No, it's an old saying. Frankly, I thought Obama's next line was the one that McCain would pounce on.


If that's not calling for an ad featuring some of the tens of thousands of "Change" signs that were held up during Obama's acceptance speech, I don't know what is.

Serious question for the Obama supporters here as well: How well do you think the Obama campaign has been managed/run since the Palin nomination?

Maybe we're stretching things just a wee bit (or a metric ton).

"lipstick on a pig" - 125000 google hits
"lipstick on the pig" - 24000 google hits

There are 5 books on Amazon that use the phrase:
Amazon.com: lipstick pig: Books

It's even in the urban dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...20on%20a%20pig

Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

SI

Call it what you like. He's alluded to his intentions, way too much.
Quite simple, we finally pull troops out of Iraq, Iran goes in and starts shit in the mess we leave, and we're right back where we started.

But in this case, timing is everything...maybe Obama should leave the jokes to the speechwriters.

Because Obama still has a good sized lead in IA and slim leads in CO and NM plus all of the Kerry states. That wins him the election. Even if he loses NH it would be tied and the House would elect Obama. He doesn't need FL, OH, or VA but he can't lose Michigan or Pennsylvania. It'll be interesting to see more state polls and if CO+NM is a lot more viable of an option for Obama.

Alright... drinking the DNC Kool-Aide!

I'm guessing in 1980, you'd be running around frantic thinking that Reagan was going to start a war with the USSR.

Let me get this straight. Hillary and Obama were playing the "I can pull out the troops in X months" game but they didn't mean it because that would mean fighting Iran? Everyone appears to want to fight in Afghanistan but wasn't Pakistan also brought up?

Check back in 2 weeks. I think it's way too early to tell. There's a bit of a press embargo on all things concerning the other party during the conventions so we're only 1 week into how

I think the really interesting development I've heard over the last week is that, in theory, Obama has taken the brakes off the 527's that he's had them on all election. We'll see what comes of that since Palin has left a lot of low hanging fruit (in particular, the debunked stories about the bridge to nowhere, fired chef, and ebay plane that she won't only let go away but that she keeps repeating) and McCain, like any long running politician, has a lot of baggage that could easily be brought up.

SI

Apparently you've never heard of "The Day After" mini-series. I'm sure somewhere in the credits, there was a dedication to Ronald Reagan. :D

Yep. Especially since I was 3.

Now McCain=Reagan...lol.

Except even the fake news cites that he has used the phrase before:

Obama camp response on "lipstick, " was talking about change

Keep fishing

SI

Well, if you want to compare the campaign to a prize fight, you'd have to say that that the past week = McCain getting some good shots in and putting Obama against the ropes.

Again, perception and timing is everything. Saying something like that a week after Palin's bulldog and lipstick comment probably isn't the smartest analogy for someone as brilliant as he's supposed to be to use in a speech. I'll concede the point...a lot of others might not.

I agree. Generations from now, historians will be writing about how Barack Obama lost the election because he called Sarah Palin a pig. I think Obama should just drop out of the race entirely and let Hillary take over. Otherwise, John McCain might be up by 30% before the end of the week. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama lost his Senate re-election and dropped out of politics all together because of this.

There's actually an archaic system in place if the House has to select the winner. It doesn't go by straight vote, but by state delegations. Looks like Obama still wins, though:

DEM: 27
GOP: 21
Tied: 2

:banana:

That's pretty much the appropriate response to any one of your posts I believe.

This is interesting:
So, is it normal for a NC poll to have only 33% republicans? I would think atleast 40% of the state's registered voters vote republican given Bush got 56% of the vote in both 2000 and 2004. Perhaps the issue was that the original poll had much too low of a republican sample?

Arlie, North Carolina has more registered democrats than registered republicans, but historically a fair amount of the registered democrats have voted for republicans, especially in the presidential and senate races.

Going of what VV said - there are always more registered Democrats, because plently of those Dixiecrats, Yellow Dogs, or Reagan Democrats never bothered changing their affiliation. Hell, take Kentucky - registered Dems far outnumber registered Republicans, but no one would mistake it for a Dem-leaning state in general.

The Republicans freed the slaves. Some vestiges of Democratic registration by old-school conservatives in the South remain as a result.

Btw, busting another lie about Governor Palin:

Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education - Los Angeles Times

They've had the same problem for a couple of months. They don't take the attack initiative and their ads suck. But it's no time to panic. McCain just had his convention and the polls are already starting to settle. IMO this will be a one or two point race and either guy could win.

