Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That comment you mentioned has a wide range of perception depending on where you stand. I'm not surprised that someone in D.C. would have a negative reaction to it, but there were also a lot of people that absolutely loved it as well and felt she was sticking it to what was perceived as a partisan moderator (I disagree with that, but it certainly was an issue in the run-up to the debate).

I don't think her evasion techniques were terribly polished, but I was actually glad to see her handling the questions much better than she did in the previously mentioned interviews, even if she only did briefly answer the question before moving to other talking points. While people in Washington D.C. greatly dislike her down-home style, there's a lot of people that support her even more if she's attacked by the political elite, even if it's a warranted attack.

FWIW, I grew up in a steadfastly Republican portion of Virginia. I agree that it is certainly a difference in perspective. Some people may think that a partisan moderator was trying to stick it to her, but the moderator also chided Biden for not answering questions.

As I said previously, I dislike the idea that you were "glad to see her handling the questions much better than she did in the previously mentioned interviews." This should not be a factor. There is no questioning that she handled the questions better than she did in the past, but did she handle them as well as Biden, McCain, and Obama? Did she handle them the way you would like the Vice President of the United States to handle them?

I do not dislike her down-home style. I dislike her lack of substance. I dislike all of the catch-phrases in this debate from both sides ("Maverick", "Main Street", etc). She speaks with vague substance on energy and cutting taxes. Outside of that there is very little. I will give her a few points on Iraq and Afghanistan as well. Overall, however, she lacks substance. I also think she was obviously thrown for a loop when she didn't have talking points on a subject. Even, as mentioned during the debate by a few people, her prepared "white flag" comment was ruined by her trepidation.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Because Obama is in lockstep with Frank, Dodd, and Schumer. If they're going to imply that Obama is not a 'new' change, there's no better example than Obama voting with these idiots on nearly every vote he makes. It could even be argued that putting Obama in office is just like putting one of these senators in office. I don't find the way these senators run our economy into the ground after being warned of serious issues to be flattering at all.

Attaching him to Senate Dems is a lot different than specifically going after him for Fannie/Freddie ties.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd be interested to see the 'one month out' figures over the last 50 or so years that back up that assertion. I'm assuming you have them, otherwise, you wouldn't have made that point.

I can't find good polling data that far back, but from what I've read and looked at I can't find an example of someone coming from 6 or 7 back and winning with a month to go.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You can privatize certain aspects of the economy or the government while still having pretty strong regulation of those companies or industries. The two are not mutually exclusive. She never said anything about further deregulation if privatized.

She wasn't just talking about privatizing things. She mentioned getting government out of the way. Not sure how government can regulate without being in the way.

[Big Fo]

I couldn't believe what I was seeing on the post-debate coverage last night, talking heads saying Palin did great and earned a draw. She was an embarrassment to American politics and that's really saying something considering the last eight years and some of the idiots in Congress from both parties.

At least the people polled after the debates have a clue.

I guess the media wants to prop up the Republicans in order to try and keep the election close so people keep watching the news channels.

[larrymcg421]

Palin disagrees with Michigan move

The Alaska governor first heard the news this morning and fired off a quick email to campaign officials expressing her displeasure with the move.

“Oh c’mon, do we have to?” Palin said she wrote.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

I guess the media wants to prop up the Republicans in order to try and keep the election close so people keep watching the news channels.

Are you suggesting that our mass media can sway opinion?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Palin disagrees with Michigan move

She only heard about it today?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

She only heard about it today?

She read about it in the papers, all of them really, any of them.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

She only heard about it today?

anybody else want to try to claim that she's anything more than a prop? she's not even involved enough to know they were pulling out of a battleground state (and don't tell me "she was preparing for the debate yesterday"...she ought to be able to multitask and at least take in that info)

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

She read about it in the papers, all of them really, any of them.

The media edited that answer to make her look bad.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The media edited that answer to make her look bad.

Who are you even responding to?

[albionmoonlight]

One can spin the numbers--and the month left to campaign--all sorts of ways, but I would have to think that Obama is slightly more optimistic about his chances right now than McCain.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Who are you even responding to?

Just a little joke based on the common Palin defense that the media is editing her answers to make them look bad.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

Looking at the map, I am also wondering why McCain didn't try to play more offense in the blue states. Why concede the coasts (save New Hampshire)? Seems like leaving a lot of electoral votes on the table. He could have just done the Maverick thing and tried to get a lot of cross-over votes.

