All the talk about the surge clouds the real difference in policy between these two. McCain believes we should have a large, long-term presence in Iraq and Obama wants at minimum a much smaller presence and possibly no presence. That's the argument the country needs to have.

IMO, a lot of the shows I enjoy watching (Daily Show, Chris Matthews, Anderson Cooper, ..) are pretty much entering "elect Obama lockdown mode" and it's a little too much for me. I'm cool with them ripping Rove for his comments on Hillary, I thought it was pretty funny. But to not zing Obama on his ridiculous all-over-the-map response to Russia-Georgia and his continued comments on how being a lawyer and community organizer make him fit to be president shows the Daily Show has completed abandoned their normal balanced format.

If someone like Mike Huckabee had stated that leading a church group helped prepare him for being president back in the primaries or someone on the right had said being a lawyer prepared them for the presidency, Stewart and company would have barbecued them. Yet, they would never dream of doing that to Obama.

Again, these are their shows and they are welcome to do whatever format they wish. It just impacts my enjoyment of them when I know that I am going to see a litany of anti-republican comments for the next 30 minutes when there's a similar amount of "red meat" laying out there on the other side that goes untouched. But, to each his own and I'm sure the left is eating it up.

There's more to it. Supposedly Murdoch and Ailes met with Obama after he secured the nomination. The meeting was heated, but eventually they came to a sort of detente. The O'Reilly interview grew out of that meeting. This isn't to say O'Reilly's lying, but this is a part of a bigger relationship.

But he's still evil if for no other reason than his sexual abuse!

IMO, a lot of the shows I enjoy watching (Daily Show, Chris Matthews, Anderson Cooper, ..) are pretty much entering "elect Obama lockdown mode" and it's a little too much for me. I'm cool with them ripping Rove for his comments on Hillary, I thought it was pretty funny. But to not zing Obama on his ridiculous all-over-the-map response to Russia-Georgia and his continued comments on how being a lawyer and community organizer make him fit to be president shows the Daily Show has completed abandoned their normal balanced format.

If someone like Mike Huckabee had stated that leading a church group helped prepare him for being president back in the primaries or someone on the right had said being a lawyer prepared them for the presidency, Stewart and company would have barbecued them. Yet, they would never dream of doing that to Obama.

Again, these are their shows and they are welcome to do whatever format they wish. It just impacts my enjoyment of them when I know that I am going to see a litany of anti-republican comments for the next 30 minutes when there's a similar amount of "red meat" laying out there on the other side that goes untouched. But, to each his own and I'm sure the left is eating it up.

Here is McCain's original statement

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/...a0ea95e945.htm

"The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Russian aggression, noting the withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia, and calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory. We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion."


And here is Obama's statement released on the same day (Aug 11)

The Page - by Mark Halperin - TIME

"The United States, Europe and all other concerned countries must stand united in condemning this aggression, and seeking a peaceful resolution to this crisis. We should continue to push for a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate end to the violence. This is a clear violation of the sovereignty and internationally recognized borders of Georgia – the UN must stand up for the sovereignty of its members, and peace in the world."


Also, Russia would not have its veto power if the UN Security Council were voting on a resolution that condemned their actions. They would have to abstain from the vote. (Now, if they were voting to actually take action against them, which neither candidate was suggesting, they would have its veto power.)

EDIT: Looks like these are their 3rd statements (after reading over what factcheck.org wrote). Looks like they were both calling for UN involvement from the beginning.

FactCheck.org: GOP Convention Spin, Part II

This was checked out as well. Obama and McCain had very similar initial statements on the conflict and neither of them said anything about the veto power. Giuliani tried to spin it like you did but it's just not true.

The Clinton economic era was rare in it produce the tech boom and cheap money. I don't expect us to return the type of stock and real estate gains of that era or in the before-the-housing/credit meltdown era.

The top 1% pay about 40% of federal income taxes as it is, with the top 5% paying around 60% of all federal income taxes. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 2.99%.

http://www.house.gov/jec/news/2008/July/pr110-45.pdf

When is it enough?