And if that happens, I still think the Obama ground game wins this for him in the electoral college, even if he doesn't win the popular vote.

I think that the Obama campaign just needs to make better ads. I wouldn't trust some of the 527 groups to save my life. There's a lot of those groups that are more likely to make ads that hurt the campaign they support rather than help the campaign they support. I personally think the 'Swift Boat' ads were the exception rather than the rule. If the Obama campaign starts relying on those groups to help his numbers, I think he's in a lot of trouble.

Btw, a reason Obama doesn't necessarily want to attack Palin too much on the Bridge to Nowhere:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/...-to-nowhe.html

Turns out he voted for it. Wonder what his position is on it now?

The issue isn't the earmark itself. A huge amount of infrastructure in this country is funded by earmarks. I think we tend to forget that and assume that all earmarks are bad.

The problem is the lie about the earmark. Palin is not being honest when she repeats the lie that she was against when the record shows that it simply wasn't true. To me, a bigger honesty problem is that she still kept the money and still built the road for the bridge to nowhere. It's the hypocrisy.

This presidential campaign is about racial, social, and gender divisions in America, pure and simple. Its actually more and more depressing everyday I wake up.

Funny, that's the title of a book written by someone working for one of the campaigns. I just cant find out whom it would be? anyone?

http://www.amazon.com/Lipstick-Pig-W...1053344&sr=8-1




http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4433795.shtml

Is that an Obamabot?

hmm, conveniently no commentary about McCain's usage of the old phrase. Is it not the same for him? You should be equally uproarious to both unless of course....youre spun.

Here's the thing...SFL cat simply doesnt care. He isnt for 'fair' and he isnt for 'and equal shake'. He's for one thing and one thing only and honesty and transparency left the building when he wakes up.

If you, SFL, were honest and even handed, there would be no point to concede because the truth is all that would matter. Like in troopergate. Unfortunately, you do not, in any way shape or form, care about truth.

That's why I said "you'd", which is short for "you would".

Reading is fundamental.

If that is her stance, then I am happy that she is open to sex ed in school. If she continues to be exposed as a more moderate person she can get on people's radar, for the vote.

The only reason the comment has any relevance was because of Palin's "lipstick" comment during the convention. Even then, at best, it's a poor choice of words by Obama with no real intent (IMO). Still, comparing what McCain said before the "lipstick" comment context was out there to Obama's comment yesterday is meaningless.

Again, I don't think it's a big deal. But, much like the poor choice in words by congressmen who used "uppity", some may be offended by it given the close proximity to Palin's lipstick comment at the convention. That's the only reason it's relevant though (and even then it's still a stretch).

I certainly think it's fair to say that this is more about spin than any actual intended smear against Palin, although the old fish comment following that lipstick comment would lend a bit more to the idea that it was aimed at the McCain/Palin ticket.

With that said, even if it wasn't intended how the Republicans are portraying it, it was a big mistake to use that phrase given her previous reference to 'lipstick' in her speech. The Republicans have a minefield laid out in front of the Democrats and it puts them in a really tough position in regards to attacking the Republican ticket. Any attack on Palin which could be perceived as speaking down to a woman could blow up in the Dem's face. Any discussion about disabled or special needs people which appears to be talking down to Palin could also cause problems (Biden's comments yesterday were an example of that.). Any attack on McCain in regards to his leadership, patriotism, or pride could be seen as an attack on his service or status as a veteran. I'm not saying that any of these 'spin' maneuvers are fair or even correct, but from a strategic standpoint, the Republicans have to love their options at this point.

Where is the old MBBF? Youre actually typing things without spin. I love it and can actually have discussions than.

I agree that the Republicans have a laid a minefield out there and the Dems have done a terrible job negotiating it. Unfortunately, I hate dirty politics and will defer to jon in that regard as I cant stand it and wish it wasnt a necessity and pray for a day where it isnt. If it is a necessity, that now, the Dems resolve to be as dirty as the GOP than Im just going to go put my head under a pillow.

And if they're going to win the Dems need to stop worrying about this shit and start hitting McCain in the gut. McCain/Palin lie about the bridge to nowhere every time they campaign and they don't give a damn when people bring it up.

