Except they will find 3 ponies in New Mexico and 9 in Mississippi that weren't cared for, therefore, all ponies regardless of state of residence will have to get their oats from federal distribution centers.

And they'd damn well better be FDA inspected oats to boot.

Can we play polo?

Well, that comic strip ended just as things were getting interesting... :popcorn:

It's been absolutely riveting to follow the media's obsession with tracking each of the VP hopeful's every move.

Oh wait...

Seriously, no one is going to care, except maybe for the neo-cons. And it sounds like Rep convention schedule might be screwed up anyways.

The Minneapolis media is doing that, though it's not any more worthless than their typical stories during the state fair.

Great speech by Obama tonight. Lots of policy stuff plus he came out swinging vs. McCain.

My Little Pony.

Some people on here are going to say that he didn't go into enough detail, just watch. He needed to go up and actually read the bill.

The Wall Street Journal is dead on with their analysis of this evening:


A Shooting Liberal Star - WSJ.com

Uh, are we reading the same article? This is the same old regurgitated nonsense that we've heard before. There's very little about the actual evening, so little in fact that I'm certain this article was written before the evening and posted afterwards. I don't see how it could be classified as a "view of the evening", much less an accurate one.

But maybe there was an error and you meant to post a link to an article that actually talked about his speech.

"Maybe if John McCain went to Pennsylvania and he met the man who lost his job, but can’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he’d understand we can’t afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators."

So he's saying that with McCain, we'll still be addicted to oil, but with Obama, we won't be (within 4 years)

I just don't believe him, I think he's full of shit.

"And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country — and we will win that fight — she will be central to that victory."

This one, maybe he can be given the benefit of the doubt and that he means "we" as in "America, eventually". But if so it's misleading. He wants us to think he'll do it in his term.

And I just don't believe him, I think he's full of shit again.

Will Obama supporters admit he's a failure after 4 years when we're still addicted to oil and we don't have universal health care? I guess it's better to attempt great things than not. But Obama is selling A LOT. And there's still little discussion of how he can actually do all this.

And now the campaign begins in earnest.

I've heard that there was some recent controversy with Obama's campaign plane. Does anyone have the details on this?

Yeah, I agree. No specific reference to anything Obama said, just a lot of generalities, so I don't see how it can be "dead on with their analysis of this evening" since there is no analysis of the evening at all. Definitely sounds like it was written before hand.

if you listened to his speech you'd hear that he said he'd lay out a roadmap and begin a process so that in 10 years we wouldn't be addicted to foreign oil anymore - not saying it'd be done in 4 years

I was disappointed to hear such promises, but not at all surprised. I'll be voting for Obama, no secret there, and I do truly hope that our government does something serious about our energy policy, but the big points he made sound like the same rhetoric that any candidate would promise. I'm curious to see what things McCain promises in his acceptance speech, I expect similar vague promises to resolve impossible problems, just from a different angle.



Perhaps I'm just cynical here, but isn't a fundamental part of campaigns today to have to promise the most idealized vision they have, and its just never possible. I don't expect any of those promises to occur over the next 4 or years, though I will certainly in part measure the next president based on the changes that occur in our nation's energy and healthcare policies, among other things.



Don't forget McCain's speech in May where he predicted where the US would be after 4 years in office(caveat, he did say he does not presume he will be able to do all of this, but hopes that he can). Some of the most lofty goals excerpted here:



Full text of this speech; Text of McCain's Speech on First-Term Goals | The Trail | washingtonpost.com


The bolded parts are the very similar to Obama's goals(clean coal technology and nuclear power anyone?)

If McCain wins, I hope he is able to be a bi-partisan president that can accomplish even a few of his goals too.

I didn't catch the speech, but did he happen to lay out that roadmap during it, or any part of it?

If not, isn't that just more pointless talk?

he didn't lay it out in specific-specifics no. But no candidate ever does. That would be one hell of a "boring" (albeit very informative) speech. You'll never see that. Now I wish the candidates would put these types of details out on their websites or something for those who are interested, yeah.

But he did talk about doing it by utilizing other sources of power, and in general terms how he'd go about that, yeah. In as much detail as you get in any of these speeches.