Maybe I missed this earlier in the htread, but could someone post, or link to, the quote from Obama where he says being a community organizer makes him fit to be President?

There were all sorts of economic gains that weren't tied to tech stocks or real estate. A prime example would be the growth and productivity gains of Wal-Mart in the nineties. I wouldn't argue that was becaus eof Clinton's tax policies, but it is proof that those policies didn't cause Wal-Mart to contract.

We're going to disagree on where the line should be in terms of justice/fairness. Again, my point is that there's simply no evidence that tax increases of any size are always detrimental to the economy.

How different are the tax rates today v. the Clinton years? How different would they be under McCain v. Clinton? What about Obama v. McCain, or Obama v. Clinton?

There were other parts of the tax bill such as R&D credits and child credits, but here's how the rate structure changed. From Whitehouse.gov before the bill was passed:


edit: I think there was a 35% bracket added eventually.

another edit: In 2008 the rates were 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 35

Here are two that I have seen in recent stories (both on MSNBC):

TV ad from Obama

Obama himself on being a community organizer

Unfamiliar with 48 Laws of Power. I'm going to have to look into it.

SI

I don't know. Maybe he looked at it and decided that no such thing happened.


Still waiting on that quote!


When did they have a balanced format?

I'm sure no one will ever address this point, tho. Like someone said earlier in the thread, people have gone into attack mode rather than actually debate at this point.

SI

but even if you remove Jon, and put them on a vanilla website back to back the hypocrisy of the statements and the people saying them remains.

Neither of those quotes come close to Obama saying that being a community organizer makes him fit to be President. The first quote, I have no idea how or why you see that in the first quote. That's just biographical info. The second one, you lifted from his response to what Rudy and Palin said at the RNC

YouTube - Barack Obama on Community Organizing

Doesn't sound like he's saying that being a community organizer makes him fit to be President in that video to me.

Does being Mayor of a small town and Governor for a short term make you qualified or not?

Is a mother a pinhead for letting her teenage daughter get pregnant or not?

Should a woman candidate whine about unfair and unequal treatment or not?


O'Reilly, Rove, Morris, and Palin seem torn on these questions. Wondering what you guys think!

And I'm sorry, but comparing these contradictory statements to saying 5 or 6 people had dinner is one of the worst analogies ever made on this board. It's not even close to the same thing. Give me a break.

Shorter: I'm never wrong.

If it's between a governor and a senator with equal time in their positions, I'll take the governor every time.

She's not really a pinhead. She can't monitor her daughter at all times. With that said, it sure seems like some things could have or should have been different. Even looking at them now when they're together, it looks like the daughter hates her.

Should a woman candidate whine? Probably not. Women will support her anyway and men aren't going to support a woman who whines and complains all the time. If you're married, you can have enough of that at home.

I could show you a link that says that Obama's running for president. I think that implies that he thinks his overall experience makes him fit to be president, as silly as that is.

The Republicans started trashing the community organizer stuff after the Democrats started trashing Palin being a mayor of a small town. (And I'm sure some did it before then, but the direct attacks at the RNC were clearly a response to the Obama camp's critisisms of Palin)

And beyond that, if Obama tries to play up that experience as anything relevant (which he does), it's not unreasonable for the other side to downplay the experience. That's what you do in a campaign.

I wasn't comparing it to any of the specific examples you mentioned, just making a point about the ridiculous consistency police thing.

I still don't care that Bill O'Reilly says different things about teen pregnancy though. Who gives a shit? Do you really expect him to make a huge negative issue out of Palin?

I'll let you inside O'Reilly's brain here:

Spears: "She's a skank"

Palin: "She's a skank. But I really don't want to make a big deal of that because I don't think it matters to this election, and I support McCain/Palin. So I'll downplay it and say it's a private matter."

