The race is way too early to call at this point. I see Palin as a pandering move personally. It's a ballsy move, but strikes me as being a Hail Mary pass.
I'm on record. IMO he needs no hail mary pass. That is one reason this excites me so much.
I just heard Randi Rhodes say Palin hates gay people (streaming). As I said before, she is making an utter fool of herself.
Yeah, I don't like Randi Rhodes. She's annoying and she's a screamer. I hate listening to someone who refuses to have a conversation and/or debate about a subject. She's just the female liberal version of Hannity/Colmes/Limbaugh/O'Reilly. Not willing to have an actual discussion about issues but just yelling into the airwaves. Because whoever talks loudest and longest wins!
Now back to Palin, McCain and conservatives have no "not experienced enough" argument anymore. Here's a woman who prior to becoming governor of AK was a mayor of a town of 6500. She's been Governor for less time than Obama has been running for president. And she's Governor for a state with a smaller population than Seattle!!!!
Not the kind of thing that illicits alot of confidence in her ability to take over for McCain if necessary, or to run the senate.
Yeah, I don't like Randi Rhodes. She's annoying and she's a screamer. I hate listening to someone who refuses to have a conversation and/or debate about a subject. She's just the female liberal version of Hannity/Colmes/Limbaugh/O'Reilly. Not willing to have an actual discussion about issues but just yelling into the airwaves. Because whoever talks loudest and longest wins!
Now back to Palin, McCain and conservatives have no "not experienced enough" argument anymore. Here's a woman who prior to becoming governor of AK was a mayor of a town of 6500. She's been Governor for less time than Obama has been running for president. And she's Governor for a state with a smaller population than Seattle!!!!
Not the kind of thing that illicits alot of confidence in her ability to take over for McCain if necessary, or to run the senate.
Pandering move to try and get Hillary voters.
I think you need to read the wiki profile on her. Seriously.
And the "experienced enough" argument is an exploding cigar for Obama. He has no executive experience. He votes on things other people put before him and 130 times voted "present". He can't even make a decision when asked AS A REPRESENTATIVE to do so. She has more executive experience and the track record of what she actually DID while becoming experienced that will satisfy anyone seriously inquiring.
But this will all be vetted in the next couple of months. This is very exciting!
Yeah, I don't like Randi Rhodes. She's annoying and she's a screamer. I hate listening to someone who refuses to have a conversation and/or debate about a subject. She's just the female liberal version of Hannity/Colmes/Limbaugh/O'Reilly. Not willing to have an actual discussion about issues but just yelling into the airwaves. Because whoever talks loudest and longest wins!
Actually, all those you mentioned are very different entities. Some I like, some I don't. I would compare Randi to Savage, only she is even MORE juvenile. O'reilly is a joke with his attempt to play the "thoughtful moderate". I can't listen to the guy. Hannity and Colmes I have only been exposed to once. Limbaugh is very impressive but not quite as good as Medved.
Actually, all those you mentioned are very different entities. Some I like, some I don't. I would compare Randi to Savage, only she is even MORE juvenile. O'reilly is a joke with his attempt to play the "thoughtful moderate". I can't listen to the guy. Hannity and Colmes I have only been exposed to once. Limbaugh is very impressive but not quite as good as Medved.
Every single one of them is a blowhard. It's amazing they don't all suffocate from sucking the air out of every room they enter. If you want accurate politics, you must - unfortunately - turn to either comedians or international news sources.
Frankly, any of Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, or even an Adam Corolla have more reasoned and accurate takes on our political situation than any of the left or right nuts listed above.
Easy there Robroy, that's about the 5th time you've said that this morning. I know she cuter than the average (vice) presidential candidate, but still.
Actually, I think that may have been a significant factor why she was selected. When you see a picture of McCain and Palin together, to whom are your eyes drawn? She pulls attention away from McCain who is looking pretty old these days, and that helps him.
[I think you need to read the wiki profile on her. Seriously.
