That other interview with Gibson was from June of 2008. Obama had already been running for 18 months. Why do you keep saying he hadn't been vetted yet? What are you looking for?
Sarah Palin came from Nowhere (haha, get it?). She had been kept away from the press for 2 weeks since her selection. No one knows her stance on a lot of these issues.
Obama A | F
McCain C | B
Biden B- | D
Sarah A | B+
Wow! Does your significant other know you have a major crush on Sarah? (Only sort of kidding). Frankly, I'm entirely bored of here. So, I officially declare this my last post on Sarah until she does...something...anything worth commenting on. In other words, this is probably my last comment on her until the debate with Biden.
Of course, they are both a little optimistic, but if you were to believe one or the other (as opposed to neither like me) I would think Bill Clinton's experience makes him the likelier person to believe.
Of course, they are both a little optimistic, but if you were to believe one or the other (as opposed to neither like me) I would think Bill Clinton's experience makes him the likelier person to believe.
Obama A | F
McCain C | B
Biden B- | D
Sarah A | B+
Wow! Does your significant other know you have a major crush on Sarah? (Only sort of kidding). Frankly, I'm entirely bored of here. So, I officially declare this my last post on Sarah until she does...something...anything worth commenting on. In other words, this is probably my last comment on her until the debate with Biden.
Of course, they are both a little optimistic, but if you were to believe one or the other (as opposed to neither like me) I would think Bill Clinton's experience makes him the likelier person to believe.
Thanks!
Regarding the experience, well, I suspect that he is making that statement based on something other than "experience". Or his honest opinion...
Of course, they are both a little optimistic, but if you were to believe one or the other (as opposed to neither like me) I would think Bill Clinton's experience makes him the likelier person to believe.
[Rambling? You got your rambling right here! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJH2n4aFEhA
Look at his answer about Iran compared to Sara's. No contest. She said it in one sentence, repeated. He rambled much as when he jumped the shark on abortion at Saddleback.
:
ARE YOU SERIOUS ROY!?!?? It's obvious here that Obama understands that Iran is a COMPLEX issue. It's not like shooting wolves from a helicopter. O'reilly asks some really tough policy questions and Obama answers them all well.
Whereas McCain can't even come out of The View looking good.
Again, I agree with her position and you disagree with her. It is why we will probably be voting for different people in November. It's ok though. Heck my friend I rode every STP with since 1991 is a HARD liberal and I am very conservative. We passed the time on the ride jabbing each other. It passes the time, and we're still friends.
My point was actually that it's probably a small population that completely agrees or completely disagrees with every position you just laid out. I'd guys something like 10% on either side, and congratulations Robroy you're one of those people.
Those of us who neither entirely agree nor entirely disagree with the positions (and reality of what they might deliver), we are forced to apply a more complex metric in deciding whom to vote for. On what I've seen so far of the interview, Sarah (I'll call her that from now on since she prefers first names and no titles apparently) earned a C-. That's me trying to be unbiased and give her a truly fair shake. She sounded small time, she contradicted herself over earmarks, she rambled, she misunderstood national and international issues.
Basically, she had all the same problems you claim Obama has without a teleprompter except...when he's looking for words you can tell he's actually thinking. Sarah...not so much.
I've got an interesting "graph" for this election. Agree, disagree?
Speech Skills | Impromptu (Interview/Debate) Skills
Obama A | C+
McCain C- | A-
Biden B | B+
Sarah B- | C
Biden would be the only above average candidate on both areas.
I'd grade Sarah higher on speeches, like a B+ because she has good charisma. Impromptu skills, I give an incomplete. One interview is not enough to judge. I will agree with your C based on that first interview.
Also I think McCain used to be A-, but The View and that reporter from Maine this last week seem to be proving otherwise for him.
I agree about Biden being the only above average one on here. Thing is though he's not as likable to the general public as the other 3 are.
[What did all this was the internet. People, by the millions, discuss what they see on "The six o'clock news" instead of just swear at the TV as we did in the last century. This means the truth easily wins over the long run.
Dan Rather could call the documents "probably authentic" all he wanted. The truth was exposed anyway and he is no longer at CBS. He would have won handily before the internet.
:
I agree with you here. The constant lies that McCain and Palin are saying aren't ringing very true are they?
I love that McCain even had the balls to lie completely on The View. "She never asked for earmarks as Governor!".
The truth is going to hurt them pretty well if they continue down this campaign road.
Again, I agree with her position and you disagree with her. It is why we will probably be voting for different people in November. It's ok though. Heck my friend I rode every STEP with since 1991 is a HARD liberal and I am very conservative. We passed the time on the ride jabbing each other. It passes the time, and we're still friends.
My point was actually that it's probably a small population that completely agrees or completely disagrees with every position you just laid out. I'd guys something like 10% on either side, and congratulations Robroy you're one of those people.
Those of us who neither entirely agree nor entirely disagree with the positions (and reality of what they might deliver), we are forced to apply a more complex metric in deciding whom to vote for. On what I've seen so far of the interview, Sarah (I'll call her that from now on since she prefers first names and no titles apparently) earned a C-. That's me trying to be unbiased and give her a truly fair shake. She sounded small time, she contradicted herself over earmarks, she rambled, she misunderstood national and international issues.