It sounds like Pawlenty won't be in Dayton today so I think he's out and Romney is in for the VP.

This, what a terrible article. The Republican spin machine doesn't even need to read or hear the speeches anymore, they'll just repeat the same stuff anyhow.

And LOL at molson complaining Barack promised energy independence within four years. Learn to read or buy a hearing aid.


Can this happen within ten years? Hell if I know, probably not. But we gotta try something...

Unfortunately, the speech given last night contained little more than general comments about Democratic platform issues. Not only that, but he used rhetoric about the economy that simply isn't backed up by the latest economic numbers that were released this week. Large growth (3.3%) and a low unemployment rate. How quickly we forget that the ideal presented by the Democrats (Bill Clinton's presidency) had a higher average unemployment rate than the Bush presidency, higher average percentage of people below the poverty level than the Bush presidency, and a -.5% growth in his final quarter in office. All this despite the fact that Bush had the added issues associated with 9/11. Obama presented it well, but the WSJ article was spot-on in its analysis.

Honestly, if the debates came before the conventions, Obama would have a pretty good shot at winning the election as he's probably the better speaker of the two. Unfortunately for him, the debates come after the conventions and McCain is expected to do very well in the debates against a relatively inexperienced Obama. If McCain fails in the debates, it's no secret that he'll lose.

Apparently Romney won't be in Dayton either says Chuck Todd so maybe it will be Palin.

The information is on their respective websites.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/facts...ech_080308.pdf

and

http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing...f1468e96f4.htm

The information is out there. People(not saying you Torgo) want spoon fed info or use the saying, "he's not specific with his ideas" to justify irrational decisions. Looking at both sites, one thing that jumped out when comparing the two energy policies is that McCain's FIRST bullet point is expanding domestic oil exploration. WTF? Isn't the main priority supposed to be, doing what we can to move away from oil?

Another thing that pisses me off about McCain's plan is the idea of giving a "prize" for creating a plug-in/hybrid car. Another WTF for me. I feel like Chris Rock on this one. Its like we are giving a prize to people for something that they are SUPPOSED to do. If someone can make a cheaper, more efficient electric powered car, believe me its going to sell without the requirements of a gotdamn, jeopardy prize. That's a waste of money in my opinion.

Like I've said before, there's plenty of reasons for ideological conservatives to dislike Obama's policies, but I don't see how you can rationally argue that the speech last night wasn't effective. God knows if McCain put together something similar I'd be very nervous about the election.

Fox is hinting at Palin for VP. She's young, white, and Pro-life. Wow, this could be a very, very interesting turn. If McCain chooses her does the pick appeal to Hillary supporters who identify with Hillary?

Imagine how long the speech would have needed to be to satisfy the FOFC critics decrying the lack of substance, he still wouldn't have finished yet.

As for Palin's potential appeal it depends on how many of Hillary's supporters were only there because she was a woman.

MBBF, you are misleading with your statistical analysis, at least with the higher avg. unemployment rate. Of course, he had a higher AVERAGE % rate, the place was in shambles when Bill took office. Unemployment was above 7% and in 8 years was down to below 4%. G-Dub took the baton from Clinton and subsequently it rose back up to 6.0 where its been for most of Bush's presidency. I guess you can give him an A for consistentency.

Give me 8 years of declining unemployment rates over consistently high rates any day.

MSNBC seems to be hinting that it will be Lieberman, but it is kind of funny the way they are doing it. They are saying that ABC confirms that the govenor of Alaska is in.... Alaska! Anyhows, I'm not really holding my breath trying to figure out who it will be I am sure that I will find out soon enough, and I don't really think either way Palin or Lieberman it's a big enough deal to me to get me to vote Republican, so not that worried about it.

Yeah, it sure was too bad we didn't make it to the moon in 10 years after JFK gave his speech that we would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, because he didn't list out a detailed road map of how to do it in that speech.

She's a bold choice. And I think that McCain needs to take some chances. But, my goodness, if he ever wanted to remind voters that he is OLD, he can do that by making sure that he stands next to a young woman as much as possible.

If I were McCain, I'd pick Huck. Huck is very very likable, will energize the base, and his humor will allow him to play the attack dog in a very effective and unorthodox, IMO, way.

