Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by molson

"Midwest" is an informal term, but since when are Ohio and Michigan not considered to be a part of it? Even the US Census considers them to be in the midwest.

Midwestern United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"New England" very specifically refers to 6 states. I've never heard anyone call New York (or PA, or NJ) "New England".

I have actually known New Yorkers with college degrees who insisted to me that New York was part of New England.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That Wiki entry is a perfect example. It shows ND, SD, NE, KS, and MO all as possibly not being part of the Midwest. Most people in those states would be shocked to hear that and would be even more shocked to hear OH and MI are definitely midwest states.

In that sense, it's no different than many's perception of 'New England'. There's a whole lot of people that would have no problem putting MD, PA, NY, NJ and DE in that category, but I know from living in MD that people in that state will try to distance themselves from that association as much as they can.

Point being, whether you say 'East Coast' or 'New England', the vast majority of the states would view Biden as very similar candidates, whether you can prove otherwise or not by tearing apart their individual policy beliefs.

I have never heard anyone refer Maryland, New Jersey, or New York (the state I live in) as part of New England. If anything, we are in the Mid-Atlantic region, and Maryland could be part of the South.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I have actually known New Yorkers with college degrees who insisted to me that New York was part of New England.

I'm not one of them.

Of course, a lot people think that New York is New York City. It seems like they forget that we have that this huge piece of land northeast of the city where other New Yorkers live.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I have never heard anyone refer Maryland, New Jersey, or New York (the state I live in) as part of New England. If anything, we are in the Mid-Atlantic region, and Maryland could be part of the South.

I've lived in Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut and Maine and I have never heard anyone, in any of those states, refer to any state south of Connecticut as being a New England state. New York is definitely not a part of New England and Delaware, Pennsylvania and Maryland are Mid-Atlantic states.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by samifan24

I've lived in Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut and Maine and I have never heard anyone, in any of those states, refer to any state south of Connecticut as being a New England state. New York is definitely not a part of New England and Delaware, Pennsylvania and Maryland are Mid-Atlantic states.

Exactly. People in those states are quick to correct any association with New England. They don't want to be considered as any part of that region.

[DaddyTorgo]

we were talking about this last night at dinner - I don't think McCain really has any good choices for a VP candidate - and I think a lot of his potential choices are staying far away and don't necessarily want the job

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

we were talking about this last night at dinner - I don't think McCain really has any good choices for a VP candidate - and I think a lot of his potential choices are staying far away and don't necessarily want the job

Yeah, pretty much anybody that McCain picks will be a bad pick. I don't think either candidate had a good choice though, honestly. Joe Biden's pretty weak if you think about it prior to the pick actually being made. Now, of course, it's suddenly pure genius, but that's just because Obama is untouchable.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Yeah, pretty much anybody that McCain picks will be a bad pick. I don't think either candidate had a good choice though, honestly. Joe Biden's pretty weak if you think about it prior to the pick actually being made. Now, of course, it's suddenly pure genius, but that's just because Obama is untouchable.

eh, I don't think biden is a weak pick.

He's got MAJOR foreign policy experience, so that counters what the Repubs would say about that (given he could have been Secretary of State and still used that, but no worries), and he also is a vet, so that will counter McSame's incessant babbling about that.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

eh, I don't think biden is a weak pick.

He's got MAJOR foreign policy experience, so that counters what the Repubs would say about that (given he could have been Secretary of State and still used that, but no worries), and he also is a vet, so that will counter McSame's incessant babbling about that.

Its weak in the sense that Biden doesn't really have a lot of appeal. I read it as a safe pick. The "risk" that people are talking about, that Biden has a big mouth - really, who cares, lots of veeps have had mouths and said dumb things, I'm not sure its ever hurt a campaign. So he's a guy with not much downside, but I have a hard time seeing that he brings a lot to the table.

I fully expect McCain to pick a woman now. Any woman - Farrah Whitworth-Rahn would be a fine pick.

[DaddyTorgo]

if McCain picks a woman does that imply that he's going to cheat on his wife with her? since he has a history of that...