And the "experienced enough" argument is an exploding cigar for Obama. He has no executive experience. He votes on things other people put before him and 130 times voted "present". He can't even make a decision when asked AS A REPRESENTATIVE to do so. She has more executive experience and the track record of what she actually DID while becoming experienced that will satisfy anyone seriously inquiring.
But this will all be vetted in the next couple of months. This is very exciting!
Her record is interesting and I can see why it'd be popular with more traditional conservatives because of her spending and tax cuts. However, that's still very little experience and zero foriegn policy experience.
I still think her effectiveness as a running mate is going to be how well she campaigns, speaks and debates.
Now saying the "present" vote thing about Obama is misleading, since the time he was in there he voted on over 4000 things total. and a "present" vote is not all that uncommon in Illinois from what I've read. He also introduced a great deal of legislation there, as well as in the senate. Did some great work across party lines there.
In the US Senate he actually both introduced and passed more legislation than Sen. Clinton did.
I think something worse than voting "present" is not being there to vote at all. McCain has missed over 60% of all votes in the senate this session and actually hasn't cast a vote in the senate since April 8th.
Being a governor is much better experience that being a US senator, and being a mayor is better experience than being a state senator. Heading a state commission is far better than spending $150 million in funds under the leadership of a unrepentant terrorist. Hopefully we will be hearing much more about what types of programs that Ayer's and Obama's CAC funded and what they turned down, now that the UIC has finally allowed access to the CAC archives.
Being a governor is much better experience that being a US senator, and being a mayor is better experience than being a state senator. Heading a state commission is far better than spending $150 million in funds under the leadership of a unrepentant terrorist. Hopefully we will be hearing much more about what types of programs that Ayer's and Obama's CAC funded and what they turned down, now that the UIC has finally allowed access to the CAC archives.
I'm interested to hear this too. It's funny how wound up people are about it though, since it was a charitable organization to try and improve inner city schools in Chicago.
It's laughable how inflammatory this article tries to be over something that will turn up about as much as the birth certificate issue did.
Like for instance the assertion that they gave $170k to a COMMUNIST!!!! The organization that they gave that to was a place advocating for smaller schools and classrooms in order to help poor and inner city children receive a better education. What a terrible Marxist idea!!!!! Educating the poor!
Being a governor is much better experience that being a US senator, and being a mayor is better experience than being a state senator. Heading a state commission is far better than spending $150 million in funds under the leadership of a unrepentant terrorist. Hopefully we will be hearing much more about what types of programs that Ayer's and Obama's CAC funded and what they turned down, now that the UIC has finally allowed access to the CAC archives.
I'm interested to hear this too. It's funny how wound up people are about it though, since it was a charitable organization to try and improve inner city schools in Chicago.
It's laughable how inflammatory this article tries to be over something that will turn up about as much as the birth certificate issue did.
No doubt. If McCain were a democratic candidate instead of republican, we'd be exposed to some ridiculous smear campaign about his time as a POW. "POW or Communist conspirator?" the headlines would cry. They would find a single photograph of him being treated humanely and use that as an explanation how he switched sides for the communists to give them information about the US war machine.
I'm all for getting the truth about candidates (E.g. Biden's 1988 plagarism was real and pretty bad), but how about we get the real truth before we judge. For example, Palin may have used executive powers to fire her sister's ex-husband. Rather than post links everywhere and scream "see! See!", I think we should wait and see how that story plays out. It might be junk or it might be real, but I'm sure we'll find out in due time now that enough eye balls will be looking at the question.
A BA in Journalism, an intelligent designer, a beauty queen, and a year and a half as a governor of a state which is, population-wise, equates to being the mayor of Everett.
On the plus side, she can race a mean snow-mobile.
If I were a Republican woman who actually had serious Vice Presidential qualifications, I'd be very, very upset right now.
This is pretty close to as unserious and embarrassing a pick as Harriet Miers for Supreme Court.
Obama's previous position on Ayers was that they simply lived in the same neighborhood. If nothing else, this puts that relationship in quite a different light and calls into question Obama's truthfulness. I have seen one summary of what was funded and what wasn't and it was shocking. I'm waiting for confirmation.
