).

    Sen. Obama is not a "big tent" politician, nor even a "big tent democrat" - moreover, his campaign has managed to alienate a significant minority of the Dem base(deliberately, if you take Donna Brazile at her "stay home" word).

    Maybe it is possible to win the election like that - I'm not a political pundit or a psephologist. However, it seems unlikely to me.

    All I know that in elections that I have seen in liberal democratic countries (e.g. the UK, Australia, New Zealand) the left wins elections when they both hold their base and draw in the 'shifting allegiance" or the specific issues voter.

    Or does "personality" really count more that issues in the US? I don't think people are that stupid (though I believe the MSM is!). I actually think the "average" voter cares about things like the economy, their kids' education, health care for their families, national infrastructure etc.

    These were the people voting for Sen. Clinton, I think - and those are the people that win elections for the left.

    Parent

    Another perspective (none / 0) (#206)
    by Don in Seattle on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:49:16 AM EST
    Obama effectively won the nomination by early March. Hillary Clinton's campaign, from about Wisconsin on, became increasingly desperate and reckless, breaking the eleventh commandment regularly, making one false but damaging claim after another:

    • McCain is more fit than Obama for C-in-C
    • A vote for Obama is a vote for sexism
    • He's trying to subvert democracy by stealing the Michigan primary
    • I am the candidate of hard-working people -- white people
    • It's not over -- I can still win the nomination -- the superdelegates might change their minds (what I call the mendacity of hope)

    In the meantime, after February, Obama tried to pivot the election by acting as if it was between himself and McCain, effectively running out the clock on Clinton by trying to minimize direct confrontation with her.

    While this tactic did ultimately win him the nomination, it had its costs. By essentially ceding the field in KY and WV, Obama allowed Clinton to run up large garbage-time pluralities (in delegates and popular vote), and left the misimpression that he wasn't a fighter. Worst, by declining to engage Clinton, he unintentionally but seriously pissed off many of her most ardent supporters, who took it as a sexist diss.

    This is the honest perspective of one who supported Obama long before it became acceptable here. I know most folks here will deeply disagree with it, but I include it here nonetheless, for the record.

    Parent

    I do deeply disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:09:39 AM EST


    Parent
    Fair enough, and hardly surprising. (none / 0) (#208)
    by Don in Seattle on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:18:45 AM EST
    Care to elaborate? (Obama is entirely to blame, I suppose, for any continuing hard feelings?)

    Parent
    Why the election depends on Hillary Clinton voters (none / 0) (#209)
    by Don in Seattle on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:46:58 AM EST
    Because although, thanks to W, Democrats now significantly outnumber Republicans, about half of them supported Clinton over Obama. Obama seems poised to get enough of the centrist/independent vote to win the election, if he gets 90% of the Clinton voters, which he certainly would, if everyone voted based solely on the issues.

    Unfortunately for Obama, not everyone votes based solely on the issues. And there remain some very hard feelings among a solid minority of Clinton voters, for reasons that I explain below.

    Parent

    Not so. (5.00 / 5) (#186)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:48:47 PM EST
    If I vote for Obama, I have voted for Obama.
    If I write in Hillary, I have voted for Hillary.
    If I vote Green, I have voted Green.
    If I don't vote top of the ticket, I haven't voted for anyone at the top of the ticket.

    It's really pretty simple in a democracy.

    Parent

    Poetic justice (none / 0) (#16)
    by CCinNC on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:43:25 PM EST
    on the pass interference calls ... except the one against Ole Miss was correct.

    Parent
    agreed! (none / 0) (#20)
    by bjorn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:48:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Survival of the revival. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Lil on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:00:22 PM EST
    Glad you're back, and hopefully not converted. Can't wait to hear your report today.

    Those of us who have lived in ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Meteor Blades on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:15:14 PM EST
    ...Colorado (I clocked 29 years there) know to AVOID Colorado Springs. Not because it ain't beautiful, but it has the ugliest religio-politics in the state. Didja see Ted Haggard while you were there?