Basically, she had all the same problems you claim Obama has without a teleprompter except...when he's looking for words you can tell he's actually thinking. Sarah...not so much.
I've got an interesting "graph" for this election. Agree, disagree?
Speech Skills | Impromptu (Interview/Debate) Skills
Obama A | C+
McCain C- | A-
Biden B | B+
Sarah B- | C
Biden would be the only above average candidate on both areas.
I'd grade Sarah higher on speeches, like a B+ because she has good charisma. Impromptu skills, I give an incomplete. One interview is not enough to judge. I will agree with your C based on that first interview.
Also I think McCain used to be A-, but The View and that reporter from Maine this last week seem to be proving otherwise for him.
I agree about Biden being the only above average one on here. Thing is though he's not as likable to the general public as the other 3 are.
Governor Palin..Impromptu speech skills....Excellent fact is she NEVER had used a teleprompter until her speech at the Republican Convention...When her teleprompter was having problems and she still gave a seamless speech.
She handled herself very well in her grilling under pressure by Charlie Gibson....I would rate her a B
Her natural speaking style is very effective although not classic Politician ...She will do great in the debates and her press interviews.
ARE YOU SERIOUS ROY!?!?? It's obvious here that Obama understands that Iran is a COMPLEX issue. It's not like shooting wolves from a helicopter. O'reilly asks some really tough policy questions and Obama answers them all well.
Whereas McCain can't even come out of The View looking good.
Two things: yes it is complex, which is why Sarah gave the answer she did in the interview. It was exactly the type of response such an interview needs. It exposes the position from which the McCain Palin andministration would form a response to events as opposed to the response itself. This is something Obama cannot seem to come up with in a simple and concise way. You can watch his mind work as he attempts to form words for the twists and turns of the path through which his mind is rushing. He cannot think on his feet - at all.
[What did all this was the internet. People, by the millions, discuss what they see on "The six o'clock news" instead of just swear at the TV as we did in the last century. This means the truth easily wins over the long run.
Dan Rather could call the documents "probably authentic" all he wanted. The truth was exposed anyway and he is no longer at CBS. He would have won handily before the internet.
:
I agree with you here. The constant lies that McCain and Palin are saying aren't ringing very true are they?
I love that McCain even had the balls to lie completely on The View. "She never asked for earmarks as Governor!".
The truth is going to hurt them pretty well if they continue down this campaign road.
In my encounters with people in my life, I have found a very effective tool for discovering whether a person is "friend or foe":
If they play down your mistakes/errors, regardless of size and lift up your achievements, no matter how small, they are friend.
If the play down your achievements, regardless of size and lift up your mistakes/errors, no matter how small, they are foe.
If this issue is the pinnacle of actual "documentable lies" in the Palin camp, her detractors are in for a very rough ride.
There are definitely going to be skeletons in her closet since, unlike the democrat presidential nominee, she is not claiming to be like Jesus. The real question is how many and how big. In researching this one, there is really no "there" there. Unless of course it is all her "foes" have, in which case they must play it up as much as possible.
That other interview with Gibson was from June of 2008. Obama had already been running for 18 months. Why do you keep saying he hadn't been vetted yet? What are you looking for?
Sarah Palin came from Nowhere (haha, get it?). She had been kept away from the press for 2 weeks since her selection. No one knows her stance on a lot of these issues.
Obama was the darling of the press. He was not vetted to their strong discomfort now.
They made the classic mistake of getting him nominated, completely forgetting that all the stuff they ignored or otherwise slipped under the carpet WOULD be vetted by other press sources once Obama was nominated. He is only now really being vetted.
This is one of the things that ticked off the Hillary people so much. They knew he was an empty suit with serious baggage but couldn't seem to get the press to really cover it. Again, compare the interviews. That is REAL. The adversarial attitude in the Palin one can be cut with a knife. It affects the answers and is VERY intimidating. Meanwhile, the Obama one was almost like watching Rush Limbaugh interview GWB. If nothing else, it is "relaxed". That is HUGE for an interviewee.
BTW, think of Obamas current vetting as a swiftboating. I mean that in the good way. The things the swiftboaters were saying about Kerry were true, but just not important enough to bring out while he was only a local Senator. When he wanted to go national, those that knew him got involved. He had to officially change his WRITTEN ACCOUNT in Winter Soldier.
It is happening to Obama now but, to be fair, he is mostly doing it himself. His campaign is rightfully being called the Gaff A Day campaign. It is because he is an amateur and has surrounded himself with such.
In fact to stay on the concept of vetting, here are two examples where they are proven either lazy, incompetent or both. In each case, they should have known (through vetting) what to say and what not to say.
The ad looks downright sophomoric anyway (further exposing the silliness of his chosen staff) but it shows an utter lack of understaning of what they are actually doing. Either that or they think a completely complacent MSM is all that is watching. It isn't. It will be their ultimate downfall.
Meanwhile, It is fun to wake up every day and wonder where the Obama camp will step in it "today".
I have never so enjoyed an election cycle as I have this one. It won't be pretty after the election for reasons I stated in previous posts but you gotta make hay while the sun shines.