Everyone does stuff like that. What is this evidence of? That O'Reilly is a McCain/Palin supporter? Shock. It does tell you that you have to take his opinions with a grain of salt. Just like anyone else (including the liberals in this thread) who have already made their mind up about how everything in the world is supposed to work, and how everyone else just "doesn't get it".

no, hypocrites do stuff like that. See he didnt say "skank" the second time, he may have thought it but the exact opposite came out of his hole. That's the difference in my view. The right, or at least the sold right, and the sold left, are willing to sell out in the name of hypocrisy for the greater good of winning the election. IMO, the selling out and being a hypocrite is the bigger problem and thusly means you cant possibly know someone's true feelings. Ive said it before and Ill say it again...I appreciate the KKK member, just so long as he wears the white cape and hat so I know "he is who I thought he is" and can treat him and his idiocy accordingly....It's the David Duke kind that scares me.

I bet you only get fired up about it if it's a conservative doing it.

And why does it fire you up? You know O'Reilly's conservative. You don't agree/believe his opinions anyway. You already have negative feelings about him. So why do you care? How does this become a Daily Show moment and something liberals email too each other? Does it empower you? Does it make you feel more right? Everyone in the world knows that O'Reilly is bias. Just like Michael Moore. This is how people with bias act.

This questions aren't intended to be facetious.

nope, I was killin' the other side too when they were doing shit 2 years ago. There were a few things that got me more fired up than usual in the last 5 years, the congressman hitting on the teen boy was one, the congressman in NO with the money in his freezer was another, the CIA agent outing (she wasnt assigned overseas! BS, Scott McClellan press conferences in general), etc. They all deserve to be lit on fire if the issue arises which is why I want Troopergate to play out and see if there is truly something there, if not GREAT but generally Ive found where there is smoke there's fire. It ticks me off if people want to sweep shit under the rug or say "nothing is wrong, nothing happened" while the shit is still being looked into. You cant know....Anyways, eventhough Im certain few people will agree both sides piss me off when they do hypocritical shit and they both do. That being said, the stuff in the video is undeniable and hypocritical. period. Oh and religion doesnt belong in politics so that stuff ticks me off to no end and generally it's the religious right that promotes that not the tradition Republican party, whose platform, IMO, has been hijacked.

No, I just read.

You too can find it through the miracle of the Google:


or


You also have a misunderstanding of taxation and outsourcing. Taxation occurs on income or profits. Regardless of where you make the widget the taxation on the sale of the widget in the US is what matters most. I know there are a lot of ways to fool with the numbers, but at heart outsourcing manufacturing will not effect your tax liability greatly. You'll only reduce tax liability by moving the whole company to a more friendly tax environment, but that really doesn't happen all that often.

You'd have a stronger argument if you were saying regulation is a reason for outsourcing.

I think "hypocrite", like "lie" is a word that's current usage is far too broad. Sometimes "hypocrite" is used when "inconsistent" would be the proper word, or even "inconsistent for political gain".

O'Reilly would be a hypocrite if he spoke out against teen pregnancy, said that he personally believes that no teens should ever be pregnant, and then he went out and intentionally got a teen pregnant.

It's not a hypocrite to say one thing and then say something else.

Every time I read a post by Flasch, I want sweet tea. That is all.

Arles and others are making it sound as if Obama listed "community organizer" as experience that makes him fit to be President. Arles suggested that the Daily Show should "zing" Obama for saying that. The only way to do that is if Obama explicitly says such a thing. So far, I can't find him doing so.

ok, touche

and that is all that matters, really :)

Threadjack! (but since it is my thread, you can all bite me), is there a FOFC discount code to order your tea? :)

Who doesn't like sweat tea? That stuff rules!

unfortunately, Paypal doesnt have discount code entry, which is ridiculous...but if anyone from here orders some Ill mail you back $3 in your box. You'll just have to PM me your real name and address so I can match it up and put the check in the right box. Just lemme know...


so that also applies to the order I just received, if that was you....Just PM me your real name and address so I can be sure before Im giving money away to everyone :) Which I think that that was you GD.

