Emotional Toothpaste wrote:McCain picked Sarah Palin for VP. Very smart and calculated move. There are enough still-pissed-off Hilary supporters out there that could be drawn to her, despite her ultra-conservative tendencies. This will be an interesting election, but I think with this pick McCain has a lock on it.
Here is a calculus worth considering:
18,000,000 "cracks inthe the glass cieling". Votes for Hilary.
Assume 50% males (high, but let's run with it) 9,000,000 votes switch to Obama (overly simplistic, but pretend)
Leaves 9,000,000 female votes, 2/3 of which support Obama.
3,000,000 left, who were voting more for gender than for HRC. These mostly go to McCain because of the Palin pick. I think that at least 1/6th of the voters who voted for Hillary were voting along 'gender' lines, so 3,000,000 to McCain ticket.
Margin of victory, plus.
And the experience issue is forced front and center.
"The smarter mysteries are hidden in the light" - Jean Giono (1895-1970)
Before Casting your Vote take a minute to separate "Nuancing" from the "Brutal reality" of experience. This is Obama's legislative legacy upon which he builds his leadership campaign. Restated, all the other talk is politcs, unsubstantial. This is what he REALLY HAS DONE. Your vote for Obama will ensure this kind of legislation is what we can expect. Brilliiant. In some cases, nonlegislation because when he knew his Bill was going down to defeat, within his own party controlled congress, he chose not to vote..didn't show up. His own bill?!
Saturday and again Wednesday night, Mr. Biden praised Mr. Obama for three specific legislative accomplishments. One of them was an ethics bill, called by Mr. Biden in his acceptance speech "the most sweeping in a generation." However, many critics--including Hillary Clinton--criticized it as weak. For example, under Mr. Obama's bill, lobbyists may buy politicians meals if they are eating standing up but not if they're sitting down. Mr. Obama's bill didn't ban privately funded travel for congressmen or authorize an independent investigation office. But Mr. Obama did help draft, negotiate, and push the legislation that passed. The other two supposed accomplishments are more problematic.
Saturday, Mr. Biden asserted Mr. Obama "made his mark literally from day one, reaching across the aisle to pass legislation to secure the world's deadliest weapons," a claim similar to one Mr. Obama made earlier in the campaign. Wednesday night, Mr. Biden was more expansive, claiming Mr. Obama was a leader "to pass a law that helps keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists." This implied a big, important controversial measure, passed with difficulty after the intervention of an extraordinary leader.
In reality, the Lugar-Obama Bill was passed on a voice vote on December 11, 2006. It was so routine, there was no recorded vote. The media didn't consider it important or controversial. Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post reported its Senate passage, though the Post ran a 798-word op-ed by Senators Lugar and Obama the week before it was approved. It was not the subject of a story on the CBS, ABC or NBC evening news--not when it passed, not when it was signed, not ever. No story about it appeared in Roll Call or The Hill, the daily newspapers that cover the minutiae of Congress. It drew only one squib in Congressional Quarterly--and that story didn't mention Obama, just Lugar. The Bush administration supported it. The legislation required the administration to report to Congress within 180 days "on proliferation and interdiction assistance" to secure the mostly conventional weapons stocks littering the nations born from the collapsed Soviet empire. It created a new State Department office to support the Bush administration's "Proliferation Security Initiative" aimed at interdicting weapons of mass destruction and conventional weaponry. And the bill authorized $110 million in funding. But this legislation didn't require a profile in courage to co-sponsor or hard work and powerful persuasion to pass, as Mr. Biden implied.
Saturday, Biden proclaimed: "But I was proudest, I was proudest, when I watched him spontaneously focus the attention of the nation on the shameful neglect of America's wounded warriors at Walter Reed Army Hospital." The problem for Mr. Biden (and the object of his praise, Mr. Obama) is the problems at Walter Reed were revealed in articles in the Washington Post, starting February 18, 2007. Unless Mr. Obama writes for the Washington Post under the nom de media of Anne Hull or Dana Priest, he didn't "spontaneously focus the attention of the nation." The two reporters did. The legislation to correct the shortcomings emerged from a Senate committee Mr. Obama doesn't serve on and he played no significant role in drafting or pushing it through the legislative. Mr. Obama is not the real hero of the Walter Reed turn-around, despite Mr. Biden's extravagant claims.
Like Mr. Biden, Michelle Obama's speechwriter could not resist hyping her husband's work. Monday night, Mrs. Obama talked about "what he's done in the United States Senate, fighting to ensure that the men and women who serve this country are welcomed home not just with medals and parades, but with good jobs and benefits and health care--including mental health care." This is an apparent reference to the Dignity For Wounded Warriors Act, a bill Mr. Obama introduced that never made it out of the Senate Armed Services Committee, despite its Democratic majority. Americans missed the spectacle of Mr. Obama "fighting to ensure" because he was missing for that particular battle. And if he was fighting, he must have been ineffectual because fellow Democrats didn't think this bill was worth passing.
When candidates lack real accomplishments, they and those around them exaggerate what they have done, puff their performance, hype the difficulty of their activities and depict their work as far more substantial than it really is. But if you describe yourself as something you're not, or as having done things you haven't, a critical press corps may be aroused and the contrast with what people believe to be true may be jarring.