From what I have read about the trooper firing, it was the correct move for the Governor to remove someone from the police force with that kind of violent behavior, and a fireable office for his superior not to take that action himself. You only get experience taking that kind of heat when you are the chief executive of a state.
Yeah, from what I've read her brother in law who was the troooper should've been fired. Drinking beer in his squad car, using a taser on an 11 year old. Drunk driving. He was not a good person.
However, it wasn't the trooper who was fired. The person who was fired was the guy who chose NOT to fire her brother in law. And he chose not to do so in spite of pressure from the Governor's office. And was then fired because he didn't carry out her wishes.
So the allegation is that he was fired because he didn't carry out her order to fire her brother in law from the force. That is a little more problematic I think.
So the allegation is that he was fired because he didn't carry out her order to fire her brother in law from the force. That is a little more problematic I think.
Quite the contrary. The chief executive is responsible that public policy is carried out. Having someone like that on the police force is totally unacceptable, and the commanding officer was derelict in his duties in not protecting the public from that scum.
When women find out that people are using a jackass like that to criticize a not just candidate, but a female candidate, they will be beyond livid.
When women find out that people are using a jackass like that to criticize a not just candidate, but a female candidate, they will be beyond livid.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems insulting and derogatory to assume that all women should respond in specific (and emotional) ways to every compliment or insult that a female candidate gets. They aren't cyborgs. If we're going to think that way, then let's hear how the elderly will be up in arms if Obama attacks McCain's record, or widowers will rally around the democratic ticket if McCain criticizes Biden.
Very interesting charts lamont. But who are you going to believe? A diverse group of people betting real money overwhelmingly on Obama, or Robroy who has staked all of his SeattleBubble credibility on a landslide McCain victory? He even offered to post "I told you so" if he was right!
I think just the next week is gonna be fascinating!!!
I'm pickin' up a large box of popcorn. We're gonna need it as we watch BOTH sides of this thing continue to get vetted.
So far most of the "vetting" in this thread is kind of crap. Obama's association with Ayers, Palin firing ex-brother-in-law, Biden's old plagarism issue, etc, etc.
Choice of an ex-beauty queen may be actually appropriate. We seem to just be watching and waiting for one of them to stumble and tear their dress.
...
The real issue here is probably over oil and drilling. She denies that humans, oil or carbon have anything to do with global warming and wants more and more drilling. That has to be a signal that McCain was hoping to give. That's also the issue that the democrats have been doing badly on trying to explain why they're not in favor of it. If the McCain campaign can make the election about that issue and the democrats fail to explain their position, that could be very damaging to Obama.
The Republicans also can distract like crazy with cries about sexism now (not that the right wing blogosphere isn't currently full of a million blog posts about how Palin is HAWT, but every time a democrat claims that she's inexperienced or attacks her, the republicans can now hide behind sexism -- and it already has stirred up the disillusioned pro-HRC voters who think it was sexist that HRC wasn't considered for the VP slot -- they're not going to vote republican, but they're kind of enraged).
Very interesting charts lamont. But who are you going to believe? A diverse group of people betting real money overwhelmingly on Obama, or Robroy who has staked all of his SeattleBubble credibility on a landslide McCain victory? He even offered to post "I told you so" if he was right!
Well, he's claiming a McCain *landslide* or *blowout*.
So, I don't want to see McCain squeeking by with a point or two difference in the popular vote, or winning electorally and not losing the popular vote or something like that.
There's clearly no evidence of a McCain blowout right now, and while Obama/Democrats might manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet, McCain is not going to walk away with this one.
I don't want to see McCain squeeking by with a point or two difference in the popular vote, or winning electorally and not losing the popular vote or something like that.
Unfortunately, the odds are that regardless of who wins the election it will come down to a nail-biting conclusion. The US electorate has become SO polarized that it is almost impossible to get people to switch sides. Worse, the demographics work to concentrate the supporters for particular political parties into particular states, which makes it doubly hard to really see any significant changes in voting trends. It doesn't help Obama to get an overwhelming win in California if he winds up losing by a small margin in a host of smaller states.