Governor Palin..Impromptu speech skills....Excellent fact is she NEVER had used a teleprompter until her speech at the Republican Convention...When her teleprompter was having problems and she still gave a seamless speech.
She handled herself very well in her grilling under pressure by Charlie Gibson....I would rate her a B
Her natural speaking style is very effective although not classic Politician ...She will do great in the debates and her press interviews.
I gave Sarah a higher score for the interview simply because she did so well "under the circumstances". What makes me say this? My wife is one room away from me watching the interview for the first time and about five minutes ago she said, and I quote, "what a condescending a$$" speaking of Charlie. It sums it up nicely I think.
The covers ARE convincing to those that are not paying all that much attention, but as this sort of thing spreads, everyone notices and they feel conned, turning not only on the publisher, but also on the one the publisher is trying to help. They start feeling "underdog syndrome" for the person getting the short shrift. This means that even some people that would have voted for obama, once seeing this type of story will switch.
Thanks to the internet, you REALLY have to be honest. 'Course anyone "non-democrat" had to be careful anyway because so much of the press is clearly in the Democrat camp. This one story is but a part of the mountain of evidence.
Two things: yes it is complex, which is why Sarah gave the answer she did in the interview. It was exactly the type of response such an interview needs. It exposes the position from which the McCain Palin andministration would form a response to events as opposed to the response itself. This is something Obama cannot seem to come up with in a simple and concise way. You can watch his mind work as he attempts to form words for the twists and turns of the path through which his mind is rushing. He cannot think on his feet - at all.
When did taking time to think a complicated issue over became an indication of lack of intelligence or deception? Why do we value the quick canned answer in this society so much? Someone can be a complete idiot, but if they give quick answers then they're considered to be 'sharp'. To me that is an indication that the person answering the question is considering only the impact of the answer and giving the answer which produces the wanted response in the recipient. That is a much easier problem to solve for many people than actually giving an answer which requires thought.
Its like serving up static images which can be done incredibly simply because there's no computation behind them -- but if you've got a web service with a lot of business logic you're not going to be able to do as many transactions per second and you'll get increased latency due to the fact that the CPU has to chew a lot more than just pulling something out of the buffer cache and spitting it out the pipe. What I typically see from republicans is more like static images -- canned answers that have been cached and are just regurgitated in response to any queries -- but because they're quick and fast and can 'think on their feet' they're clearly smarter. You guys are clearly not seeing what I'm seeing.
When did taking time to think a complicated issue over became an indication of lack of intelligence or deception?
You don't think it over after you are asked the question. It is too important for that. You KNOW the answer to that and a thousand other questions before they clip on a mic.
Why do we value the quick canned answer in this society so much? Someone can be a complete idiot, but if they give quick answers then they're considered to be 'sharp'.
You are being an apologist for "your guy". Seriously, even when my candidate in any election begins to stutter like obama I get nervous. It means they are not prepared or, worse yet, they are lying.
It is quite universal.
That is a much easier problem to solve for many people than actually giving an answer which requires thought.
Again, the "thoughtful" person has "thought" about the question and the answer BEFORE the interview, not during. What do you think candidates spend hour upon hour doing before debates? Mock debates, that's what! If they get in front of a camera and look "contemplative" and stutter and ah and um all over the place, it means they are either unprepared, lying, or just plain stupid.
Those are really the only options, other than something really wild like they just found out before the debate/interview that their spouse had died.
To be clear, I take this position no matter who it is doing it. McCain is definitely not as good as Sarah. She is the most prepared candidate before a mic I have seen LITERALLY since Reagan.
Already has. If you read the article, it references a number of sources regarding how the Obama campaign - though less truthful than George Washington (he of "I cannot tell a lie") - is extremely more truthful than the McCain camp. Also, when an error is discovered, the Obama campaign tends to fix their lines accordingly (McCain sided with Bush 95% of the time being switched to a more accurate 90% is an example). When McCain lies, he just keeps on lying, hoping if you tell the same lie long enough, that people will believe you.
I mean...have you seen this? Even Karl Rove thinks McCain has gone too far. (Full disclosure, he says the same about Obama but it carries less weight as they are politically disparate).
I'm with you all the way Lamont. It's absolutely pathetic that in our society conviction (under a myriad of names) trumps reason. This is becoming epidemic, and I can only hope it's one of those cycles that will eventually come around the other way.
Robroy, it seems like you actually picked an excellent video to represent yourself, or at least your online persona. How that relates to Lamont lamenting a society weakness I'll never understand.
Already has. If you read the article, it references a number of sources regarding how the Obama campaign - though less truthful than George Washington (he of "I cannot tell a lie") - is extremely more truthful than the McCain camp. Also, when an error is discovered, the Obama campaign tends to fix their lines accordingly (McCain sided with Bush 95% of the time being switched to a more accurate 90% is an example). When McCain lies, he just keeps on lying, hoping if you tell the same lie long enough, that people will believe you.
I mean...have you seen this? Even Karl Rove thinks McCain has gone too far. (Full disclosure, he says the same about Obama but it carries less weight as they are politically disparate).