Yup, it was me. Don't send me money back, just send me some extra stuff in the box. :)

How about an autographed headshot, (lemme see what's here) a double a battery, a business card from......some website developer schlub, a cord for something, a chiclet, and a vacuum bag to a vacuum I dont own anymore :) J/K Ill throw in some extra Southern Sweet Tea Pouches for ya. Just follow the brewcard directions and dont forget to stir occasionally :)

On it, baby! If it is as good as I think it will be, I'll be on be ordering regularly.

And now back to your partisan bickering...

He likes to drop the loofah in the shower.

I thought he liked to eat falafel in the shower?

You all are bias.

About sweet tea?

That, and everything else.

I thought he liked to eat loofahs while washing himself with falafels in the shower...

Shorter: Never ever.

Give yourself some credit SFL. I wouldn't be so right if you weren't so wrong.

Wow, you're right. Google is awesome. Thanks.

BBC NEWS | Business | High tax 'forces firms out of UK'
CARPE DIEM: Workers Pay the Burden of Higher Corporate Taxes
How Do High Small Business Corporate Tax Rates Hurt The Economy?
The Wall Street Journal Online - Featured Article
Amateur Economists » High Corporate Tax Rates Making United States Uncompetitive
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...02741272440704
Wall Street braces for higher tax rates - Nov. 8, 2007
Oregon small brewers say proposed state excise tax hike could be very damaging | Modern Brewery Age | Find Articles at BNET
Obama Capital Gains Tax Hike Would Hit N.Y. Hard - July 15, 2008 - The New York Sun
No Economic Silver Lining in Tax Hikes

Try again, but it's encouraging that you're at least trying to provide evidence. I never said it wasn't possible for taxes to harm business. The bar you set was that tax increases always are passed down through the economy.

You still can't prove that.

I never will be able to either...at least as far as you're concerned. :)

When you get enough Heritage and WSJ editorials to convince the Nobel Committee let me know.

Reality, you should try it sometime.

No, he just likes to rub the falafel, you know, down there.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q="US corporate tax"&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

Mmmm....tea.

So, what did Obama himself "say"? Why does he think he is qualified to be President of the United States?

Is it true that he said he was not qualified to run for President in 2008, when he won his senate seat in '04?

If he does not feel he is qualified, then why is he running and why did he accept the nomination from his party?

How should I know? I'm not the one making claims on what he has said in the past, nor can I read Obama's mind.

But, since John McCain says that Obama is qualified to be President, that's good enough for me. McCain: Obama 'Absolutely' Qualified to Be President - The Talk


You mean when he won his seat in '04? I have no idea. Is it?

Yeah, I think it was the state senate seat in '04, but didn't really recall. That is why I'm asking. I figured you may know why Obama thinks he should be the man in the White House. No problem though, nobody else seems to be able to answer that one either.

I pretty much side with Carter (and molson and others) who have said that no one is ever really qualified to be President. The only person who might be would be the VP, depending on how much the VP is paying attention.

I did a quick google, and found this: YouTube - Obama 2004: I can't see running for president

So yeah, looks like he implied in 2004 that he wasn't qualified.

But then again, George W. Bush has a way of making everyone feel they can be President. :D

I agree with statement in part. The surge reduced violence in areas where troop levels were increased. My biggest problem is the media (and McCain) acting as if it achieved its overall purpose.

The purpose of the surge was not just to decrease violence. The primary reason is to create political reconcilliation in Iraq. This hasn't happened yet.

What bothers me even more is the use of statistics showing decreased violence in areas where troop levels weren't even increased under the surge. It's dishonest.

(BTW, I'm not attacking what you said Swaggs at all. I just needed a quote.)

McCain takes a 3 point lead in the Gallup tracking poll, and 1/3 of the poll was conducted before Thursday night. Tomorrow's poll will be the first one that was conducted entirely after the Republican convention.

