Of course it's the same thing.

I guess I hit the conservatives in this case because I've read a blogger or two that absolutely rail on the New York Times and while they don't come out and say it, almost imply that things would be different for John McCain if the liberal media wasn't in the tank for Obama.

You could have a Republican state controlled media and I'd still put my money on Obama.

Buc's right. In the grand scheme of things, this is all a little silly. I'm just a little amazed that the NY Times would do a straight hit piece on the wife of a presidential candidate 2 weeks before the election. But, much like Limbaugh attacking the left, why be surprised? Just accept it and move on.

It is a huge problem.

Most news mediums are dramatically in the tank for one agenda or another. The ones that attempt to legitimately report news are, for the most part, so afraid to appear unbalanced that they have to tiptoe around real stories and/or over-represent non-stories so that they look like they are giving equal time/scrutiny.

I think that's an excellent summary. There are many, though, that pretend it doesn't exist.

So Michelle Obama is connected to a program at the University of Chicago hospital that attempts to divert non-critical patients from emergency rooms to local doctors where they will most likely get faster, cheaper treatment (isn't the over-reliance on hospital ERs one of the biggest problems in health care today?). One of Obama's earmarks is $1M to one of the largest, most respected hospitals in Chicago. Michelle Obama is a board member for a food distributor that (gasp) does business with Wal-Mart.

... and you wonder why none of that is getting play?

You're right, if McCain funneled over $1 million to his wife's beer distribution company in the form of earmarks, no one would report on it. The point is these items were not even mentioned in a total puff piece on Michelle (atleast report it and let the readers decide if it's meaningful). Then, 6 weeks later, a hatchet job on Cindy comes out talking about a small drug addiction to pain killers 20 years ago and some crazy claim about her lying about not having half siblings. It's just ridiculous. But, like Buc says, you just have to treat the NY Times like the left treats Rush Limbaugh. It's a shame, but the truth.

I read the Cindy McCain piece. I didn't think the stuff about Cindy was too weird or harmful. So she took pain pills 15 years ago... America loves redemption stories.

What did seem weird to me was how it seemed to be subtly dancing around McCain's character -- kind of implying he wasn't a good husband or family man without really coming out and saying it directly. That made it pretty awkward to me. I wonder if we'll hear about the Carol divorce next week...

hmmm.... beer distribution company = University of Chicago hospital. Really? That's the argument you're going with?

If you ignore earmarks requested by McCain and Obama, I wonder how much was requested for hospitals across the country and how much was requested for beer distribution companies (or similar industries)?

I'm sure we will. The polls are starting to tighten up a bit...

Here's some more news on the guy who was only 8 years old when the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers was active, and who has no association with him.

Obama Praised 'Searing and Timely' Book by Ayers

So giving feedback on a book is now incriminating? The book in question was "A Kind and Just Parent: Children of the Juvenile Court". Not quite "Anarchist's Cookbook" or anything like that.

They were tightening up, but now they've spread far apart again. Gallup's LV #1 model got as close as 2 points, but is now at 5 points. Zogby was 3 pts. and is now at 6 pts. And if the race is really tightening up, then McCain's decision to forego Colorado and bank his whole election on winning Pennsylvania doesn't make any sense.

Okay, let's read what Obama said.



Wow, that's truly sinister and terrible. Obama wasn't a fan of the juvenile court system at the time. What's your point?

Vic has been posting some real quality content lately...







Shit, eventhough I strongly disagree with Arles and MBBF, and think some of their conclusions are silly, at least they're attempting to engage in intelligent discourse. I firmly believe that Sports Night quote in my sig.

Good piece. It was nice to see. I think the red-haired was hitting the idiot so hard because he thought the Kurd girl was hot. :)

Is this the same paper that employs Bill Kristol?

Actually, it reads a lot like the cover story Newsweek did on Cindy McCain a few months ago. I don't think it's a strange article, but it does seem to be somewhat strange timing. The Newsweek article was published early in the summer, if my memory serves, and that seemed like a more relevant time to publish what's basically a biopic.

But whatever, newspaper editors have to fill inches and all that.

I actually don't remember it being a scandal, though I'm not surprised the Sun-Times wants to paint it in that way. The Sun-Times has cherry-picked a lot of quotes from people who don't like the program, but there were plenty of people on the neighborhood level who thought the program was a step in the right direction.

Bill Kristol writes for the National Review, correct?

Actually, I thought the NYT piece on Cindy McCain was, like the Newsweek cover story I mentioned previously, pretty sympathetic. If it's a hit piece on anyone, it's a hit piece on McCain, who comes across as an arrogant, unsympathetic skirt-chaser.