I'm with you all the way Lamont. It's absolutely pathetic that in our society conviction (under a myriad of names) trumps reason. This is becoming epidemic, and I can only hope it's one of those cycles that will eventually come around the other way.
Actually, I think the internet IS trumping what was going on for decades - actually centuries. Again I use the Dan Rather example. Ideas get vetted. Like the McCain lie on the View, politicians no longer get away with that kind of stuff. Or like this story which trumps most (if not all) of what I have heard during this election cycle: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/po ... 129150.htm
Their are plenty of guys on the internet like Joe - on both sides of pretty much every issue. However, the great thing is that the facts spewed by the Joes of the world are easily handled and exposed.
And the Joes are a special breed. The reason that scene is so funny (and it is MUCH longer than the clip) is that he has all those strong opinions with no support whatsoever. You don't get away with that for long on the internet. It is simply too easy to fact check claims.
Take McCains remark. It is ludicrous on the face of it and just ONE of the reasons I was not going to vote at all until the Palin selection. He, along with Obama and Biden, is really politics as usual. He is also what most republicans called a "Rino" - Republican in Name Only. For him to make such a patently false statement in front of God and everybody even had some of the guys at Freerepublic going "huh?". The cool thing is they were willing to admit that it sure seemed to be a bald faced lie and not just blindly support "their guy". 'Course, it is always possible he
"misspoke" and will now claim he meant to say she "reduced earmarks", which she did. But even if that were true, it is sloppy interview skills.
Robroy, it seems like you actually picked an excellent video to represent yourself, or at least your online persona. How that relates to Lamont lamenting a society weakness I'll never understand.
Not really. Joe backed up nothing he said. Sounds like I'm on a different page than both of you. That's ok!
We clearly come from starkly different value systems. I was commenting to a friend a few years ago that if WWII had been fought with todays internet technology you would have Germans, Jews, French resistance, British, Japanese rank and file citizens all arguing with each other on internet threads. That would have been a good thing because they would have seen each others perspective and the reasonable ones on both sides would have had more empathy. It would have turned out differently.
I suspect that very few of the rioters on the day after McCain wins will be very internet savvy.
I suspect that very few of the rioters on the day after McCain wins will be very internet savvy.
In 2016? When cyborg McCain wins...his first presidential term? I think most people will be "wired" by then.
In all seriousness, when Mr. Gibson asks legitimate interview questions to a republican candidate and she struggles to answer them well, he's "smug" in your words. But when you call a victory, assert the opposition is so antisocial that they will riot, and insult modernity/intelligence...what does that make you? Hint - it starts with "arrogan". You do realize that support for Obama in the most internet savvy demographic in America (youth) is very strong right?
I suspect that very few of the rioters on the day after McCain wins will be very internet savvy.
In 2016? When cyborg McCain wins...his first presidential term? I think most people will be "wired" by then.
In all seriousness, when Mr. Gibson asks legitimate interview questions to a republican candidate and she struggles to answer them well, he's "smug" in your words. But when you call a victory, assert the opposition is so antisocial that they will riot, and insult modernity/intelligence...what does that make you? Hint - it starts with "arrogan". You do realize that support for Obama in the most internet savvy demographic in America (youth) is very strong right?
No, I don't. I know a LOT of internet savvy youth and almost NONE of them take him seriously.
Regarding the Palin interview. I don't think we saw the same one. Which question(s) did she struggle on?
When did taking time to think a complicated issue over became an indication of lack of intelligence or deception?
You don't think it over after you are asked the question. It is too important for that. You KNOW the answer to that and a thousand other questions before they clip on a mic.
How, then, would Sarah handle a question without a predetermined answer?
Say, for example: "Sarah, President McCain has suffered a heart attack, you're in charge... and we have reliable information that Iran is fueling five ICBM's with a 900 mile range and are most likely targeted at Tel Aviv... what do we do?" There's no scripted answer for that, no answer to memorize before the interview.
My point is that there is a world of difference between thinking and regurgitating. Miss South Carolina demonstrated what happens when you're regurgitating formulated answers and then get a question to which you don't have an answer to. Palin is a tough cookie, but the Gibson interview really showed she was just regurgitating. He tried to pry an answer out of her and couldn't get her to do so, which is why he seemed like a pompous ass (your words) and she appeared to successfully fight him off. It'd be useful to get an idea of what she's thinking, but the McCain campaign is keeping her under wraps, only allowing her to regurgitate the predetermined answers. That leads me to believe she simply doesn't have a knowledge base on global issues to draw from as McCain, Obama, and Biden all do. And that's completely unacceptable of a vice presidential nominee.
You do realize that support for Obama in the most internet savvy demographic in America (youth) is very strong right?
No, I don't. I know a LOT of internet savvy youth and almost NONE of them take him seriously.
I don't know what world you're in, but among my friends (demographic: 20s/early 30s, ranging from students to deep 6 figure salaries, most of whom have spent more than half their life using the internet in some form), there's a lot of people on both sides, and most of them have pretty good reasons (better than how cute the VP nominees kids are acting on stage). If you don't know a single "internet savvy youth" that likes Obama, much less takes him seriously, it tells me you're living in a bubble, full of shit, or completely delusional.