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

if McCain picks a woman does that imply that he's going to cheat on his wife with her? since he has a history of that...

Depends on if its a hot chick or not. McCain only bangs the finest foxes.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

eh, I don't think biden is a weak pick.

He's got MAJOR foreign policy experience, so that counters what the Repubs would say about that (given he could have been Secretary of State and still used that, but no worries), and he also is a vet, so that will counter McSame's incessant babbling about that.

See. Untouchable.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Exactly. People in those states are quick to correct any association with New England. They don't want to be considered as any part of that region.

Huh? It has more to do with having their own region, the Mid-Atlantic region, than immediately disassociating themselves from New England. There's really no argument about wanting or not wanting to be considered part of a specific geographical region. It simply is: those states are Mid-Atlantic states.

[Arles]

Interesting choices for McCain:



OR



But he will choose:


In the end, I'm not sure the VP matters that much. If Bush can get elected with Quayle and Carter with Mondale, I can't see either of these choices hurting Obama or McCain any worse. The only bad choice for McCain would be Liebermann, outside of that I don't see it being a big issue.

Seems to me as the choice is Obama or "the guy running against Obama". If enough people like and trust Obama, he will win - independent of what people think about the McCain ticket.

[molson]

Originally Posted by samifan24

Huh? It has more to do with having their own region, the Mid-Atlantic region, than immediately disassociating themselves from New England. There's really no argument about wanting or not wanting to be considered part of a specific geographical region. It simply is: those states are Mid-Atlantic states.

Mizzou B-ball fan is just trying to take a little cheap shot for some reason.

But ya, they correct people because anyone that says anything to the contrary is a moron. Like if someone referred to Puerto Rico as a "State", or as Alaska as "part of Russia". It's just wrong, it's not like "midwest" or "northeast" where there's no clear defining line.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Arles

Interesting choices for McCain:

Seems to me as the choice is Obama or "the guy running against Obama". If enough people like and trust Obama, he will win - independent of what people think about the McCain ticket.

Looks like we have to change the name of the thread.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Arles

In the end, I'm not sure the VP matters that much. If Bush can get elected with Quayle and Carter with Mondale, I can't see either of these choices hurting Obama or McCain any worse. The only bad choice for McCain would be Liebermann, outside of that I don't see it being a big issue.

Historically, the VP doesn't seem to really matter in terms of election results, and I don't think the VP really matters all that much after the election in a practical sense, but I don't know if all the old rules apply anymore, in this era of 24/7 news coverage outside the VP candidates' houses. The media has decided the VP choice is more important than ever this year, and that might have an impact on the voters.

For entertainment value, I'm rooting for Sarah Palin, though that's never going to happen. I'd definitely watch in the VP debate though. In a quiet room. Alone. With a glass of wine.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by molson

in this era of 24/7 news coverage outside the VP candidates' houses. The media has decided the VP choice is more important than ever this year, and that might have an impact on the voters.

It's seems like TMZ is running all of the election media coverage this year.

[DaddyTorgo]

McCain CANNOT pick Romney.

1) he's a mormon - the religious-right already has a hard time stomaching mccain as it is - let alone with a MORMON as a running mate
2) he's a MUCH better speaker, and looks much more fit and presidential than McCain - he'd make McCain look and sound comical
3) personally I think Romney has wayyyyyy too much political-baggage from his time as governor of MA (how the fuck did this state ever elect him anyways??) - he's a known flip-flopper. He'll say two different things in front of different crowds - on the national stage this will be so much more noticeable

I think Romney's best bet is to wait 4 years and try it again as the headliner

[Young Drachma]

Pawlenty is the guy for McCain. Younger than Biden, less well known and less likely to make waves with the right wing of the GOP. Plus, being in Minnesota makes it even more worthwhile, to get the home state bump of him being there, too.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by molson

For entertainment value, I'm rooting for Sarah Palin, though that's never going to happen. I'd definitely watch in the VP debate though. In a quiet room. Alone. With a glass of wine.