There are people who would be afraid of Huck as president who I think could be persuaded to vote for a ticket with him as VP.

The article did mention the only real "debatable items" he mentioned in his speech (ie, selling tax rebates to people who don't pay taxes as cuts to balance out the increases on people who do). The problem is that there's nothing you can really analyze from the speech. According to Obama, he's the magic elixir for whatever ails you. Energy costs, he'll fix it. Use of foreign oil? No more when he's president. Have issues with health care or losing your job? Obama will fix it the first day in office.

I don't know how you can have an article on his speech last night with any substantive policy debate. It was a well-delivered speech where Obama said he will be the combination of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny to all Americans.

I wish such were the case, but this is kind of the point. There's nothing new that a person with any critical thinking skills could have taken from that speech on how Obama actually plans to make a difference in the issues that face us. Either you buy that he's the pied piper leading us from danger or you don't. There's nothing in last night's speech that really changed that.

Honestly, I'm not sure we can believe much of anything at this point. McCain's PR machine is pumping rumors into the media food chain on an hourly basis at this point. The Palin comments come from her spokesperson, not Palin. The Romney and Pawlenty comments were directly from them. The Republicans could just as easily be trying to keep attention on McCain and off of Obama this morning by pumping the media pipelines full of information.

That speech did nothing more than solidify some Democratic support, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But the 'best political speech I've ever seen' rhetoric on some of the liberal websites is WAY over the top.

JFK should have built the rockets and trained the astronauts right on stage during the middle of his speech.

It seems then that he is taking a cue from Reagan's 1980 campaign. You can substitute Reagan for Obama in your post above, and have a pretty good description of his race against Bush in the primaries, then Carter in the general. The biggest knock against him was that he have good speeches, but no details about his policies in those speeches.

I'm not sure why people were expecting a detailed, policy wonk style of speech. That has never been what the acceptance of the nomination speech has ever been for either party. The place where more details come out is later on, during stump speeches and during the debates. And on both sides I can see the public speaking being more general in nature, with the campaign websites supplying the detailed info, to hedge against misspeaking about the details.

My question for the McCain folks. What the hell has he laid out in detail?

All I hear from the McCain camp is why Obama shouldn't be President, not why McCain should be President.

A jet chartered by a McCain backer just arrived in Dayton, Ohio. It flew out of Alaska earlier this morning.

Let's wait until after the Republican convention before we make that comparison. He hasn't even had that opportunity. You might be right, but it's a tad premature at this point.

This is the thing though, McCain has outlined what he plans to do in these comments. They make sense, and can be done. Obama has not even done this in many of his speeches. Additionally, how much more of a road map can we expect in a speech?

It is a hell of a lot easier to make promises in a speech and make it sound good than it is to outline how you plan to meet those promises.

The 'health care for every American' promise alone should raise eyebrows. Anyone involved in health care or the insurance industry knows that it would take a Herculean effort to make this happen. Even a Dem president with a Dem Congress couldn't make that happen anytime soon, if at all.

The convention had two goals. One, solidify Democratic support. I saw Dem support numbers at roughly 60/20 with 20 undecided. I imagine after this week he'll gain 10 to 20 points in Dem support. Given the skew in self-identify numbers, an extra ten percente of Dem support likely would mean a win. Secondarily, he'll raise an astounding amount of money and pull in thousands of new volunteers.

Two, he had to reassure reachable independents. Based on what folks like Luntz were saying I think he did that, but we'll have to wait to know. There's a lot of people that won't vote for him no matter what, as even landslide elections still have a relatively split popular vote.

80 - Reagan 50/41
84 - Reagan 59/41
88 - Bush 53/46
96 - Clinton 49/41

Even with a best case scenario Obama can't get 40-45% of voters no matter what. What's important is looking at what support is open to him and how well he did at attracting that support. My guess is he did very well.

That being said, it's also important to remember that the debates will have an audience probably twice as large and will still play a bigger role in the outcome.

I definitely see your point, but people have been railing on Obama for some time about his abstract calls for change.

Then when he does, it's not enough.