It's sad that the Obama v McCain thread on a car forum frequented by people who weren't old enough to vote in 2004 is more logical and thought out than this one.
How, then, would Sarah handle a question without a predetermined answer?
Say, for example: "Sarah, President McCain has suffered a heart attack, you're in charge... and we have reliable information that Iran is fueling five ICBM's with a 900 mile range and are most likely targeted at Tel Aviv... what do we do?" There's no scripted answer for that, no answer to memorize before the interview.
There are few scripted answers to ANY question. It is the responsibility of a leader to plan and prepare in advance for all potential events and questions ahead of time so that when they happen, preparedness is at it's maximum.
Do you honestly believe that question above is not planned for (assuming McCain becomes president)? I've been involved in disaster recovery for several companies complete with full blown exercises right down to transferring data to an actual offsite processing facility.
Planning for the unexpected (and the expected) in both world events and conferences and interviews is one of the primary responsibilities of any executive – even the mayor of a small town. Preparedness is key.
Of course, congressmen needn't trouble themselves with such issues.
I saw Rudy speak a few weeks ago about 911. He said that although NYC had tons of plans for various attacks and natural disasters, there was none for this particular event. But that preparedness saved them as they used bits and pieces from the other plans to handle the attack. And it went remarkably well.
Since the candidate interview came into vogue, any serious contender prepares for the interview. They study the issues that are most likely to be covered as well as their responses and compare those responses to their core values as well as what answer they think the interviewer is fishing for. It has been turned into a virtual science. The idea is that they appear prepared and responsible - and sometimes they really are! After all, that is one of the keys to being a leader. It is also what Bush's detractors try to ding him on on a regular basis.
But the posters here seem to actually turn a virtue into a vice and a vice into a virtue in a hopeless attempt to be apologists for their guy regardless of the reality staring them in the face. They have stooped to calling preparedness "scripted", and hemming and hawing and stammering unpreparedness they call "thoughtful". These people need to understand that not everyone is drinking their Coolaid. They look silly to informed readers. Very silly.
I feel almost as though I have accidentally slipped through an inter-dimensional portal into another world called Opposite World. Maybe I should look up Spock and see if he is wearing a goatee.
My point is that there is a world of difference between thinking and regurgitating. Miss South Carolina demonstrated what happens when you're regurgitating formulated answers and then get a question to which you don't have an answer to.
I LOVE that video. The first time I saw it I was laughing so hard I was in tears. Sounds more like Obama than Palin though. However it is neither.
Palin is a tough cookie, but the Gibson interview really showed she was just regurgitating. He tried to pry an answer out of her and couldn't get her to do so, which is why he seemed like a pompous ass (your words) and she appeared to successfully fight him off.
I didn't see that. What answer are you talking about? She seemed pretty forthright about everything except when she made it clear that he was getting all the answer he was going to get for obvious reasons. One exception may be the Bush Doctrine part, but that has been pointed out pretty thoroughly that there is no single "Bush Doctrine". She didn't understand the question because the question was bogus. And he was so busy trying to play "Gotcha" that the simple fact was lost on him.
It'd be useful to get an idea of what she's thinking, but the McCain campaign is keeping her under wraps, only allowing her to regurgitate the predetermined answers. That leads me to believe she simply doesn't have a knowledge base on global issues to draw from as McCain, Obama, and Biden all do. And that's completely unacceptable of a vice presidential nominee.
Your whole sentence above is based on a false pretense at its beginning. The information you need is right under your nose but you refuse to see it for what it is.
But it is hard to tell what ANY politician is thinking, which is why I like to match their words to their deeds. It is also why I think I have a pretty good idea of what she is thinking (compared to most politicians) and I like what I see VERY MUCH. All presidential races are about relativity. That is, honesty relative to your opponent; brains relative to your opponent; experience relative to your opponent and, finally, your stance on issues relative to your opponent.
Relative to their opponent, McCain/Palin wins in ALL categories with me, but I admit the last one in that list is subjective.
Of course we will not agree on this, but it will be a very fun six weeks! At least, I'm enjoying it more than I've enjoyed any election since 1980, and even more than that one.
You do realize that support for Obama in the most internet savvy demographic in America (youth) is very strong right?
No, I don't. I know a LOT of internet savvy youth and almost NONE of them take him seriously.
I don't know what world you're in, but among my friends (demographic: 20s/early 30s, ranging from students to deep 6 figure salaries, most of whom have spent more than half their life using the internet in some form), there's a lot of people on both sides, and most of them have pretty good reasons (better than how cute the VP nominees kids are acting on stage). If you don't know a single "internet savvy youth" that likes Obama, much less takes him seriously, it tells me you're living in a bubble, full of shit, or completely delusional.
It's sad that the Obama v McCain thread on a car forum frequented by people who weren't old enough to vote in 2004 is more logical and thought out than this one.
We clearly hang around in different "internet Savvy" worlds.
I will add, of course, that all of what you and I actually experience is anecdotal. What matters is the numbers - on election day.
This is my first daily GBOD update. I figure since I've been seeing this for a while ("Stand up" to man in wheelchair, McCain can't send email, etc.), I'd start posting them. One a day.