I agree, just being able to look at Sarah Palin for the next 2 months might make this entire process worthwhile

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

McCain CANNOT pick Romney.

1) he's a mormon - the religious-right already has a hard time stomaching mccain as it is - let alone with a MORMON as a running mate
2) he's a MUCH better speaker, and looks much more fit and presidential than McCain - he'd make McCain look and sound comical
3) personally I think Romney has wayyyyyy too much political-baggage from his time as governor of MA (how the fuck did this state ever elect him anyways??) - he's a known flip-flopper. He'll say two different things in front of different crowds - on the national stage this will be so much more noticeable

You can throw 2 and 3 back at Obama with the selection of Biden (more presidential, ton of baggage). At this point, people just want a "complimentary piece" and a better shot at 1-2 battleground states. Biden gave that to Obama by providing foreign policy exp and helping in Ohio/Penn. Romney would give that to McCain by providing economic legitimacy and helping in Michigan/Penn.

Again, I wouldn't prefer Romney if I were McCain - I would go for the potential home run (or strikeout) with Jindal or Palin. IMO, McCain could really siphon off some of the Hillary vote by going with Palin. McCain and Hillary are very similar on many issues and adding Palin might be enough to sway the unhappy Hillary democrat voters. But, Romney is the *safe* choice and that's the way most people go at this stage.

[Flasch186]

FWIW when I was just up in Alaska there was a huge broohaha about her abuse of power or something. It was all over the press until the other guy, the Senator stole the show by being indicted. Their airport is named after him BTW.

[DaddyTorgo]

I dunno if Romney really helps in Michigan. During the primaries wasn't there a lot of grumbling from people in Michigan about him claiming to "be from there" despite the fact that he was essentially a carpet-bagger?

and I don't think biden is a better speaker or looks more presidential than obama (well okay maybe he looks a little more presidential, but he's not a better speaker).

Romney vs. McCain in speaking is like night and day. Romney's about 1000x times a better speaker. If you think Biden is a better speaker than Obama, okay, but there's no way he is a better speaker than Obama to the degree that Romney is better than McCain.

McCain can't even read his speeches off the teleprompter, and is a bumbling fool in debates.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

FWIW when I was just up in Alaska there was a huge broohaha about her abuse of power or something. It was all over the press until the other guy, the Senator stole the show by being indicted. Their airport is named after him BTW.

I believe that one of her staffers (according to reports, the staffer admitted that Palin had no knowledge or involvement) was responsible for the abuse of power. I really like Palin a lot. She's just isn't being mentioned really.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

McCain CANNOT pick Romney.

1) he's a mormon - the religious-right already has a hard time stomaching mccain as it is - let alone with a MORMON as a running mate
2) he's a MUCH better speaker, and looks much more fit and presidential than McCain - he'd make McCain look and sound comical
3) personally I think Romney has wayyyyyy too much political-baggage from his time as governor of MA (how the fuck did this state ever elect him anyways??) - he's a known flip-flopper. He'll say two different things in front of different crowds - on the national stage this will be so much more noticeable

I think Romney's best bet is to wait 4 years and try it again as the headliner

It is Massachusetts. They seem to elect based on pedigree and old-money. It does seem like the current governor, Patrick, isn't getting a lot more love.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I believe that one of her staffers (according to reports, the staffer admitted that Palin had no knowledge or involvement) was responsible for the abuse of power. I really like Palin a lot. She's just isn't being mentioned really.

Wasn't it involving Palin's sister and a...hang on:

Palin's abuse of power | BLOGS FOR JOHN McCAIN

Originally Posted by Article

Trooper Mike Wooten: Being hunted by the governor

In the fall of 2004, Trooper Mike Wooten had decided the differences between he and his wife Molly of four years had grown to the point of being irreconcilable. His wife just happened to be the younger sister of Sarah Palin.

The beginning of the divorce proceedings set off a chain of bizarre and chilling events that has continued through today. During that time it has resulted in the governor and her family trying to ruin the career of an eight year Alaska State Trooper that has served his state on the SERT Team, Motor Unit and DUI Team.