Again I ask, what do you expect him to say? The information is there for those that are interested, but in reality, this is a political campaign. As a whole, people don't vote on the issues. People in my family didn't vote for Kerry because they thought he worshiped the devil(seriously).

The flip side is that the guy has to fight insignificant trash like, "he's a muslim, he's not REALLY American since he was born in Hawaii, or where's his American flag pin? How can talk about the issues when you've got to spend so much time and energy proving that you are as American as John McCain. How about when he tried to explain the complete futility of oil-drilling and the American people said no to rational thinking (25% of world consumption vs. 3% of reserves). Then when he changed his stance to appease more American people, he was called a "flip flopper" although McCain was against drilling just 2 weeks before. :confused:

If the issues and proposed policy changes are as important to some voters as they claim to be, get out and do the research because, NEWS FLASH, you will not find substance on the surface of any major political campaign.

I think it's more of a case of people that never seriously entertained the thought of voting for Obama wanting more substance from him even though they know they aren't going to like the substance.

Once McCain gives his non-substantive speech, then they can both get in to the nitty gritty.

I didn't think he was promising to be the Easter Bunny and Santa, I thought he was saying Americans have to get off their asses too and help him make "change" or something.

You called that specific?

And that's the BS I'm talking about. There are not 20 new nuclear reactors being built in the US. There have been 20 applications for new reactors. I hate that kind of misleading politics.

So yes you are right, in the fact that:

There are 20 applications but there are also 8 orders already booked for plants in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. I'm not pulling that number out of my butt either, the company I work for supplies the Main Coolant Pumps for Nuclear Reactors.

That doesn't mean that those 8 plants can't be canceled, but those utilities, Georgia Power being one, has already started payment.

He didn't say anything new last night that hasn't already been said by a Democrat candidate in past elections. I'm sure he'll get more specific at some point. The major reason that there are calls for him to do it sooner is that everyone already knows McCain's policy thoughts because he's been around forever. Obama doesn't have that kind of legacy built up yet, so the public needs more info than a candidate like McCain.

I think he'll be more specific at some point, but he needs to do it sooner rather than later.

So if Palin is the Vice Presidential nominee does Joe Biden go after his counterpart's inexperience? :)

Just leaked: Palin is the VP selection..........

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin Is McCain's VP Pick: Source - Your Money Your Vote * News * Special Report - CNBC.com

Yeah, the VP debate will obviously go in favor of the Dems. The Republicans only hope is that Biden gets so confident that he ends up saying something he shouldn't, which certainly isn't out of the realm of possibilities.

Luckily for the Republicans, they'll have 3 debates to go after Obama's inexperience.

Well from what I read about 2-3 weeks ago,( I read about nuclear power as much as I could once McCain introduced it into the mainstream as a viable option). its only like is multiple reactors for 3 sites, GA, SC, and TX. Saying 20 new plants are being constructed is significantly different than placing reactor orders for 3 sites.

Wow. Just reading up on her, she was only elected Governor in 2006. Before that her only elected office was Mayor of a town of less than 10,000 people.

Granted, it's a big difference having the inexperience at the bottom of the ticket. But this is VERY inexperienced.

Welcome to the 2008 election, where race or sex takes precedence over sound leadership and experience.

McCain had to do something to make people say, "Wow, look at me, I'm running too." The big if, is whether McCain and Co. can sell this as a landmark Republican decision amongst middle-aged white women.

I agree with you. I think the rest are holding off till they see how these first few reactor plants go. The nation, and world, is still a little skeptical about nuclear power, but honestly there is so much margin built into the design that it is 100 times safer than in the 70s.

:popcorn:

Since you work in the industry, got a question. what's the start-up time for nuclear plants..10-20 year estimate?

It's a high risk/high reward pick, which is what he needed to do. Neither Romney or Pawlenty had the prospect of changing the race. Palin will either look great in a month or self-destruct under the pressure of a national campaign.

I imagine Don Young and Ted Stevens aren't very happy today.

It's a shame us white males are losing our grip on power. At least we still have McCain.

Dole/Ferraro 2008

I am not sure I understand what you mean here. My father has been a nuclear licensing manager for Southern Company since the late 1970s. As far as I know there are well over 60+ nuclear plants currently in use today that provide a pretty decent chunk of our country's electricity.