Comparing the NYT to Rush Limbaugh is a bit much, though.

I believe he writes for both. I know he writes for the NYT, because every week DailyKos has someone who lambastes his latest column there. :D

Ah, thanks. He must write an ad-hoc column for them. Probably the token conservative approach. :)

The confluence of traditional reporting and blogging has, probably, done the NYT (and other papers) some harm. The article Arles is upset about comes from a quasi-online section of the NYT that is devoted to regular updates, blogging-style of the Presidential Election. It's a different section from the regular "Washington" part of the newspaper which reports political news, objectively.

The "quasi-online" or "blogging-style" sections (whatever you want to call them) are definitely influenced by the left-leaning editorial board of the NYT, and are written by, clearly, left-leaning reports. Furthermore, in the quest to be more like "blogging", there's clearly less of an onus for this reporting to be objective, so the subjective tendencies of the reporters and the editorial board show through.

That's fine with obvious blogs like, say, DailyKos. However, I think it represents a problem for newspapers of record like the NYT. While they may think there's sufficient division between their "blogging" efforts and the rest of their reporting, this division probably doesn't really register for most people who go to the site and read these stories.

It's an interesting problem for newspapers to grapple with and will obviously continue to evolve. In the meantime, however, it provides the slighted party (the GOP, in this case) a cause celebe whenever they need it. As Andrew Sullivan recently pointed out, all we've really done is taken the "conversation" from being, in 2001, the arguments of a few internet cranks yelling incomprehensibly at each other to, in 2008, the same cranks, now with huge followings, bleeding over into mainstream media.

Of course as Bucc would point out, this is simply "journalism" of the 19th century all over again, except with faster transmission rates.

I believe David Brooks is the token conservative. Bill Kristol is the token idiot. :D

Doesn't Fox News employ Alan Colmes? Fair and Balanced! ;)

Barack Obama wins AdAge marketer of the Year.

Obama Wins! ... Ad Age's Marketer of the Year - Advertising Age - MOY 2008

He beat out Apple, Zappos, Nike and Coors. McCain was 6th, probably so they wouldn't be accused of shutting him out completely.

For reference, here are the regular op-ed columnists at the NYT, with my guesses on affiliation:

Charles M. Blow: Don't know.

David Brooks: Goldwater/Reagan Conservative.

Roger Cohen: Unclear, but I believe he's left-of-center.

Gail Collins: Liberal. Has a running co-column with Brooks on the election.

Maureen Dowd: Liberal.

Thomas L. Friedman: Ostensibly Liberal, though a hawk (famously supported the Iraq War). I'm biased, though, because I think he's a quack.

Bob Herbert: Liberal.

Nicholas Kristof: Liberal. Focuses almost exclusively on the social problems in the developing world.

William Kristol: Beats me. Clearly conservative (or at least Republican) this election cycle. Frequently divorced from reality, and facts. Pretty much every left-leaning blog eviscerates his columns regularly with well-cited posts disproving all of his conclusions.

Paul Krugman: Nobel Laureate, Economics. Ideology probably right down the center, but has repeatedly bashed Bush, so is considered "liberal" by the online GOP. On the other hand, did write a series of columns called "The Conscience of a Liberal"....

Frank Rich: Liberal.


So there you go.

I think Friedman is kind of a Scoop Jackson Dem. Left of center, but very hawkish. Though I guess these days Liebermann is a better analogue.

What a socialist, huh?


Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book V, chapter 2, Of the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society.

Not that I favor Obamanomics or think he couldn't present them better. But this absurd notion of people benefitting from the system that's in place and expecting not to contribute to it, to me, seems a little ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as giving people with no tax liability some form of rebate for merely existing.

In similarly relevant news, the world was once considered flat.

Fixed.

Yes, well if someone on the right believes it, it must be prevelent.

:withstupid:

They may not pay income taxes, but they certainly pay taxes everytime they spend money.

Ever since the Reagan era commission on Social Security people have been paying FICA taxes that go into the general fund and serve as a de facto income tax.

It's not so much that the pioneer of our economic system is irrelevant, as much as he is fallible, just like every other philosopher, economic or otherwise.

That's not say Smith didn't have a point, or that those who are "rich" don't have an obligation, be it legal or moral, to help those less fortunate. I don't think there's much debate in this country over the rich paying their fair share, or even more. The debate is over how much more, and who is defined as "rich". Keep in mind that Smith was writing in Scotland in the late 1700's, and disparity of wealth was much greater in Great Britain than in the colonies.