Actually, close Presidential elections are almost the norm in the US. There is a LONG history of Presidents just squeaking by with a handful of votes and I doubt very much this one will be any different.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems insulting and derogatory to assume that all women should respond in specific (and emotional) ways to every compliment or insult that a female candidate gets.
I only referred to a case where a candidate was being criticized because she was supposedly using her office to get back at her brother-in-law. That's pretty demeaning, considering the allegations of spousal abuse involved. I think it is quite natural to expect that people can relate emotionally when people they can identify with are treated unjustly.
Compare that to another quote on this thread:
If I were a Republican woman who actually had serious Vice Presidential qualifications, I'd be very, very upset right now.
She has more qualifications than the opposing Presidential candidate.
Very interesting charts lamont. But who are you going to believe? A diverse group of people betting real money overwhelmingly on Obama, or Robroy who has staked all of his SeattleBubble credibility on a landslide McCain victory? He even offered to post "I told you so" if he was right!
I could point to the graphs that show Seattle CSI has been flat for four months to say that the housing market here has stabilized. But who are you going to believe? A diverse group of people betting real money overwhelmingly on Seattle, or The Tim who has staked all of his SeattleBubble credibility on a falling RE market?
I could point to the graphs that show Seattle CSI has been flat for four months to say that the housing market here has stabilized. But who are you going to believe? A diverse group of people betting real money overwhelmingly on Seattle, or The Tim who has staked all of his SeattleBubble credibility on a falling RE market?
I'd say in that case you should believe both. Prices continue to decline, and a lot of people have large amounts of real money on either side of the equation.
Anyways, Sniglet is correct about this election. The electorate, particularly the electorial college rarely changes at all from one election to another. One candidate getting 55% of the electorial votes would be an extremely large margin of victory by recent standards, but hardly anything you might call a blowout.
The only way we'll see a true blowout (say one party getting 70% of the electorial votes or more) is if something phenomenally damaging comes out. E.g. phone records of Obama talking with Ayers about how they want to blow up some building, or recording of McCain comes out where he's talking about Palin in misogynistic terms before agreeing to pick her. Otherwise, this election will likely be about as close as the previous few go times.
I could point to the graphs that show Seattle CSI has been flat for four months to say that the housing market here has stabilized. But who are you going to believe? A diverse group of people betting real money overwhelmingly on Seattle, or The Tim who has staked all of his SeattleBubble credibility on a falling RE market?
as soon as The Tim no longer has this graph on his side i'll agree with you:
I'm all for getting the truth about candidates (E.g. Biden's 1988 plagarism was real and pretty bad), but how about we get the real truth before we judge. For example, Palin may have used executive powers to fire her sister's ex-husband. Rather than post links everywhere and scream "see! See!", I think we should wait and see how that story plays out. It might be junk or it might be real, but I'm sure we'll find out in due time now that enough eye balls will be looking at the question.
That's pretty much my take on this whole thing. I want real stuff to get vetted, and it looks like it will.
A BA in Journalism, an intelligent designer, a beauty queen, and a year and a half as a governor of a state which is, population-wise, equates to being the mayor of Everett.
Not quite. But besides, if you look at her actual accomplishments she makes Obama look like an apprentice. Seriously. Compare their records. Forget who we are talking about and just put the two records side by side and you tell me which one contains more meat.
The Democrats are really stuck with this one. As they bring up the experience card they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Heck, compare her record to hillary. Same thing...
Comments
I just heard Randi Rhodes say Palin hates gay people (streaming). As I said before, she is making an utter fool of herself.
Time will tell if I am as well.
Now back to Palin, McCain and conservatives have no "not experienced enough" argument anymore. Here's a woman who prior to becoming governor of AK was a mayor of a town of 6500. She's been Governor for less time than Obama has been running for president. And she's Governor for a state with a smaller population than Seattle!!!!