I thought for the most part most of the country has gotten over the fear of nuclear plants years ago and they are viewed as safe and effective. I might have completely missed your point though.

LOL, well obviously my point was not that a minority or female can't do the job. I would simply state that there are FAR more qualified minorities or women from an experience and leadership standpoint than Obama and Palin. But, both parties are looking for the fresh (i.e. glass ceiling busting) face over experience. It'll certainly make the debates interesting.

When we met with utilities last year they were telling us how they were having troubles getting the licenses for new plants from the NRC. The NRC was making them jump through a lot of hoops and making it a bit difficult for them to get the licenses, unlike in the past where they didn't question it as much. I'm just going by what they were telling me.

I'm not exactly sure, this is my first time through. We are building plants in China as they were our first order. We signed the deal in December of 2006 and our shipping date for our pumps is in 2010. I'd imagine they would be up and running by 2012. So about 6 years.

Since when did the American presidency become about "experience" though?

It wasn't at all dissapointing to you when Obama talked about how ridiculous drilling was, and then decided drilling was important after all?

It was dissapointing to me. I perked up when Obama started talking about stuff like how stupid the gas tax holiday was, and how ridiculous it was to rely on drilling. I was all, "wow, this guy might actually have the courage for real change".

But he's backtracked, even DURING the campaign. While I believe that Obama might be a little more enlightened on his energy policy than McCain, I don't really believe there'd be any difference at the end of the day.

What I can't get away from is my thought that Obama has a much greater chance of being a total disaster than McCain. I can't get that thought out of head. McCain is safer, and I don't believe the "upside" of Obama.

FWIW, I went into this election looking at experience as a bad thing. That's why, as a former staunch Republican, I picked up a Democratic ballot during the primaries for the first time. Kinda like Obama said in his speech last night :)

Hmm, I'm not in the industry, it just is something I grew up with I guess. My understanding was the main reason we don't see a bunch more nuclear plants today is not because of safety at all. It simply was the U.S. did not need them as we had excess energy already from "dirtier" sources of power that cause more greenhouse gases or harm the environment more than nuclear power does. With various environmental groups pushing the issue to move away from those dirtier power sources, nuclear power is getting steam again.. but I don't recall there being any safety issue at all with it for a very long time.

I have always seen it as one of those things that most people thought "Sounds great, just don't build it in my back yard" type of things.. Kind of like a landfill.

You think rationally that's why you don't see a safety concern. But mention it to a few others and I bet you don't get that far before someone mentions 3-Mile Island or Chernobyl (sp?).

Yeah, I hear there's millions of Republicans turned Democrat. I also hear there's millions of Clintonites voting for McCain. I'll believe both when I see it in November.

The Palin selection seems pretty desperate to me, I'm really looking forward to her debating Joe Biden.

Again, explain how do you qualify to be president?

There is no job in the world that's going to prepare you to be the most influential, and quite possibly, the most powerful leader in the world. By the way, didn't Bush have consecutive term experience as Texas Governor? Also, his dad was president too so I guess that made him qualified too. On the other side, didn't carter have 2-3 terms as senator and was a governor too? Experience is overrated.

Is it more desparate than selecting an inexperienced minority for President?

FWIW.....neither are desparate moves. Both are well-calculated political moves aimed at capturing a part of the electorate that the party wants to capture. Anybody who says either move is desparate is using the biased side of their mouth to talk.

Well, my turning against the Republicans is more of a result of my going through the liberal education system. I was brought up Republican, but came home from college a Democrat.

Education in America is indoctrination into the liberal ideology.

I guess people could bring up the Titanic as reasons they don't want to go on a boat as well. I bet if I lived next door to a nuclear power plant I'd be a bit nervous as well though. Maybe I was brainwashed on the subject growing up by my father though. :)

I'm don't really have a dog in this fight either though, just was a bit suprised that people still really feel nuclear power (that we have used since the 1950s or 1960s) safety is more of a concern than the dependance on foreign fuel sources or the environment is all.

I'd hit her now which makes her even more hittable as evidence as to her Miss Alaska 1982 photo (runner-up)

It was different for me. I was pretty much classified based on where I lived. In Georgia, I was a moderate democrat, living in Texas I was considered very liberal Democrat.. now in Massachusetts I'm considered very conservative now... go figure. :)

It depends on your personality I guess.