Beginning in spring of 2005 and for the next ten months, over 25 formal complaints were filed by Palin and Heath family members against Trooper Mike Wooten. From drinking while driving his patrol car to making threats to shooting a moose without a permit.

According to Trooper records, Sarah Palin said that in January and February of 2005, Wooten was drinking while driving. After investigating the complaint, the investigator found that Palin never actually saw what she reported.

In another complaint, Sarah's father said that Wooten made threatening remarks. Again, the investigator found there was no probable way that it could have happened.

Walt Monegan got fired for all of the wrong reasons. Walt Monegan got fired because he had the audacity to tell Governor Palin no, when apparently nobody is allowed to say no to Governor Palin. Read More

Originally Posted by 2nd site"

Did Alaska Gov. Abuse Power To Help Sister?
Tue, 07/29/2008 - 13:27 — Judicial Watch Blog

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is being investigated for abruptly firing the state’s public safety commissioner because he wouldn’t get rid of a state trooper who had gone through a bitter divorce with the governor’s sister.

As the mayor of Wasilla, the Republican governor had written a letter of recommendation for her ex brother-in-law (Mike Wooten) to get the trooper job in 2000, but her sister went through a nasty divorce and custody battle in 2005 that some say led Palin to push for the trooper’s firing.

The governor’s sister, Molly McCann, continues to have a hostile relationship with her former husband and recently called 911 because he would not return their young children to her. The family’s dirty laundry was aired this month when, for no particular reason, Governor Palin fired Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.

Palin said she got rid of Monegan because she wants the department to go in a new direction, but the fired commissioner says he got the boot because he wouldn’t fire the governor’s ex brother in law. In fact, Monegan said that Palin and her family have been pressuring him to fire the trooper since she took office in December 2006.

This week a bipartisan council of Alaska legislators ordered an independent investigation into the matter, which has become somewhat of a scandal in a state already plagued with public corruption at various levels of government. Taxpayers will dish out $100,000 for the probe, which will hopefully expose any abuses of power or improper actions by members of the state’s executive branch.

Ok so the husband of her younger sister files for divorce then he is let go from his position, and abruptly so, yet she had no knowledge at all? Hmmm, that pig stinks like a pig if you ask me. Unless of course the younger sister was from a different mother and father, they dont talk to eachother and perhaps live in separate states...

nope, nope and nope

BTW, I like her a lot too, with those sexy glasses on and her business suit, I do.

[Buccaneer]

That's what I was alluding to earlier. If you believe that a VP should help bring his/her state into play, there's no way a Republican would pick Minnesota or Massachusetts. I do realize that Minnesota is now considered a toss-up but after its presidential voting record the past 40 years, I wouldn't touch it.

McCain has the same tough choice for VP as Obama. Picking Biden would solidify the alientation of the anti-Obama Clinton supporters (particularly in the way Obama wanted nothing to do with them). McCain has the same problem with the neo-conservative bloc (particularly with loudmouths like Rush saying it's a do-or-die choice).

[JPhillips]

These Rasmussen numbers stolen from 538 make Biden look like a good choice.

Democrats

Candidate Fav-Unfav
Clinton 77-22 (+55)
Biden 65-17 (+48)
Bayh 45-25 (+20)
Sebelius 35-19 (+16)
Kaine 35-29 (+6)

Indepedents

Candidate Fav-Unfav
Biden 42-29 (+13)
Bayh 31-21 (+10)
Kaine 24-23 (+1)
Sebelius 18-21 (-3)
Clinton 39-57 (-18)

Republicans

Candidate Fav-Unfav
Kaine 29-30 (-1)
Bayh 23-43 (-20)
Sebelius 14-45 (-31)
Biden 22-63 (-39)
Clinton 21-75 (-54)

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Wasn't it involving Palin's sister and a...hang on:

Palin's abuse of power | BLOGS FOR JOHN McCAIN





Ok so the husband of her younger sister files for divorce then he is let go from his position, and abruptly so, yet she had no knowledge at all? Hmmm, that pig stinks like a pig if you ask me. Unless of course the younger sister was from a different mother and father, they dont talk to eachother and perhaps live in separate states...

nope, nope and nope

BTW, I like her a lot too, with those sexy glasses on and her business suit, I do.