Not the kind of thing that illicits alot of confidence in her ability to take over for McCain if necessary, or to run the senate.
Pandering move to try and get Hillary voters.
And the "experienced enough" argument is an exploding cigar for Obama. He has no executive experience. He votes on things other people put before him and 130 times voted "present". He can't even make a decision when asked AS A REPRESENTATIVE to do so. She has more executive experience and the track record of what she actually DID while becoming experienced that will satisfy anyone seriously inquiring.
But this will all be vetted in the next couple of months. This is very exciting!
Every single one of them is a blowhard. It's amazing they don't all suffocate from sucking the air out of every room they enter. If you want accurate politics, you must - unfortunately - turn to either comedians or international news sources.
Frankly, any of Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, or even an Adam Corolla have more reasoned and accurate takes on our political situation than any of the left or right nuts listed above.
Easy there Robroy, that's about the 5th time you've said that this morning. I know she cuter than the average (vice) presidential candidate, but still.
Actually, I think that may have been a significant factor why she was selected. When you see a picture of McCain and Palin together, to whom are your eyes drawn? She pulls attention away from McCain who is looking pretty old these days, and that helps him.
Her record is interesting and I can see why it'd be popular with more traditional conservatives because of her spending and tax cuts. However, that's still very little experience and zero foriegn policy experience.
I still think her effectiveness as a running mate is going to be how well she campaigns, speaks and debates.
Now saying the "present" vote thing about Obama is misleading, since the time he was in there he voted on over 4000 things total. and a "present" vote is not all that uncommon in Illinois from what I've read. He also introduced a great deal of legislation there, as well as in the senate. Did some great work across party lines there.
In the US Senate he actually both introduced and passed more legislation than Sen. Clinton did.
I think something worse than voting "present" is not being there to vote at all. McCain has missed over 60% of all votes in the senate this session and actually hasn't cast a vote in the senate since April 8th.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mm ... QyOTY0ODY=
I'm pickin' up a large box of popcorn. We're gonna need it as we watch BOTH sides of this thing continue to get vetted.
I'm interested to hear this too. It's funny how wound up people are about it though, since it was a charitable organization to try and improve inner city schools in Chicago.
It's laughable how inflammatory this article tries to be over something that will turn up about as much as the birth certificate issue did.
Like for instance the assertion that they gave $170k to a COMMUNIST!!!! The organization that they gave that to was a place advocating for smaller schools and classrooms in order to help poor and inner city children receive a better education. What a terrible Marxist idea!!!!! Educating the poor!
No doubt. If McCain were a democratic candidate instead of republican, we'd be exposed to some ridiculous smear campaign about his time as a POW. "POW or Communist conspirator?" the headlines would cry. They would find a single photograph of him being treated humanely and use that as an explanation how he switched sides for the communists to give them information about the US war machine.
I'm all for getting the truth about candidates (E.g. Biden's 1988 plagarism was real and pretty bad), but how about we get the real truth before we judge. For example, Palin may have used executive powers to fire her sister's ex-husband. Rather than post links everywhere and scream "see! See!", I think we should wait and see how that story plays out. It might be junk or it might be real, but I'm sure we'll find out in due time now that enough eye balls will be looking at the question.
On the plus side, she can race a mean snow-mobile.
If I were a Republican woman who actually had serious Vice Presidential qualifications, I'd be very, very upset right now.
This is pretty close to as unserious and embarrassing a pick as Harriet Miers for Supreme Court.
From what I have read about the trooper firing, it was the correct move for the Governor to remove someone from the police force with that kind of violent behavior, and a fireable office for his superior not to take that action himself. You only get experience taking that kind of heat when you are the chief executive of a state.
However, it wasn't the trooper who was fired. The person who was fired was the guy who chose NOT to fire her brother in law. And he chose not to do so in spite of pressure from the Governor's office. And was then fired because he didn't carry out her wishes.
So the allegation is that he was fired because he didn't carry out her order to fire her brother in law from the force. That is a little more problematic I think.