If someone wants to start a McCain/Palin equivalent, be my guest. It'll be fun to compare significance and veracity of the gaffs!
Comments
Sarah Palin came from Nowhere (haha, get it?). She had been kept away from the press for 2 weeks since her selection. No one knows her stance on a lot of these issues.
Wow! Does your significant other know you have a major crush on Sarah? (Only sort of kidding). Frankly, I'm entirely bored of here. So, I officially declare this my last post on Sarah until she does...something...anything worth commenting on. In other words, this is probably my last comment on her until the debate with Biden.
In other news, Robroy predicts a blowout victory by McCain, and Bill Clinton predicts a blowout victory by Obama.
Of course, they are both a little optimistic, but if you were to believe one or the other (as opposed to neither like me) I would think Bill Clinton's experience makes him the likelier person to believe.
Maybe Bill didn't see Piper fix Trig's hair?
Regarding the experience, well, I suspect that he is making that statement based on something other than "experience". Or his honest opinion...
But time will tell!
ARE YOU SERIOUS ROY!?!?? It's obvious here that Obama understands that Iran is a COMPLEX issue. It's not like shooting wolves from a helicopter. O'reilly asks some really tough policy questions and Obama answers them all well.
Whereas McCain can't even come out of The View looking good.
I'd grade Sarah higher on speeches, like a B+ because she has good charisma. Impromptu skills, I give an incomplete. One interview is not enough to judge. I will agree with your C based on that first interview.
Also I think McCain used to be A-, but The View and that reporter from Maine this last week seem to be proving otherwise for him.
I agree about Biden being the only above average one on here. Thing is though he's not as likable to the general public as the other 3 are.
I agree with you here. The constant lies that McCain and Palin are saying aren't ringing very true are they?
I love that McCain even had the balls to lie completely on The View. "She never asked for earmarks as Governor!".
The truth is going to hurt them pretty well if they continue down this campaign road.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-tr ... .html#more
Governor Palin..Impromptu speech skills....Excellent fact is she NEVER had used a teleprompter until her speech at the Republican Convention...When her teleprompter was having problems and she still gave a seamless speech.
She handled herself very well in her grilling under pressure by Charlie Gibson....I would rate her a B
Her natural speaking style is very effective although not classic Politician ...She will do great in the debates and her press interviews.
What is the view?
Time will tell who is lying.
In my encounters with people in my life, I have found a very effective tool for discovering whether a person is "friend or foe":
If they play down your mistakes/errors, regardless of size and lift up your achievements, no matter how small, they are friend.
If the play down your achievements, regardless of size and lift up your mistakes/errors, no matter how small, they are foe.
If this issue is the pinnacle of actual "documentable lies" in the Palin camp, her detractors are in for a very rough ride.
There are definitely going to be skeletons in her closet since, unlike the democrat presidential nominee, she is not claiming to be like Jesus. The real question is how many and how big. In researching this one, there is really no "there" there. Unless of course it is all her "foes" have, in which case they must play it up as much as possible.
They made the classic mistake of getting him nominated, completely forgetting that all the stuff they ignored or otherwise slipped under the carpet WOULD be vetted by other press sources once Obama was nominated. He is only now really being vetted.
This is one of the things that ticked off the Hillary people so much. They knew he was an empty suit with serious baggage but couldn't seem to get the press to really cover it. Again, compare the interviews. That is REAL. The adversarial attitude in the Palin one can be cut with a knife. It affects the answers and is VERY intimidating. Meanwhile, the Obama one was almost like watching Rush Limbaugh interview GWB. If nothing else, it is "relaxed". That is HUGE for an interviewee.
BTW, think of Obamas current vetting as a swiftboating. I mean that in the good way. The things the swiftboaters were saying about Kerry were true, but just not important enough to bring out while he was only a local Senator. When he wanted to go national, those that knew him got involved. He had to officially change his WRITTEN ACCOUNT in Winter Soldier.
It is happening to Obama now but, to be fair, he is mostly doing it himself. His campaign is rightfully being called the Gaff A Day campaign. It is because he is an amateur and has surrounded himself with such.
In fact to stay on the concept of vetting, here are two examples where they are proven either lazy, incompetent or both. In each case, they should have known (through vetting) what to say and what not to say.
Biden:
http://beltwayblips.com/video/biden_gaf ... _to_stand/
Obama Ad:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... yber_shot/
And here:
http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2008/09 ... fires.html
And here is the ad in question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdIlzAyueow
The ad looks downright sophomoric anyway (further exposing the silliness of his chosen staff) but it shows an utter lack of understaning of what they are actually doing. Either that or they think a completely complacent MSM is all that is watching. It isn't. It will be their ultimate downfall.
Meanwhile, It is fun to wake up every day and wonder where the Obama camp will step in it "today".
I have never so enjoyed an election cycle as I have this one. It won't be pretty after the election for reasons I stated in previous posts but you gotta make hay while the sun shines.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/03 ... cake-walk/
The covers ARE convincing to those that are not paying all that much attention, but as this sort of thing spreads, everyone notices and they feel conned, turning not only on the publisher, but also on the one the publisher is trying to help. They start feeling "underdog syndrome" for the person getting the short shrift. This means that even some people that would have voted for obama, once seeing this type of story will switch.