Three years in Eugene, OR definitely turned me more conservative because I just got so sick of obnoxious liberals. They poisoned me forever. So condescending, so dismissive of every other view, so arrogant that THEY know every single thing about how the world works, and if you so much as suggest an alternative, you're a "neo-con" or worse. On a college campus it's even worse, because they think they're smarter than everyone else too.

Conversatives want to talk me into to joining them, liberals want to attack me for disagreeing with them (It's a dynamic I feel costs liberals elections).

I sometimes want to vote liberal, but they turn my stomach. Of course, I'm not a christian right guy. There's no political party for me, and no vote that really feels right.

It works both ways.

Safer? Can we agree that we are in deep sh** as a country, already behind a "safe" pick?

Insanity defined: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

For those of you who think that McCain picked Palin solely on her gender; she is is the youngest governor in Alaska history and she was elected largely on the issue of ethics reform, one of McCain's longtime caucuses. During her time in the governor's mansion, Palin has also fought "pork barrel spending," another top McCain issue.

So you went to Boulder and came back a weed-smoking liberal? Am I right? :D

I remember a quote about this very topic. If I remember right, it was golfer Tom Watson.....

"If you're under 25 and aren't a liberal, you don't have a heart. If you're over 50 and aren't a conservative, you don't have a brain."

I'm sure it does. I always feel it more from the left, but maybe that's just because I where the liberals are super-aggressive, and conservatives are kinder/gentler (perhaps out of fear that their tires will get slashed).

I lived in an environment where cars with Bush bumper stickers were vandalized, and students with conservative leanings were harrasssed to the point where the administration has to get involved.

The reverse doesn't seem to be true in Idaho, a classic Red State.

My experiences are limited though.

She's also pro-life. Picking a pro-choice VP would have guaranteed a loss for McCain.

Winston Churchill had a similar quote once, with the ages at 30 and 40 respectively.

Yes, all of us that watched the Democratic Convention are now fully aware that everyone is losing their jobs and homes, the soup kitchen lines go on for blocks, and we have no military or political allies. Our country is in ruin.

Well not solely. I'd say about 92.5%, though. The other 7.5% is because she's a pro-life woman.

My view only makes sense if I believe McCain is better than Bush, which I do. Even Obama has acknowledged such.

Just because Bush sucks, doesn't mean all Republicans would be a comparative disaster. I'm not compelled that McCain "votes with Bush 95% of the time", what does that even mean, since when does Bush cast Senate votes? If they mean McCain votes "conservatively" 95% of the time, ya, no shit.

That's real. When you are young, you don't have anything. As you grow older, you want to keep the stuff you've worked for, forgetting the fact that your wealth, if you didn't start with anything, was helped built by the taxes and hard work of those who had more than you. I see the ideals, just don't agree.

Democrats----->Republicans.

I smoked weed when I was a conservative too.

Well, you'll come around. I voted for Bill Clinton twice in my younger years. :eek:

okay, looks like McCain is picking a hottie to be his VP running mate...he's got my vote now.

But did you wait to inhale until you became a liberal? :D

So isn't working across aisle and voting conservatively 95% of the time, mutually exclusive?(Not trying to be an ass, just asking a question)

She is kinda sexy, though.

I just had a thought. Will the press attempt to get Palin crotch shots to post on the internet much like the Britney Spears fiascos?

Another stereotypical view of liberals. Good work.

That's part of it, I guess.

But believe me, it's also true that as people get older, they believe more that the liberal "direct" approach to a strong economy just doesn't work as well.

It's liberal propaganda - you're not the only side that wants to reduce poverty and help the economy, you're just not. Conservatives just think it's not as simple as "take money from rich, use it to help poor". If that was true, we would have solved poverty by now.

I think as you get older, you give up on the "ideals" (because nothing ever REALLY changes), and you want a system that just works somewhat.

I'm reminded of a quote in a chick flick my gf dragged me to this week called Brick Lane. The guy said something like, "when you're young, everything is possible. When you're older, you just want a few things to be certain".