Wow... things seem to be getting interesting. In addition, Rasmussen Tracking has McCain and Obama tied:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Yes, and they use the same three day rolling average as Gallup, so 1/3 of their current poll was conducted before Thursday night.

There's a new article on Sarah Palin's controversial pastor:

WASILLA, Alaska — A little sermon about — and for — the messenger seemed to Pastor Larry Kroon an appropriate message on Sunday morning.

“It’s been an interesting week,” laughed Kroon, pastor at the Wasilla Bible Church, as he welcomed attendees. The nondenominational congregation where Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and her family worship was carrying on services as usual this Sunday, but with a few extra guests.

In just more than a week since presidential candidate John McCain picked Alaska’s governor to be his running mate, Palin’s hometown of 9,000 has been inundated with journalists from around the world. For days now the media have delved into her terms as city council member and mayor here, and questioned residents and questioned them again for background on the state’s most famous politician.

Kroon began services asking any reporters who might be in the crowd to respect church members’ opportunity to worship.

“This isn’t the place to be fishing for interviews,” he said.

He then asked the 300 congregants at the first of two morning services to pray for all of the candidates for president and vice president, and to be thankful that all four are willing to provide the nation with their public service.

He urged churchgoers to “pray for the press.” Kroon said the media are to be “cherished and respected,” citing 19th century philosopher Alexander de Tocqueville’s works describing a free press and freedom of religion as essential pillars of democracy.

Kroon said he’s done a series of national media interviews during the hectic past week since his church was thrust into the national spotlight — a significant event for a relatively low-key congregation who sit in folding chairs in the large and new church, down a dirt road at the edge of town.

He urged congregants to do their own thorough research and investigations when deciding who to vote for. He added that it was wrong for anyone to have judged Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., without first reading what Wright actually said.

Palin's pastor urges flock to pray for the media

This is to be expected--a tie or a McCain lead. McCain will probably be ahead by a greater number tomorrow. The real question is how long this holds.

An even more important question is what are the status of the state polls after the convention. It may help us see how things really are.

In reality, though, we don't know what will happen. We can't rely on prior elections, because the conventions are so much later, and things are topsy turvy this time around.

I think this election will really turn on ground game and the base. By picking Palin, McCain excited the Republican base. Obama increased the Democratic base both vertically and horizontally this time around. What I mean is he focused not only on simply trying to peel a few percentage points from the other side and independents, but running up his margins in areas that he is strong. Voter registration for the Democrats this year is outpacing the Republicans, by 2 to 1 margins in some states, that make states competitive. I think ground game will be very important. This is the first time that the Democrats are really focused on increasing turnout since I've participated in politics (starting in 1988).

The polls will flip-flop back and forth I think between now and November.

Well its all BS because its a rolling average...someone told me that polls dont matter due to that fact. I challenged that person's claim when they then started citing polls to bolster their stance and they ignored the challenge and continued their touting of the polls....but I had been convinced a few posts earlier, by them, that polls didnt show anything because of their rolling averageness and simple uncoolness.

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken over the weekend has McCain up by 10 among likely voters, and up by 4 among registered voters.

"In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples."

I don't think there's any doubt McCain's numbers look good at this point. The question is whether this is a bounce that will go away on it's own over the next couple of weeks or if there has been a fundamental change in the election. At this point you have to assume it's a bounce, but if these numbers don't start dropping by the end of the week it may be a bad sign for Obama.

While I agree that it might just be a typical bounce, I would be concerned if I was Obama. The DNC went about as well as it could, and the RNC, shortened by the hurricane, and with an average speech by McCain gave him a bigger bounce? Very, very bad news for Obama.

The other item to consider is that until this point in the race, all eyes were focused on Obama. McCain never had the spotlight on him, never dominated the dialog, and now after both parties are able to get some of their points across, McCain gets his first lead? Again, bad news for Obama.

538 had a post about this. The DNC seems like a month ago because McCain has had the last few big events. Obama needs a big event of his own to change the coverage. Thy mention what might happen if Powell endorsed Obama.