Thanks to the internet, you REALLY have to be honest. 'Course anyone "non-democrat" had to be careful anyway because so much of the press is clearly in the Democrat camp. This one story is but a part of the mountain of evidence.
When did taking time to think a complicated issue over became an indication of lack of intelligence or deception? Why do we value the quick canned answer in this society so much? Someone can be a complete idiot, but if they give quick answers then they're considered to be 'sharp'. To me that is an indication that the person answering the question is considering only the impact of the answer and giving the answer which produces the wanted response in the recipient. That is a much easier problem to solve for many people than actually giving an answer which requires thought.
Its like serving up static images which can be done incredibly simply because there's no computation behind them -- but if you've got a web service with a lot of business logic you're not going to be able to do as many transactions per second and you'll get increased latency due to the fact that the CPU has to chew a lot more than just pulling something out of the buffer cache and spitting it out the pipe. What I typically see from republicans is more like static images -- canned answers that have been cached and are just regurgitated in response to any queries -- but because they're quick and fast and can 'think on their feet' they're clearly smarter. You guys are clearly not seeing what I'm seeing.
It is quite universal. Again, the "thoughtful" person has "thought" about the question and the answer BEFORE the interview, not during. What do you think candidates spend hour upon hour doing before debates? Mock debates, that's what! If they get in front of a camera and look "contemplative" and stutter and ah and um all over the place, it means they are either unprepared, lying, or just plain stupid.
Those are really the only options, other than something really wild like they just found out before the debate/interview that their spouse had died.
To be clear, I take this position no matter who it is doing it. McCain is definitely not as good as Sarah. She is the most prepared candidate before a mic I have seen LITERALLY since Reagan.
No, this goes broadly beyond politics. It infects the workplace and even idiots shit talking like they know what they're saying down at the bar.
I've noticed we have this problem in our society for years. It goes way beyond this particular political campaign.
I am reminded of the movie Joe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCb9rtHlNPM
Already has. If you read the article, it references a number of sources regarding how the Obama campaign - though less truthful than George Washington (he of "I cannot tell a lie") - is extremely more truthful than the McCain camp. Also, when an error is discovered, the Obama campaign tends to fix their lines accordingly (McCain sided with Bush 95% of the time being switched to a more accurate 90% is an example). When McCain lies, he just keeps on lying, hoping if you tell the same lie long enough, that people will believe you.
I mean...have you seen this? Even Karl Rove thinks McCain has gone too far. (Full disclosure, he says the same about Obama but it carries less weight as they are politically disparate).
Get some perspective!
I'm with you all the way Lamont. It's absolutely pathetic that in our society conviction (under a myriad of names) trumps reason. This is becoming epidemic, and I can only hope it's one of those cycles that will eventually come around the other way.
Robroy, it seems like you actually picked an excellent video to represent yourself, or at least your online persona. How that relates to Lamont lamenting a society weakness I'll never understand.
Actually, I think the internet IS trumping what was going on for decades - actually centuries. Again I use the Dan Rather example. Ideas get vetted. Like the McCain lie on the View, politicians no longer get away with that kind of stuff. Or like this story which trumps most (if not all) of what I have heard during this election cycle: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/po ... 129150.htm
Their are plenty of guys on the internet like Joe - on both sides of pretty much every issue. However, the great thing is that the facts spewed by the Joes of the world are easily handled and exposed.
And the Joes are a special breed. The reason that scene is so funny (and it is MUCH longer than the clip) is that he has all those strong opinions with no support whatsoever. You don't get away with that for long on the internet. It is simply too easy to fact check claims.
Take McCains remark. It is ludicrous on the face of it and just ONE of the reasons I was not going to vote at all until the Palin selection. He, along with Obama and Biden, is really politics as usual. He is also what most republicans called a "Rino" - Republican in Name Only. For him to make such a patently false statement in front of God and everybody even had some of the guys at Freerepublic going "huh?". The cool thing is they were willing to admit that it sure seemed to be a bald faced lie and not just blindly support "their guy". 'Course, it is always possible he
"misspoke" and will now claim he meant to say she "reduced earmarks", which she did. But even if that were true, it is sloppy interview skills. Not really. Joe backed up nothing he said. Sounds like I'm on a different page than both of you. That's ok!
We clearly come from starkly different value systems. I was commenting to a friend a few years ago that if WWII had been fought with todays internet technology you would have Germans, Jews, French resistance, British, Japanese rank and file citizens all arguing with each other on internet threads. That would have been a good thing because they would have seen each others perspective and the reasonable ones on both sides would have had more empathy. It would have turned out differently.
I suspect that very few of the rioters on the day after McCain wins will be very internet savvy.
In 2016? When cyborg McCain wins...his first presidential term? I think most people will be "wired" by then.
In all seriousness, when Mr. Gibson asks legitimate interview questions to a republican candidate and she struggles to answer them well, he's "smug" in your words. But when you call a victory, assert the opposition is so antisocial that they will riot, and insult modernity/intelligence...what does that make you? Hint - it starts with "arrogan". You do realize that support for Obama in the most internet savvy demographic in America (youth) is very strong right?