You are right, I was wrong. Now we all feel better. :redface:

You are using the same argument but some how mine is less valid. I expect us to go to war with Iran because Bush did it. You expect us not to because Reagan didn't. Opinions either way.

Quite frankly, both assertions are equally illogical.

This is my fault for trying to merge two discussions. I never meant to imply that Palin wants to ban birth control, as I don't know that. The birth control issue was more about what's going on with the current admin.

I will say, though, that condoms aren't the big issue. A lot of hard core pro-life people see the pill as another form of abortion and want to at least have the right to ban it at the state level. Any desire to revisit Griswold is still tied up in the abortion wars.

Flasch - I'm surprised you haven't already. There really are no good guys and bad guys here. It's the same thing, over and over. Unfortunately, the political posturing and selling one's soul for office is pretty much inevitable - it's the nature of the game.

Wow, is that really true?

I railed pretty hard against making too much of the "my Muslim faith" comment, but the lipstick comment seemed slightly less benign. Reading the quote in context didn't seem to bad, but listening to the speech with the dramatic pause following the line and the roaring crowd makes me wonder if it was intended as a little shot at Palin. If he didn't mean it as a shot, did the members of the crowd think he did?

I agree. Obama needs to quit trying to be the fuckin nice guy and tiptoe around offending people. Joe Scarborough actually said something that I agreed with this morning which was, call out McCain and Palin about this sexism stuff. Stop skating around the issues with this "Mccain couldn't define honor" press release crap. Get on and act real mad about being called a sexist, do not apologize, and call the Republican campaign out.

I retract my statement that Obama letting the presidency slip through his fingers.

I disagree. A full frontal attack by the Dems could be the end of their presidential chances at this point. I think that tactic would have worked extremely well had they done it a month ago when they had McCain on his heels. But I think the window of opportunity for that kind of a move to be effective has since passed.

I'm honestly not sure what they should do at this point. I think that's the problem currently. I don't think the Obama camp is sure which move is best, which leaves them in a state of limbo until they chart a new course.

The first debate is going to be very important for Obama. Performing well in that debate will be better for the campain than any advertisement they could run.

Craigsca - I'm pretty pro-abortion (as I think the vast majority of people under 40 or so are), but I'd consider the morning-after pill as part of the abortion debate. It's about the easiest and least painful abortion, but that's also why it's so vehemently opposed in the anti-abortion quarters.Except unless I missed something big, neither Bush went to war with Iran. :confused:

well apparently obama meets will Bubba tomorrow so the dynamic may be, a changin'.

Why? Just like any negative campaigning you have to be careful not to go too far, but simply responding to McCain's attacks isn't good enough. There's so much out there to hit McCain and they're not using it. That's another reason why the 527s are important. The ammunition is at arms reach if someone just has the sense to use it. Where are ads on McCain's plan to tax health benefits? Or ads using Republican Senator's own words to question McCain's suitability for office? Or ads using his extensive voting record ala what happened to Kerry?

On the positive side Obama needs to be a part of his own commercials. His best skill is oratory and yet you never hear him speak in his ads. Crop some thirty second clips from speeches and run them as ads. That's bound to work better than people building a green house.

I'm not questioning your sincerity, but your advice to Obama is always sit back and don't do much of anything. I can't think of a more likely path to defeat than tha.

It's a tough call. I agree in principle, but Obama's one major gaffe away from falling hopelessly behind. McCain has much lower standards in that regard. Someone earlier was talking about how this campaign, and especially the debates, are all about expectations and I think that's dead-on. Obama has reached a tie creating huge expectations for himself, and McCan has reached a tie keeping expectations pretty low.

I don't think people really care about the Palin stuff unless they're already firmly on the other side. But Obama has a Hollywood unlikeability that can really fall apart for him at any moment with the undecideds. Just my impression.

In watching the video again, Obama was playing to his crowd...when he made the pig and lipstick comment, his crowd knew what he meant and obviously loved it.

I've also heard that Biden used the pig and lipstick comment the same day in another speech, so one wonders if maybe it wasn't just an off-the-cuff comment by Obama.

If you do take the Obama campaign at its word...in a day when careers are made and broken by sound bites, you have to question the wisdom of saying what was said. Intentional or not, you're handing the other side free ammo.

Do a search on "birth control pill abortion" and you can see for yourself. I don't know what kinds of numbers believe this, but I'm sure it's a sizable portion of the pro-life movement. Honestly, the argument is fairly consistent if fertilization is the most important moment for you.