It's till too early for Obama to change tactics. A bounce will disappear on it's own. The numbers at the end of this week or the beginning of next will give a much clearer picture as to where the race is at. I still think the debates will be decisive.

The thing to consider is, a lot of likely voters that will vote for Obama don't use landlines. Polling is still done that way and as a result, a bevy of likely/registered voters who have been added to the rolls are being missed.

From Gallup (scroll to the bottom)
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

This will easily be one of the most overblown arguments that we see this election. College-age people are not the only ones that have figured out that using a cell phone as your primary phone saves money. The top 2% have figured that out as well.

Looks like the first domino has fallen in the media bias backlash. Olbermann and Matthews have been booted from the host seat, though they will still stay on as analysts.

MSNBC Takes Incendiary Hosts From Anchor Seat - NYTimes.com

I'm not really commenting on the argument itself, but you really think the top 2% are getting rid of regular phones, and using only cell phones? While I'm sure they've "figured that out," I don't think they have the need to save money as much as college-age people.

70% of millionaires are "new money" and have been millionaires for 10 years or less. Contrary to what anti-wealth pundits would want you to believe, most wealthy people got there by minimizing expenses rather than spending lavishly at the drop of a hat. Not only that, but most wealthy people are usually work-driven and are often on the go, which further eliminates the need for land-line phones.

Obama has a verbal miscue that will likely be seen and heard all over airwaves in the weeks to come..........

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008...s-his-critics/

Looks like 'Heart' is pissed about the Republicans using their song for the Palin speech, but there's little that they can do to stop them in ASCAP arenas............

Oh my! Obama admits he's a Muslim!!

Barrack Hussein Obama says "my Muslim faith" when discussing religion. I'm sure it's nothing, we all accidentally say that every once in a while.

I was wondering if this would be coming at some point. MSNBC was starting to feel as far to the left as Fox News feels to the right...which may have been the strategic position at some point. While this is fine to do, it seems like having the station tied to NBC (which does balance better) would become a problem.

I'd call that a miscue only when taken out of context.

We have a terrorist running for President!

Nah. I think the argument that Palin's the most qualified Republican will easily win!

As to the numbers, cell phone use has been factored in to most of the polls. They may be a little behind, but not by much. The bigger issue is the likely voter model. This is the most difficult task for any pollster and they're always basing the formula on previous elections. This year the Dems have made massive expenditures towards building a GOTV infrastructure. I don't think it will mean tens of millions of votes, but unlike Kerry who hoped more people would vote, Obama has actually put in place a structure to make it happen.

That's where I really question the Gallup/USAToday poll. The six point McCain spread between registered and likely just seems too much IMO. I don't doubt McCain's ahead and he may hold an advantage in likely voters, but six points is very generous.

The Republicans are so damn good at the outrage game. Fox gets slammed all the time and tells everyone to fuck off. Every time MSNBC gets criticism from the right they make a lineup change.

Palin's lack of questioning is another good example. Imagine the outrage if Obama or Biden said they wouldn't do any interviews until the press showed enough respect and deference.

This is politics we're talking about here. You can be sure that it will be taken out of context and you can be sure that there will be some uninformed voter or forgetful senior citizen who will take it as fact.

Did you read the whole quote?


What he was saying was that McCain has not "claimed I was a Muslim." Alas, I'm sure millions of Conservatives will tout this as proof that Obama is a danger to America and another million fools will believe them. Sigh.

Obama's been on the campaign trail for 19 months. Palin has been on the ticket for 10 days. I'd like to hear more from her as well, but there's a stark difference between the two situations. She'll do some interviews and have a debate in the next 3-4 weeks. You'll know plenty by then.

I'm sure that is true, but it won't prevent me from losing lots of respect for anyone that pushes an out of context position that is 180 degrees away from the in context position. Just because people are dumb enough to fall for it doesn't make doing it OK.