Regarding the Palin interview. I don't think we saw the same one. Which question(s) did she struggle on?
Notice who is second on the list even though he was in the senate very briefly.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09 ... eddie.html
How, then, would Sarah handle a question without a predetermined answer?
Say, for example: "Sarah, President McCain has suffered a heart attack, you're in charge... and we have reliable information that Iran is fueling five ICBM's with a 900 mile range and are most likely targeted at Tel Aviv... what do we do?" There's no scripted answer for that, no answer to memorize before the interview.
My point is that there is a world of difference between thinking and regurgitating. Miss South Carolina demonstrated what happens when you're regurgitating formulated answers and then get a question to which you don't have an answer to. Palin is a tough cookie, but the Gibson interview really showed she was just regurgitating. He tried to pry an answer out of her and couldn't get her to do so, which is why he seemed like a pompous ass (your words) and she appeared to successfully fight him off. It'd be useful to get an idea of what she's thinking, but the McCain campaign is keeping her under wraps, only allowing her to regurgitate the predetermined answers. That leads me to believe she simply doesn't have a knowledge base on global issues to draw from as McCain, Obama, and Biden all do. And that's completely unacceptable of a vice presidential nominee.
I don't know what world you're in, but among my friends (demographic: 20s/early 30s, ranging from students to deep 6 figure salaries, most of whom have spent more than half their life using the internet in some form), there's a lot of people on both sides, and most of them have pretty good reasons (better than how cute the VP nominees kids are acting on stage). If you don't know a single "internet savvy youth" that likes Obama, much less takes him seriously, it tells me you're living in a bubble, full of shit, or completely delusional.
It's sad that the Obama v McCain thread on a car forum frequented by people who weren't old enough to vote in 2004 is more logical and thought out than this one.
Do you honestly believe that question above is not planned for (assuming McCain becomes president)? I've been involved in disaster recovery for several companies complete with full blown exercises right down to transferring data to an actual offsite processing facility.
Planning for the unexpected (and the expected) in both world events and conferences and interviews is one of the primary responsibilities of any executive – even the mayor of a small town. Preparedness is key.
Of course, congressmen needn't trouble themselves with such issues.
I saw Rudy speak a few weeks ago about 911. He said that although NYC had tons of plans for various attacks and natural disasters, there was none for this particular event. But that preparedness saved them as they used bits and pieces from the other plans to handle the attack. And it went remarkably well.
Since the candidate interview came into vogue, any serious contender prepares for the interview. They study the issues that are most likely to be covered as well as their responses and compare those responses to their core values as well as what answer they think the interviewer is fishing for. It has been turned into a virtual science. The idea is that they appear prepared and responsible - and sometimes they really are! After all, that is one of the keys to being a leader. It is also what Bush's detractors try to ding him on on a regular basis.
But the posters here seem to actually turn a virtue into a vice and a vice into a virtue in a hopeless attempt to be apologists for their guy regardless of the reality staring them in the face. They have stooped to calling preparedness "scripted", and hemming and hawing and stammering unpreparedness they call "thoughtful". These people need to understand that not everyone is drinking their Coolaid. They look silly to informed readers. Very silly.
I feel almost as though I have accidentally slipped through an inter-dimensional portal into another world called Opposite World. Maybe I should look up Spock and see if he is wearing a goatee.
I LOVE that video. The first time I saw it I was laughing so hard I was in tears. Sounds more like Obama than Palin though. However it is neither. I didn't see that. What answer are you talking about? She seemed pretty forthright about everything except when she made it clear that he was getting all the answer he was going to get for obvious reasons. One exception may be the Bush Doctrine part, but that has been pointed out pretty thoroughly that there is no single "Bush Doctrine". She didn't understand the question because the question was bogus. And he was so busy trying to play "Gotcha" that the simple fact was lost on him.
Your whole sentence above is based on a false pretense at its beginning. The information you need is right under your nose but you refuse to see it for what it is.
But it is hard to tell what ANY politician is thinking, which is why I like to match their words to their deeds. It is also why I think I have a pretty good idea of what she is thinking (compared to most politicians) and I like what I see VERY MUCH. All presidential races are about relativity. That is, honesty relative to your opponent; brains relative to your opponent; experience relative to your opponent and, finally, your stance on issues relative to your opponent.
Relative to their opponent, McCain/Palin wins in ALL categories with me, but I admit the last one in that list is subjective.
Of course we will not agree on this, but it will be a very fun six weeks! At least, I'm enjoying it more than I've enjoyed any election since 1980, and even more than that one.
We clearly hang around in different "internet Savvy" worlds.
I will add, of course, that all of what you and I actually experience is anecdotal. What matters is the numbers - on election day.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/po ... 129150.htm
This is my first daily GBOD update. I figure since I've been seeing this for a while ("Stand up" to man in wheelchair, McCain can't send email, etc.), I'd start posting them. One a day.
If someone wants to start a McCain/Palin equivalent, be my guest. It'll be fun to compare significance and veracity of the gaffs!