Banning the pill won't ever happen as it would cause a backlash of epic proportions even in pretty conservative states, but make no mistake that there is a movement to revisit Griswold and to get rid of the pill.

I agree that its a tough call. Obama has gotten this far, in part, by campaigning against "politics as usual". If he starts going all negative and 'hitting back', he could lose the idealistic voters who jumped on his campaign because he was going to stop all this. Obama has to be VERY careful, as some of his youthful idealistic supporters are starting to get disillusioned with his move to the center for the general.

I had the same question about abortion and was surprised with the answer - but if Griswold was overturned tomorrow, how many states are actually banning birth control? Even in the most conservative states (and maybe especially), I don't think the people want more poor kids running around to support.

Morning-after pill may be a different story, but I can't imagine getting the popular support for that either.

I'm one of the few people I know (as far as I know) that is super-pro abortion (I think everyone should have abortions), super-pro birth control, but don't think either are a fundamental constitutional right. If the people in a state don't want 'em, they deserve their fate. But we're getting closer to a national consenus where relevant constitutional ammendments are possible, which is the proper way to go, IMO (as opposed to appointed judges making shit up based on their own personal beliefs - which nobody seems to have a problem with as long as they agree with the practical effects of the decision)

This just seems like a poorly-formed argument that Jesse Jackson would make. The Republicans were laughing at the term 'community organizer' because the Obama camp had implied, right or wrong, that it increased his resume regarding leadership. It had nothing to do with his race. If the attacks by either side come down to finding ways to make segments of the voters pissed off at one candidate or the other, the Republicans are going to easily win. There are far more women out there that would switch their vote to McCain's ticket based on perceived sexism than their are black people that would switch to vote for Obama based on perceived racism.

http://wcbstv.com/politics/paterson.....2.813646.html

McCain's folks should just cut to the chase and say that any discussions about race are sexist and demeaning to women.

"But what disturbed him was what seemed like derisive laughter on the part of the Republicans at Obama's choice of helping his community rather than getting rich on Wall Street."

I'll make a bold prediction that by the time Obama is McCain's age, he'll have more houses and a higher net worth than McCain does now. (adjusted for inflation of course).

When McCain was Obama's age, he was only two years out of the Navy (where he was involved in some type of public service too, maybe not as cool as community organizing)

YouTube - Lipstick

McCain has a new ad out about the lipstick comment running in battleground states. Between this and the sex education ad, I think this is getting a little ridiculous.

I think you're looking at it too rationally. The people who want to revisit Griswold are doing so largely because of religious beliefs. God says... trumps all practical arguments about poor kids. I don't think it will happen, but it's just a fact that there are a lot of people that see the pill as part of the abortion debate and will stop at nothing to overturn Griswold.

Stupid yet sincere question: how is saying "there's no putting lipstick on that pig" a sexist attack? Because only women use lipstick?

SI

I'd would depend on how you define net worth. If Cindy's money is in the mix I'd be very surprised if Obama would match that total.

McCain's explicit attacks on tranny-Americans are reprehensible.

re:
I'd say worthless crap like Paterson's is definitely flailing & desperate ... but I don't think it's accurate to ascribe that entirely to the campaign as a whole. This seems more like a supporter doing some freelancing (at least at this point).

Fair point.

But Obama's going to be a bagillionare, with books and speaking engagements (and I don't fault him for that in anyway, except when he mocks McCain's wealth, or lack of knowledge of it)

That's just another video press release. Without McCain saying he approves it can't run. Will the cable outlets continue to provide free ad time for McCain by running this over and over?

I'm positive that it's freelancing. With that said, I've got to think that Obama would have asked him to not go down that path if Obama would have known what he was going to say.

Dear JPhillips,

Yes, they will and they should.

Sincerely,
Al-Jazzera and Al-Qaeda

?

Terrorist kill people -> Make video of killing or speech -> Post it to internet -> Get free air time

Obama makes comment -> McCain makes unofficial ad -> Post it to internet -> Get free air time

All sorts of organizations do the same thing. If you make a video and create enough waves, the cable media will play it every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day.

I really hate the "Even though what he said was right, he should still be punished because he should have know that lots of dumb people would not be able to understand him" argument.

This is just like the guy who got fired for saying "niggardly." People had to acknowlege that he was right, but he still got fired because he, apparently, didn't cater to the dumbness of his audience. That's fucked up.