    Ike still on track for the Gulf. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Fabian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:33:15 PM EST
    Latest 5-day track.

    WARNING - 5 day tracking forecast is NOT set in stone!

    However, all models show Ike inevitably heading into the warm, welcoming Gulf waters where it will intensify to Cat 3.  After that, anything else is a guess - landfall, maximum strength.  Ike will be a threat no matter where its eventual destination, that much is sure.  

    TS Josephine is no longer on the map, probably a victim of wind shear.  Hurricane season is not over yet, though.  Count your blessings and batten the hatches.

    Ike and the end of NOLA ... (none / 0) (#154)
    by BlueMerlin on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:22:05 PM EST
    I fear that if Ike hits NOLA hard we're going to see a lot of people giving up on the city and moving away for good.   Very sad.

    Parent
    Hurricane season is just heating up (none / 0) (#173)
    by wasabi on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:09:32 PM EST
    Peak season is August to October.

    Parent
    Has anyone researched Wasilla?? (none / 0) (#40)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:08:57 PM EST
    I did a quick Google search.  I was curious and had this impression of this "wonderfully wholesome," bucolic region.  As it turns out, it is filled with grow farms!!  I mean big time!!  It is an industry there.  That was true when Sarah Palin was mayor also.  It has been going on for years.  I think the police force is all of 19 officers.

    Did you see the City documents? (none / 0) (#99)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:15:09 PM EST
    you can cruise their budgets and such

    Parent
    Triumph at the RNC Convention (none / 0) (#88)
    by jerry on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:05:43 PM EST
    Here is Triumph at the RNC Convention.

    Just came home from a concert.... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Aqua Blue on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:49:05 PM EST
    Palin was mentioned and the crowd went wild cheering for her.  Needless to say I live in a Blue State.   But, I was still surprised (and frightened) at the extreme enthusiasm.

    The Right may succeed in wrecking the country and retracting our personal freedoms (what's left of them now).

    That's Interesting (none / 0) (#139)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:07:12 PM EST
    Can I ask which concert this was and in which state?

    Parent
    A novel idea: Tie McCain to...the Republicans. (none / 0) (#158)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:26:23 PM EST
    Much has been said about "McSame"", four-more years of Bush, just like Bush etc. These statements certainly ring true, but they are not  entirely comprehensive.   First of all, the third term of Bush mantra associates the trouble just with the George Bush (and maybe Cheney, but he is often not mentioned).  McCain is attempting to distance himself from Bush, and as unlikely as it may seem, he may be successful with some, especially, those who still buy into the maverick fallacy.  Second of all,  McCain cannot distance himself from the Republican party, he has been a Republican senator for over 20 years with a right wing record and is now their standard bearer. In my view, Senators Obama and Biden need to underscore the character of the present Republican party with its extremists and extreme positions. With the McCaoin ticket, you get not only a candidate that may hold  personal appeal to some, but also, you get the Republican party, in all its glory.

    interesting article to consider (none / 0) (#178)
    by S on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:29:19 PM EST
    www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/07/uselections2008.republicans2008

    FYI...some of you might want to read this article and take it into consideration...

    Scathing Document out of Alaska Dems on Palin (none / 0) (#183)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:42:47 PM EST
    63-pages, containing her positions, policies, actions and all documented.

    Follow the link:

    http://tinyurl.com/6kklsv
     

    Real damaging stuff in there (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Cards In 4 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:36:19 PM EST
    since we all know who won the election.

    People don't understand that focusing on Palin let's McCain fly under the radar.  By the time you figure out that she's untouchable it will be too late.

    Parent

    This thread (none / 0) (#193)
    by leftfielder on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:02:34 PM EST
    The Republicans want to go back to life in the past, back to the June Cleaver Days. The big problem facing the Republicans is that whenever there is a slight bit of disorder in the world, they need to take a gun and shoot at it. The Republicans are too hypersensitive to disorder and need to tune some of it out. The Wild West Don Quixote days are over.

    Saturday Evening Open Thread | 198 comments (198 topical)