I was just reporting what I read.

[Arles]

IMO, Bayh would have gone with Obama's message of "change" and youth as he's been a very independent senator. Biden was the safe choice who could be a better attack dog (which may be a better choice). McCain has the same options with Palin/Jinal vs. Romney. The difference is I think McCain has more to gain from a big splash VP and less to lose.

I think it's going to be a tough sell for Obama to say he's there for change and to bring people together and then choose one of the more partisan senators who's been in Washington for 35 years as a running mate. Still, this whole thing is window dressing. In the end, it's going to come down to whether people in Florida, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Penn and Wisconsin feel good with Obama as the president. If a majority does, he wins. If they don't, McCain will win. Outside of an enormous gaff or complete senior meltdown, what McCain does probably won't matter down the stretch (unless it's attacking Obama).

[Vegas Vic]

After this non-stop barrage of "we don't need four more years of Bush/McCain", poor Dick Cheney wants his critics back.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Arles

IMO, Bayh would have gone with Obama's message of "change" and youth as he's been a very independent senator. Biden was the safe choice who could be a better attack dog (which may be a better choice). McCain has the same options with Palin/Jinal vs. Romney. The difference is I think McCain has more to gain from a big splash VP and less to lose.

I think it's going to be a tough sell for Obama to say he's there for change and to bring people together and then choose one of the more partisan senators who's been in Washington for 35 years as a running mate. Still, this whole thing is window dressing. In the end, it's going to come down to whether people in Florida, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Penn and Wisconsin feel good with Obama as the president. If a majority does, he wins. If they don't, McCain will win. Outside of an enormous gaff or complete senior meltdown, what McCain does probably won't matter down the stretch (unless it's attacking Obama).

Obama's "Change You Can Believe In" only means change away from Bush/Cheney and then saying McCain/? = Bush/Cheney.

Not knowing, I checked McCain's website to see what his slogan is and I see it's "Country First" (is that right?). What the hell does that supposed to mean?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Much like the East Coast folks somehow consider Ohio and Michigan part of the Midwest, anyone west of the Mississippi considers anything north of Washington D.C. part of New England. Having lived in Baltimore, I certainly understand that no one south of New York likes to be lumped into New England, but that's what happens.

re: Midwest (not just this reference but a couple more down the thread) -- I think there is a growing tendency to break the Midwest down into sort of a heartland version (Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska) and an upper version (Michigan, the Dakotas, Minnesota). Personally I've never quite settled on what the hell to do with Ohio but there's nothing other than pure geography than would ever have me call it Midwest.

As for the New England thing, (checks map to be sure), that also happens east of the Mississippi too. Although I probably most frequently just call it all Northeast and consider New England a subset of that broader term. And New York is the most common (mis)application of it I think.

And re:Maryland (somewhere down the thread) -- I don't believe there's many people on either side of the Mason Dixon line who considers it Southern at this point. I'd be shocked if Marylanders would approve of that and equally shocked at finding many Southrons who would either.

[Buccaneer]

Do you guys think that this effectively buries the Clintons? It doesn't sound like she (and definitely he) would have any place in an Obama administration?

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Arles

IMO, Bayh would have gone with Obama's message of "change" and youth as he's been a very independent senator. Biden was the safe choice who could be a better attack dog (which may be a better choice). McCain has the same options with Palin/Jinal vs. Romney. The difference is I think McCain has more to gain from a big splash VP and less to lose.

I think it's going to be a tough sell for Obama to say he's there for change and to bring people together and then choose one of the more partisan senators who's been in Washington for 35 years as a running mate. Still, this whole thing is window dressing. In the end, it's going to come down to whether people in Florida, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Penn and Wisconsin feel good with Obama as the president. If a majority does, he wins. If they don't, McCain will win. Outside of an enormous gaff or complete senior meltdown, what McCain does probably won't matter down the stretch (unless it's attacking Obama).