So Obama's metaphors and big words confuse you*. OK. Fine. I know that I am niave, but I want to live in a world where your lack of education and vocabulary is your problem and not his.

Be it Obama, McCain, Bush, or the niggardly guy, I don't see why we want our public servants to strive to be pedestrian. We can and should expect more from them and ourselves.

(I will now go back to my imaginary world filled with bright rainbows and free beer and an American public that actually holds itself and its leaders accountable for anything. Mmmmm. Free Beer.)

*Not "you" personally, the reader of this comment. You, generically, the person who will change your vote based on the lipstick metaphor or who demanded that the niggardly guy get fired.

I think we're talking about two different things. To me, "the pill" refers to the daily hormone a woman takes to prevent conception. Your pill is the after-sex pill, and therefore after conception. Therefore, yes, I can see fundamentalists saying that they would want to outlaw this pill.

I don't think there's any question if you've watched the video how quickly the partisan crowd took it as such and the smile on Obama's face indicated he knew exactly what they were cheering about. I don't think there's a need for an apology like the McCain campaign requested. I think it was a small, relatively innocent barb that took on major spin implications. Anybody who has a wife or a mother knows the danger of associating the word 'pig' with any female, implied or otherwise. It usually involves an overnight visit to the couch.

No, unfortunately, JP was talking about "The Pill." The one a woman takes everyday. There is a movement that believes it should be banned.

I don't think it will ever happen, but that was the pill he was talking about.

Claps.

I agree with everything you said there. Especially the part about Free Beer.

I'm dumbfounded and never heard of this. I know the Catholic church for years was against any kind of birth control, but I've NEVER heard of this from fundamentalist Christians. That's ridiculous to me. Why the Pill? What's the difference between that and a condom?

Lipstick?

It depends on the intention of the speaker.

If the guy saying "niggardly" just meant "niggardly", as opposed to wanting to insult blacks, than ya, it's ridiculous that he got fired. But if he really wants to project hatred and just throws around that word as a means to do it, that's just as bad as the other word. (No idea what the case was there).

If Obama was intentionally trying to appeal to the lowest base of his supporters, than he's as guilty as making an overtly sexist comment. The video sure makes it look like it was intentional, but we can't know for sure.

Did anyone else happen to see this? Biden was in Columbia, Missouri yesterday and wanted to recognize Chuck Graham, who is a state senator in Missouri. He asked Chuck to stand up and be recognized. Only one problem......he's confined to a wheelchair. No political ramifications, but it made for a pretty funny moment when he realized his error.

Newsmax.com – Biden Gaffe: Tells Cripple to &#39Stand Up&#39

North Carolina State Board of Elections

33% seems like a reasonable estimate according to the NC State Board of Elections.

Well if we're going to start hyperventilating over language, Newsmax called Chuck Graham a "cripple". Criminy... ever hear of the word "disabled"?

BTW, I thought Biden handled himself very well there once he realized the situation.

Agreed. He did pretty well. It was reported that he went over to Chuck Graham afterwards and apologized by saying, "Can you tell I'm new at this?"

FWIW.....I think Biden is a pretty good guy, politics aside.

RCP has listed two National polls today...

Rasmussen: Obama 48, McCain 47
NBC/WSJ: Obama 46, McCain 45

The issue is fertilization. Generally the pill prevents ovulation, but not always. Some pro-lifers believe that since fertilization can occur without implantation in the uterus that the pill is a form of chemical abortion. This is from prolife.com:

McCain may not want to go down the sexism road, because there's alot of chatter lately about comments he made in the past:


He said this at a GOP fundraiser in 1998. There are also some other sexist jokes he possibly made that are being discussed, but at the moment I don't see any good sources for them, so I won't mention them yet. This joke was reported by the AP and the Arizona Republic.

Let's not forget the Gallup Tracking: McCain 48, Obama 43

Hotline Tracking (came out yesterday with the NBC/WSJ): McCain 45, Obama 44

Yeah the Gallup tracking was posted there after my post. As for dates, I'm going by RCP's listing, which puts the NBC/WSJ as the 10th and Hotline as the 9th. They could be wrong, though.

Ah, the reason I said that was because the NBC/WSJ measures the same amount of time as Hotline (9/6 - 9/8)

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

Crazy that, unless I'm wrong, we've not had a "non-close" election since what, 1996?

I'm sure McCain himself won't make a big deal about, but again, it's all about expectations.