Seems a bit foolish to have boxed himself into such a defensive corner.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Subby

This is the exact argument that was made in favor of George W. when he was running for President. He would run the White House and the federal government like a CEO runs a business. His core convictions were strong, so all he needed was a cadre of great men and women to help attend to the detailed minutiae.

And the argument was valid, but Bush didn't follow through with the cadre of great men and women (instead, we got the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Brown, Dick Cheney, etc.) The one person who probably best fit the mold of excellence was Colin Powell, who had the stones to tell the administration what would happen if we invaded Iraq, but he was forced out the door by Cheney and Rummy.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola--

Looking at the map, I am also wondering why McCain didn't try to play more offense in the blue states. Why concede the coasts (save New Hampshire)? Seems like leaving a lot of electoral votes on the table. He could have just done the Maverick thing and tried to get a lot of cross-over votes.

Seems a bit foolish to have boxed himself into such a defensive corner.

There's only so much money. Given historical trends and demographic data, money spent on the coasts would almost certainly be wasted. I think they've generally targeted the right states to fight in, but the map is just working against them. It's awfully tough for one party to win three times in a row especially in the midst of a financial crisis.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's only so much money. Given historical trends and demographic data, money spent on the coasts would almost certainly be wasted. I think they've generally targeted the right states to fight in, but the map is just working against them. It's awfully tough for one party to win three times in a row especially in the midst of a financial crisis.

Still completely stupid to make a public announcement.

Maybe this should be handled like a civil lawsuit - the sides can just concede a number of states beforehand, leaving us only the ones that really matter on election day.

[JPhillips]

That's basically what happens. Even at his most optimistic Obama was talking about 18 battleground states.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

She read about it in the papers, all of them really, any of them.

I enjoyed this, thank you

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

And the argument was valid, but Bush didn't follow through with the cadre of great men and women (instead, we got the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Brown, Dick Cheney, etc.) The one person who probably best fit the mold of excellence was Colin Powell, who had the stones to tell the administration what would happen if we invaded Iraq, but he was forced out the door by Cheney and Rummy.

If the argument was valid then he would have followed through. He didn't. You can't cherry pick your examples that work then reject the ones that don't.

Your observations there are just that. Observations. They are tinged, just like everyone's, by how you want to perceive what you see. Me included. It's a decidedly human trait.

[larrymcg421]

http://www.johnmccain.com/palinfinancial/

Palin's tax returns released on Take Out the Trash Day. It'll be interesting to see if there's anything sketchy in there.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Are you suggesting that our mass media can sway opinion?

They may not be effective at it, but they do try to project the image of an extremely tight race no matter what the polling suggests.

[Maple Leafs]

[SirFozzie]

Crooks and Liars » FL Teacher: CHANGE = Come Help A Ni**er Get Elected

If true, This teacher not only needs to be fired, but kicked in the groin repeatedly:

A Marianna middle-school teacher has been suspended for 10 days without pay after he wrote a racially charged interpretation of a commonly used phrase in the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama.

While some parents and community activists were outraged by the actions of Greg Howard, Jackson County NAACP officials want to gather more facts before the group considers taking action. But some parents feel Howard should be fired.

Larry Moore, deputy superintendent for the Jackson County School District, said school officials determined Howard wrote an acronym with an explanation on a dry-erase board in his class Sept. 26 at Marianna Middle School.

It said, “C.H.A.N.G.E. — Come Help A (N-word) Get Elected.”

This was apparently written in front of his whole class, with six black students. I'm almost thinking that this guy should be sterilized, this level of stupidity (writing that N-word in front of MIDDLE SCHOOL students?) shouldn't be passed on to the next generation.

Oh, and McCain (through Palin) has gone on the attack, saying Obama "pals around with terrorists". I guess we're in the "try everything possible to reverse the polling trend" phase

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Oh, and McCain (through Palin) has gone on the attack, saying Obama "pals around with terrorists".

And what is factually incorrect about that statement?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

And what is factually incorrect about that statement?

multiple things

1) the guy was never convicted, and in fact was cleared by the government
2) they're not pals - they served on one charity board together and haven't had any contact since 2005. and it wasn't like a board where obama could say "i don't want that guy on there" -- he has no control
3) they happen to live in the same neighborhood and bumped into each other on the street

[DaddyTorgo]

in fact here:

Originally Posted by cnn article

Obama's Chicago, Illinois, home is in the same neighborhood as Bill Ayers, a founder of the radical Weather Underground, which was involved in several bombings in the early 1970s, including the Pentagon and the Capitol, and the two have met several times since Obama's 1995 campaign for a state Senate seat.
Palin cited an article in Saturday's New York Times about Obama's relationship with Ayers, now 63. But that article concluded that "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' "

Several other publications, including the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic, have debunked the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship. Watch CNN's Truth Squad examine Palin claims »
Riot and bomb conspiracy charges against Ayers were dropped in 1974, and he is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago.

i encourage you to educate yourself.