Quite the contrary. The chief executive is responsible that public policy is carried out. Having someone like that on the police force is totally unacceptable, and the commanding officer was derelict in his duties in not protecting the public from that scum.
When women find out that people are using a jackass like that to criticize a not just candidate, but a female candidate, they will be beyond livid.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems insulting and derogatory to assume that all women should respond in specific (and emotional) ways to every compliment or insult that a female candidate gets. They aren't cyborgs. If we're going to think that way, then let's hear how the elderly will be up in arms if Obama attacks McCain's record, or widowers will rally around the democratic ticket if McCain criticizes Biden.
So far most of the "vetting" in this thread is kind of crap. Obama's association with Ayers, Palin firing ex-brother-in-law, Biden's old plagarism issue, etc, etc.
Choice of an ex-beauty queen may be actually appropriate. We seem to just be watching and waiting for one of them to stumble and tear their dress.
...
The real issue here is probably over oil and drilling. She denies that humans, oil or carbon have anything to do with global warming and wants more and more drilling. That has to be a signal that McCain was hoping to give. That's also the issue that the democrats have been doing badly on trying to explain why they're not in favor of it. If the McCain campaign can make the election about that issue and the democrats fail to explain their position, that could be very damaging to Obama.
The Republicans also can distract like crazy with cries about sexism now (not that the right wing blogosphere isn't currently full of a million blog posts about how Palin is HAWT, but every time a democrat claims that she's inexperienced or attacks her, the republicans can now hide behind sexism -- and it already has stirred up the disillusioned pro-HRC voters who think it was sexist that HRC wasn't considered for the VP slot -- they're not going to vote republican, but they're kind of enraged).
Well, he's claiming a McCain *landslide* or *blowout*.
So, I don't want to see McCain squeeking by with a point or two difference in the popular vote, or winning electorally and not losing the popular vote or something like that.
There's clearly no evidence of a McCain blowout right now, and while Obama/Democrats might manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet, McCain is not going to walk away with this one.
Unfortunately, the odds are that regardless of who wins the election it will come down to a nail-biting conclusion. The US electorate has become SO polarized that it is almost impossible to get people to switch sides. Worse, the demographics work to concentrate the supporters for particular political parties into particular states, which makes it doubly hard to really see any significant changes in voting trends. It doesn't help Obama to get an overwhelming win in California if he winds up losing by a small margin in a host of smaller states.
Actually, close Presidential elections are almost the norm in the US. There is a LONG history of Presidents just squeaking by with a handful of votes and I doubt very much this one will be any different.
I only referred to a case where a candidate was being criticized because she was supposedly using her office to get back at her brother-in-law. That's pretty demeaning, considering the allegations of spousal abuse involved. I think it is quite natural to expect that people can relate emotionally when people they can identify with are treated unjustly.
Compare that to another quote on this thread:
She has more qualifications than the opposing Presidential candidate.
I could point to the graphs that show Seattle CSI has been flat for four months to say that the housing market here has stabilized. But who are you going to believe? A diverse group of people betting real money overwhelmingly on Seattle, or The Tim who has staked all of his SeattleBubble credibility on a falling RE market?
I'd say in that case you should believe both. Prices continue to decline, and a lot of people have large amounts of real money on either side of the equation.
Anyways, Sniglet is correct about this election. The electorate, particularly the electorial college rarely changes at all from one election to another. One candidate getting 55% of the electorial votes would be an extremely large margin of victory by recent standards, but hardly anything you might call a blowout.
The only way we'll see a true blowout (say one party getting 70% of the electorial votes or more) is if something phenomenally damaging comes out. E.g. phone records of Obama talking with Ayers about how they want to blow up some building, or recording of McCain comes out where he's talking about Palin in misogynistic terms before agreeing to pick her. Otherwise, this election will likely be about as close as the previous few go times.
as soon as The Tim no longer has this graph on his side i'll agree with you:
This game got VERY dynamic today.
The Democrats are really stuck with this one. As they bring up the experience card they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Heck, compare her record to hillary. Same thing...