McCain is a crusty old man. Isn't there well-confirmed story out there about him calling his wife a C***? (Maybe even a video?). Obama is young and hip and enlightened. More is expected of him. I know Obama fans don't like to hear that, but they should get used to the dissapointment they'll experience after the debates when Obama dominates but the public sees it as a "tie".

Free Beer! (oh, and cheers on the rest of what you said ;) )

This also goes back to the "elitist" thing from earlier in the election. I *WANT* my politicians to be smarter than me. I wish everyone who votes on the premise of "someone I'd rather have a beer with" wasn't allowed to decide something so important as the fate of our country.

(Now, I realize that's too simplistic for politics and it ignores the nuances of populism and the concept of a candidate being able to understand their constituents' situation. )

SI

yy

McCain has played the expectations card wonderfully here. The guy has been in the Senate for a long time and run for president twice. And he loves town halls. You could sit him down right now, ask any geopolitical question within reason, and he would be able to give you an impressive and presidential sounding answer.

But people seem to think that these debates are going to be like Grandpa Simpson v. Denzel Washington on a good day.

I think that the candidates will probably debate to something close to a draw and that it will be seen as a huge win for McCain.

A couple of surrogates for Obama need to start running this message out there. Hell, that exact quote :D

SI

Old, Grizzled Third-Party Candidate May Steal Support From McCain

I remain steadfast in my belief that nothing could sink Obama's ship quicker than loose lips in Hollywood. Matt Damon has decided to give it a try..........

Breitbart.tv » ‘Like A Really Bad Disney Movie’: Actor Matt Damon Condemns Sarah Palin

I'm not sure why Matt Damon believes that he deserves more credit for his opinion than Sarah Palin in regards to politics. His comments regarding her being an inexperienced hockey mom and it being 'like a bad Disney movie' are the kind of comments that the Republicans are begging the Dems to make. For the most part, Matt Damon is achieving just the opposite effect that he intends to create with his comments and I don't think he even realizes it.

That's pretty funny. I like the Obama elitist though.

Right, but Obama isn't saying anything. I think he could really score with a line like, "I agree that it is wrong when the media goes after Sarah Palin's children, just like it was wrong when John McCain called Chelsea Clinton ugly. We have serious issues in this country, blah blah change blah blah"

You're right that the McCain campaign has managed the debate expectations well, but so did Dole in 1996 and people still thought Clinton won the debates. The expectations game will help McCain, but it isn't a surefire win for him.

Clinton is a far better debater than Obama, though. Obama lost or tied plenty against Hillary.

I don't think there was anything wrong with that Damon interview. He is questioning her credentials just like millions of other voters are. Is he not supposed to answer the question?

I refer back to my post from this morning regarding the minefield laid before the Democrats. The Republicans have a great strategic setup right now with Palin. It's one thing to question her credentials. It's a whole different situation to use some of the comments that he used which could easily be seen as someone speaking down to women. Right or wrong, there are a lot of women who toss issue or party affiliation out the window now that a woman is in the mix. Any comments like the ones Damon makes could be easily construed as sexist and really turn off independent, female voters. Note that I'm not saying whether the perception is right or wrong, but it's definitely there.

The effect that these comments and Palin's presence are having is very evident in the poll numbers of white women and independent voters. McCain's number are drastically improved over the last 2-3 weeks in those two critical voting segments, thanks to the selection of Palin and the perceived sexist remarks/talking down to women from Obama and his supporters.

Anybody know if any studies have been done to show the effectiveness of Hollywood Star endorsement of a candidate? My feeling has always been that celebrity endorsements have always been a major turn-off. I don't listen to celebrities for political views, I just like to see them perform in whatever venue made them famous. Seems like the ratio of worthwhile political knowledge versus people they can get to listen to them is pretty low.

The problem with Obama in debates or unscripted interviews is that he pauses and stammers fairly frequently as he is parsing his words. When he is reading a prepared speech from a teleprompter, his delivery is flawless.

McCain has just the opposite problem. He stammers when he gives a prepared speech from a teleprompter, but he does much better in interviews and debates, especially the town hall format.

Since the game apparently has become "what would be embarrassing if the candidate meant some else"


Sure she didn't write the speech and sure she didn't say anything about Jews, but even so it creates the impression that Palin hates Jews. When will Republicans learn that not hating Jews doesn't matter if your opponent can lie about it?