And you can be sure you'll be helping to prove that correct.

Kind of like Obama's campaign still stating that McCain wants to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years when speaking on the campaign trail? Or several other gross misquotes used by both campaigns?

The words 'politics' and 'respect' should never be used in the same sentence. They just don't go well together.

It's the respect and deference part I have a problem with.

Oh, I know it to be correct. I've got two grandparents in their 90s that still vote in every single election. They store away every single attack ad ever shown on TV and then regurgitate the 'facts' to everyone at their dinner table at the nursing home. They believe every word of it. It's not pretty, but to act like it doesn't happen is a gross misstep. There's a reason attack ads are so effective when done well.

Fox doesn't seem to care that everyone understands they are unbiased. They aren't attempting journalistic integrity. NBC is making that attempt, and the MSNBC coverage was damaging that integrity. If MSNBC could be spun off to something that didn't reflect on NBC, they could probably tell everyone else to fuck off.


I don't get how they can actually expect Palin to not do interviews. I also don't expect how they can expect there won't be outrage at this. To me, refusing to do interviews means you've got something major to hide. There should be backlash.

There's a difference though. McCain, in fact, does support keeping a large troop presence in Iraq for one-hundred years. He doesn't support a one-hundred year war.

There's a big difference between admitting it happens and helping to make it happen.

Heart is donating a portion of the royalties to Obama's campaign. It's apparently a win-win.

This isn't a left or right thing. I don't like either side using misquotes to try to frame the other candidate poorly. My comments on respect weren't directed at Obama, McCain, or their campaign staff. Politics is slimy business and I expect politicians to be slimy. My comments on respect were directed at you. You knew that was out of context, yet you chose to call it a miscue. I don't respect that.

Particularly when there's no respect of the opposition. I mean, what's so hard to grasp about the reality that many on the two sides wouldn't piss on each other if they happened along as the other spontaneously combusted? (not that you don't get that, just the notion in general)

edit to add: Frankly, either side that doesn't take advantage of something that can be portrayed as a misstep isn't very smart in bypassing the opportunity (unless of course there's a risk of backfire higher than the potential reward).

What possible reason would Palin have to go into these interviews given the tone against her for the first 2-3 weeks. The questions would be something like "Do you really feel you are fit to be a mother and a candidate?"
"Do you think it's appropriate that you're the first woman candidate when you want to force women to hide in alleys with closehangers for abortions?"

It would be akin to someone asking Obama "In light of the recent comments, what was the reason you stopped worshiping the Muslim religion, did it have anything to do with 9-11?" - It's a rediculous question and no matter how he responded he would sound defensive. You think Obama would take interviews if the tone was like that? Or even McCain? I doubt it.

It's smart for her to do this - over 50% in a recent poll blame the press for trying to smear her and this plays very well with them. I'm sure she will do some sort of "friendly" interview at some point, but there's really no reason to. McCain is in about the best spot he could be right now - why make a play with Palin like this until he needs to?

As an aside, I'm seeing a lot of parallels between Palin and Clarence Thomas. There was a certain percentage incensed that Thomas (a conservative against affirmative action) was the next black man after Marshall on the supreme court (very pro affirmative action). The anger and vitriol towards Thomas was almost unprecedented for a supreme court justice. I see kind of a similar thing with the pro choice movement and Palin. Why would anyone want to participate in that type of dialog that will be nothing but extremely mean and completely unfair?

I defer to Webster's Dictionary. It's an excellent read for those that haven't read it.


He made a mistake, did he not? Miscue, per the definition, is a mistake. The word 'miscue' does not have any relevance to context. You're overanalyzing this.

To be honest, the above comments to me seem like a good reason to toss Palin to the wolves even quicker. If they ask stupid questions like the ones you mention above, the backlash would only increase and further invalidate the media, regardless of her responses. The media is already limping along at this point. Why not let the media finish themselves off if you're the Republicans? All she has to do is smile and wave to the camera at this point. They'll hang themselves.