Mr. Obama should be way ahead in the race for the presidency. Deep doubts remain about whether Mr. Obama is up to the job. His running mate and his handlers know this. So they are puffing his résumé, padding his accomplishments and claiming the work of others to reassure voters he is up to the duties of the Oval Office. It may work. But the American people are particular about who they elect as president. And voters do not tolerate candidates whose opinion of ordinary citizens is so low they think they can get away with misleading them.
"The smarter mysteries are hidden in the light" - Jean Giono (1895-1970)
Mr. Average wrote:And the experience issue is forced front and center.
Excuse me, but how do you reckon? The "experience" card was one of McCain's big weapons and now he's gone and chosen someone as his VP nominee whose credentials are questionable, to say the least. If anything, his choice of Palin takes the air out of his experience argument against Obama. Some of the spinning I've seen on the Palin selection is really bizarre.
There are not 3 million PUMAs out there willing to vote for anyone with a uterus.
Mr. Average wrote:And the experience issue is forced front and center.
Excuse me, but how do you reckon? The "experience" card was one of McCain's big weapons and now he's gone and chosen someone as his VP nominee whose credentials are questionable, to say the least. If anything, his choice of Palin takes the air out of his experience argument against Obama. Some of the spinning I've seen on the Palin selection is really bizarre.
Come on, WSS. You get this. The Dem Ticket is backwards..the presidentail candiate is without, and the lunatic VP is with. The repub ticket is right, with Capital Hill experience lacking in the VEEP candidate who goes to big funerals and shit.
"The smarter mysteries are hidden in the light" - Jean Giono (1895-1970)
Not so sure about that. Yeah, it's not that important, but it's another sign of a campaign that does not have its act together. They pick a VP without having vetted her first and now for the most critical speech of the convention they have a blunder like this.
I know I'm biased, but it seems to me that McCain just flies by the seat of his pants a lot of the time (no pun intended).
I would argue that Barack Obama's middle name is about as insignificant, and yet many right-wing pundits and conservative voters (and even some Hillary supporters!) are still using it as one of their main reasons for not wanting to vote for him.
This morning you've got time for a hot, home-cooked breakfast! Delicious and piping hot in only 3 microwave minutes.
It seems like most people considered the debate to be a tie, if anything.
But if you're interested in the polls:
A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows 46% of people who watched Friday night's presidential debate say Democrat Barack Obama did a better job than Republican John McCain; 34% said McCain did better. http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/20 ... -poll.html
As an ardent Obama supporter, I have to say I was disappointed in his performance Friday. While I thought he certainly held his own, he never delivered a knockout punch, nor did he do anything that might sway an undecided voter to his cause. I thought McCain started terribly and performed better as the debate went on. Substantively, he was talking his usual nonsense, but his presentation of it was stronger than Obama's, IMHO. Because Obama has been branded an 'elitist' by the right, he must be cautious as to how he comes across in these forums. If there is a whiff of anything that can be construed as condescension coming from him, those quarters will pounce on it. Still, with the topic ostensibly being 'foreign relations' which was supposed to be McCain's strong suit, I feel he did well.
Anyone watch The VP debates? I thought they were really interesting. Palin's "folksy" sayings really grated on me. Doggone it? In a vice-presidential debate? Really? I also thought she danced around the questions way too much.
StrictTime wrote:Anyone watch The VP debates? I thought they were really interesting. Palin's "folksy" sayings really grated on me. Doggone it? In a vice-presidential debate? Really? I also thought she danced around the questions way too much.
She's an automaton. I keep waiting for her to malfunction like a Stepford Wife.
Wait, maybe that's what happened in the CBS interview.
Biden, despite his many years of "playing the game" still came off as a real person. Palin, for all her staged folksiness, came across as a sniggering, cue-card reading robot. Soccer-mom, my ass.
migdd wrote:Biden, despite his many years of "playing the game" still came off as a real person. Palin, for all her staged folksiness, came across as a sniggering, cue-card reading robot. Soccer-mom, my ass.
Her response to Biden talking about his family epitomizes her. Instead of showing a little human empathy and going off-script for a moment, she goes right back to her talking points and the John McCain Maverick bullshit. I cannot wait until Election Day. I've never been more sure of my vote.
StrictTime wrote:Anyone watch The VP debates? I thought they were really interesting. Palin's "folksy" sayings really grated on me. Doggone it? In a vice-presidential debate? Really? I also thought she danced around the questions way too much.
She may look like Tina Fey, but when she speaks she reminds me of Marge Gundersun from that movie, Fargo.
again, it is so embarrassing. i am gratified that the polling data show that most of us get it. brokaw cooing over her and indicating the dems are probably happy there will not be another debate is pandering to the fear the media could have that they are viewed as picking on her. what was he watching? an abc affiliate had 3 commentators, 2 of which were republican "strategists" trashing her after it was over one calling her cartooninsh. which is kind. she is obviously an idiot. i just don't understand how biden kept himself from coming unglued it has to be so demeaning. he had to feel like he was up there with a high school cheerleader. a co-worker suggests they must have drugged him.