[Vegas Vic]

Of course, you guys neglected to mention that Ayers in unrepentant for his terrorist actions (regardless of how long ago they took place).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Of course, you guys neglected to mention that Ayers in unrepentant for his terrorist actions (regardless of how long ago they took place).

THEY ARE NOT FRIENDS! IF ANYTHING THEY'RE PASSING ACQUAINTANCES!!! which, living in the same city and both being active public figures, is really not unusual

[Kodos]

Clearly Obama is a terrorist--VOTE MCCAIN!!!11!111

[Big Fo]

what better friend of terrorist or succession advocacy?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Of course, you guys neglected to mention that Ayers in unrepentant for his terrorist actions (regardless of how long ago they took place).

Exactly how many people is DaddyTorgo?

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

THEY ARE NOT FRIENDS! IF ANYTHING THEY'RE PASSING ACQUAINTANCES!!! which, living in the same city and both being active public figures, is really not unusual

LOL. You do know Vegas Vic does everything possible to get Obama supporters riled up, right?

[ace1914]

I love this site. You guys are hilarious.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

lol !

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Of course, you guys neglected to mention that Ayers in unrepentant for his terrorist actions (regardless of how long ago they took place).

And since Obama lives in the same city as Jose Padilla (as I did when Padilla was active, actually), he's also a terrorist. OMG!

You know, John McCain spent 5 years living closely with a bunch of Communists. I wonder what his supporters would think of that?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

And since Obama lives in the same city as Jose Padilla (as I did when Padilla was active, actually), he's also a terrorist. OMG!

You know, John McCain spent 5 years living closely with a bunch of Communists. I wonder what his supporters would think of that?

Hey, I once was in a Dunkin Doughnuts with Ted Bundy, so I was friends with a serial killer.

My wife actually did go to school with Jill Arrington, and used to have to help her change close between scenes in school plays, that would make them....


Sorry, what was the question again?

[Passacaglia]

I Met Trent Green.

Oh wait, that was someone else.

[flere-imsaho]

I once sat next to Michael Dukakis at the Boston Symphony, so that must mean I'm a left-wing libera.... er, wait, hold on let me try this again....

I went to Oxford like Bill Clinton, so that must mean I'm a die-hard, smoked-pot-once-but-didn't-inhale, solid Democra.... uh....

Actually, Vic may have a point.

[CamEdwards]

I had a much longer post all ready to go, but I think it's kind of a waste. Honest to Christ, if you can't figure out why some people might be bothered by the fact that Ayers is a respected member of society 40 years after he engaged in a bombing campaign that left at least 4 people dead, then of course you're not going to understand the big deal about Obama having even a professional relationship with the guy.

For the record, DT:

1) Ayers was not exonerated or cleared of any charges by the government. Prosecutorial misconduct led to a plea bargain.

2) They served on the board of directors of the Woods Foundation, and also had a fairly long association with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. While it may be true that Obama wasn't in a position to remove Ayers, he certainly WAS in a position to speak out about Ayers' involvement.

3) One of Obama's first fundraisers was at the home of Ayers. I'd think Obama would certainly be in a position to say "hmm... can we have it at your neighbor's house instead"?

You don't have to think of Bill Ayers as a criminal terrorist mastermind in order for Ayers to be someone you don't really want to be associated with. Frankly, I think the worst part about this whole story isn't that Obama has any sort of relationship with Ayers. I think it's the fact that several societies (Chicago political society, national community of educators to name two) apparently have no problem with a guy like Ayers being closely involved in their issues. Apparently we have a community statute of limitations on terrorists.

I see Obama as going along to get along. He's certainly displayed no great moral example in his associations with Ayers, but politically speaking he hasn't had to. I expect Chicago politicians to act like Chicago politicians. I just wish there weren't so many Americans who felt the same way.

[timmynausea]

Weird polling out of Minnesota. A SurveyUSA poll released Friday has McCain +1. A Star Tribune poll out today has Obama +19. Someone pointed out earlier that McCain really isn't campaigning there, so both internals must have it off the table.

I am curious about the senate race, though. Same polls as before - SurveyUSA has Coleman +10. Star Tribune has Franken +9.