Bayh is better for message, but obviously, message won't get him the presidency. Things won't really change until some more of you old people die off.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Do you guys think that this effectively buries the Clintons? It doesn't sound like she (and definitely he) would have any place in an Obama administration?

I hope so. I always hated that "first black president" B.S.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Bayh is better for message, but obviously, message won't get him the presidency. Things won't really change until some more of you old people die off.

That's what they'll be saying about you, esp. since you are already over 30.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Do you guys think that this effectively buries the Clintons?

If Obama wins the election, yes. If he loses the election, no.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Do you guys think that this effectively buries the Clintons? It doesn't sound like she (and definitely he) would have any place in an Obama administration?

I'd have a tough time believing she'd take one at this point ... although as for them being "buried" I'd say it's still premature to count them as having a stake through their hearts just yet. After all, I have to think they're in a whole different position if Obama loses.

[path12]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If Obama wins the election, yes. If he loses the election, no.

I think that if Obama loses the election Clinton will be very hurt if the feeling is that she or Bill did not get behind the ticket enough. The dem blogosphere is already fairly on that point of view as it is.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by path12

I think that if Obama loses the election Clinton will be very hurt if the feeling is that she or Bill did not get behind the ticket enough.

I would be surprised by that. That's what people are saying NOW, but if Obama actually loses, the interpretation will instead be "we nominated the wrong person."

Or maybe not, lots of Democrats still don't realize how bad a choice Kerry was. They ask "what's wrong with Kansas."

[DanGarion]

I'm going to step in here for a second and say I actually liked what I saw of Biden from the early debates, and I might actually end up voting Obama because of this selection.

I've been a long time repub. and most recently on the libertarian side.

I just hope these idiots don't hike up taxes and put in more stupid social programs for people that don't deserve them...

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I'm going to step in here for a second and say I actually liked what I saw of Biden from the early debates, and I might actually end up voting Obama because of this selection.

I've been a long time repub. and most recently on the libertarian side.

I just hope these idiots don't hike up taxes and put in more stupid social programs for people that don't deserve them...

I had originally hoped (although I knew it was a longshot) that biden would get the top of the ticket - I really like him, so I was enthused by this news.

[path12]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I would be surprised by that. That's what people are saying NOW, but if Obama actually loses, the interpretation will instead be "we nominated the wrong person."

Or maybe not, lots of Democrats still don't realize how bad a choice Kerry was. They ask "what's wrong with Kansas."

Kerry was always a wooden candidate and my recollection is that he was more "guy who could beat Bush" than someone that people were particularly excited about. I truly think Obama is the best candidate the Dems have this time around and is the best they've had since Bill -- much better than Hillary.

But that's just my gut. My choices are rarely those of the majority.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I'm going to step in here for a second and say I actually liked what I saw of Biden from the early debates, and I might actually end up voting Obama because of this selection.

I was supporting Bill Richardson during the Democratic primary. He and Joe Biden were the only two guys I would have voted for president, and I made up my mind to vote for McCain once it got narrowed down to Obama and Clinton.

[Vegas Vic]

They didn't waste any time getting this ad out:

[Warhammer]

I really think this hurts Obama in the long run. If his message is all about change, why is he looking more and more like any other liberal candidate? I think Bayh would have been a much better choice if he really wanted to appeal to the middle and go with the whole youth, change, etc. Biden is exactly the type of VP choice I would have avoided if I was him.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

They didn't waste any time getting this ad out:

You're not kidding. I read online this morning that the news broke around 1:00 AM and the McCain camp released this ad at around 1:35 AM. I'm sure this ad was in the can for weeks in preparation for a Biden nod but still, it just goes to show how quickly campaigns move these days.

[SFL Cat]

Mole in the Obama campaign??!!

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Mole in the Obama campaign??!!

No, the Mole is right here on FOFC. Wrong thread, though.