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I see Obama as going along to get along. He's certainly displayed no great moral example in his associations with Ayers, but politically speaking he hasn't had to. I expect Chicago politicians to act like Chicago politicians. I just wish there weren't so many Americans who felt the same way.

But Obama organized great luncheons!@!

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND! THE MAN IS CHANGE!


I agree with your assessment of Ayers and involving Obama but as you seemed to have already figured out, a lot of the people in this thread have their minds made regardless. You could write a novel, full of facts and information on Obama and they would shoot back that Palin doesn't read enough newspapers, who cares if Obama is associated with scum (which they'd argue til election day anyway).

[timmynausea]

McCain's father in law was charged with multiple crimes and convicted of at least one, and his brother (and partner) did a year in prison. They had extensive ties to organized crime. Nobody is outraged about it because it was 50 years ago and has little to do with the election.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I had a much longer post all ready to go, but I think it's kind of a waste. Honest to Christ, if you can't figure out why some people might be bothered by the fact that Ayers is a respected member of society 40 years after he engaged in a bombing campaign that left at least 4 people dead, then of course you're not going to understand the big deal about Obama having even a professional relationship with the guy.

Because he doesn't have a professional relationship with the guy?

For the record, DT:

1) Ayers was not exonerated or cleared of any charges by the government. Prosecutorial misconduct led to a plea bargain.

Has nothing to do with Obama.

2) They served on the board of directors of the Woods Foundation, and also had a fairly long association with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. While it may be true that Obama wasn't in a position to remove Ayers, he certainly WAS in a position to speak out about Ayers' involvement.

They met 4 times a year on the Woods foundation, and it was merely to approve funding proposals.

3) One of Obama's first fundraisers was at the home of Ayers. I'd think Obama would certainly be in a position to say "hmm... can we have it at your neighbor's house instead"?

You neglect to mention that this fundraiser was organized by someone else and this is when Obama was first introduced to Ayers. So it's likely that he didn't even know about Ayers past at the time.

You don't have to think of Bill Ayers as a criminal terrorist mastermind in order for Ayers to be someone you don't really want to be associated with. Frankly, I think the worst part about this whole story isn't that Obama has any sort of relationship with Ayers. I think it's the fact that several societies (Chicago political society, national community of educators to name two) apparently have no problem with a guy like Ayers being closely involved in their issues. Apparently we have a community statute of limitations on terrorists.

My guess is it has to do with what he was protesting.

I see Obama as going along to get along. He's certainly displayed no great moral example in his associations with Ayers, but politically speaking he hasn't had to. I expect Chicago politicians to act like Chicago politicians. I just wish there weren't so many Americans who felt the same way.

I expect so many Americans to not regard these handful of meetings as close ties. I'm sure if we use such a flimsy standard, we can find McCain's close ties with some unreputable people.

Of course, Palin's quote mentioned that he was "palling" around with terrorists, which is certainly not the truth no matter what you think of his previous ties to Ayers. She cited a NY Times article as proof, but said article concluded that Obama and Ayers were not close. So maybe she has actually picked up a newspaper, but there's still no proof that she knows how to read one.

[larrymcg421]

And it only took me a few minutes. Drumroll please.....

G. Gordon Liddy.

Not only did Liddy host a fundraiser for McCain, but had him on his radio show last November.

So, you're saying, who cares about Watergate? Well, he's also had a history of extremist inflammatory statements since then...

If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Hey, I once was in a Dunkin Doughnuts with Ted Bundy, so I was friends with a serial killer.

My wife actually did go to school with Jill Arrington, and used to have to help her change close between scenes in school plays, that would make them....


Sorry, what was the question again?

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And it only took me a few minutes. Drumroll please.....

G. Gordon Liddy.

Not only did Liddy host a fundraiser for McCain, but had him on his radio show last November.

So, you're saying, who cares about Watergate? Well, he's also had a history of extremist inflammatory statements since then...

well done

[DaddyTorgo]

not even mentioning the fact that didn't McCain say wayyyyy back at the beginning of the campaign that he wanted to run a clean campaign, without swiftboat-style attacks?

guess that bit of rhetoric has fallen by the wayside...

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cnn article

But Rep. Jay Ramras, the Republican chairman of the Alaska House Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday that he still has confidence in the Legislature's investigation and said it should go forward.
"I think it's going to be benign in the conclusions that it reaches, anyway," he said. "But I think it's important to reach a conclusion."
Ramras called himself "a conservative, pro-life Republican" who is supporting GOP presidential nominee John McCain's ticket. But, he added, "We all took an oath of office, and this is an important report to come out."

this is re: the troopergate investigation