As for whether or not the way the Founders saw the world in 1789 must be preserved word for word and ideal for ideal... that's a little tricky. I think you have to differentiate between opinions, laws, and ideals. Washington's views on foreign policy, for instance, made a great deal of sense in a world that was much bigger than it is today. It's easy to practice neutrality when an ocean really does seperate you from other countries. But that was just Washington's policy... not hardwired into our framework of government.

When the stuff that's hardwired into our Constitution need to be changed, as they inevitably will, the Founders designed a way for that to happen. It's called amending the Constitution. It's a difficult and lengthy process, which is as it should be, given that we're changing the basic ground rules of our government.

So, if you want to try and repeal the 2nd Amendment, go for it. It's the intellectually honest way of going about trying to change an enumerated right, in my opinion. BTW, according to a Gallup poll earlier this year, about 73% of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment is an individual right... so good luck with that.

If, on the other hand, you're simply going to say that since we no longer live in 1787, those rules no longer need apply, it seems to me like you need to design some new rules for our government.

As for the ideals... yes, I absolutely believe that we need to adhere to the ideals of those who created our system of government. If we're going to work within the system they designed, it makes sense to me that it would and has functioned best if/when we are trying to uphold their ideals as well.

I have to admit, POTUS 08 on XM was carrying a replay of former President Clinton's speech in Ohio yesterday. As much as I currently prefer Obama to McCain, if somehow, someway he was running for prez again, I'd think I'd vote for him (maybne it's nostalgia, and the fact that he's really the only former president still out and about and making public appearances)

If it weren't for term limits, I'd say it would be quite possible that Clinton would still be President and headed for his 5th term.

Imagine how fun a Clinton vs. Reagan (both in their prime) would be?

If he got elected in the first place. If he ran in 1992, he'd be running against Vice President Bush, after President Reagan stepped down and who knows what would have happened in that case.

Well of course. It's likely the people who became President would be completely different without term limits. Eisenhower was still popular at the end of his second term (he was the first to be forced out) and probably would have won a 3rd term if he ran. If that happened, who knows what would have happened and who would have become President after that.

"I was worried with all the liberal media here, who has their head up Obama's ass right now?"

Warming up a crowd a few days ago in Concord, NC for a John McCain appearance, Representative Robin Hayes stated “liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God.” This was minutes after he said “make sure we don’t say something stupid, make sure we don’t say something we don’t mean” before going on stage.

After the big reaction Michele Bachmann's comments got you think the Republicans would cool it with this kind of junk.

politico.com

The funnniest part is the evolution of the story, and how strongly he denied it. Even as it was being confirmed by other people. Then finally once the audio was released, it was admitted to. Must be that gotcha media that shows up early for events looking for non-stories.

It's like these people really don't know that the internet exists. "Well, I didn't see anyone in the crowd with a mimeograph, so we can just deny what I said."

And that's probably the one thing that bothers me about this at all, the sense that there's a growing trend toward denying what you know you said. I don't mean clarifications, I don't mean stuff that comes out wrong, I mean just flat out saying something & then running from it like a little bitch. Maybe it's just my perception but I feel as though I've seen more instances of people saying what they meant and then backpedaling away from it as fast as they can in the past year than I can recall in the decade or more prior to that.

If you're going to say it, mean it, and stand by it. If you can't do the last part, then do the world a favor & STFU because you're just wasting everybody's time flapping your gums.

edit to add: And I'm sorry to say that it's something I've noticed lately a lot more from the right than the left.

I think they're doing it (hit and run) because it's what they think the people want (they seem to get decent responses from the crowds) but once it hits the media it's pretty despised. I think I saw a poll that said something like 60% of people think that John McCain is running a really negative campaign that the majority of people don't seem to like. So here you have these more "local" events where people say these stupid things that play to the crowd and may work on a local level, but I think these people are under the impression that the local crowds are representing their targets when it's clearly not.

Don't know if that's clear, but I think having the "gotcha" media around to run these stories is really hurting on a national level, but maybe not so much on local levels.

That's because Al Gore invented the Internet, so folks on the left know about YouTube and its ability to record the stupid shit people say.

in an interview on CNN Palin just lied flat out: quoting Biden as saying 'if Obama is elected he'll be challenged by an [economic], uh, uh, International Crisis if you elect obama.

that is NOt what biden said. He did not say electing Obama would bring on a crisis as a causal effect. He said [whomever] is the next President they'll likely be tested [very early] by an international crisis.

It is how McCain is saying it as well:

Biden: Obama, if elected, will be tested early | ajc.com

Biden: Obama, if elected, will be tested early

Associated Press
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
PHILADELPHIA — John McCain’s criticism that Barack Obama isn’t experienced enough to be president got a boost when the Democrat’s own running mate, Joe Biden, told donors that he expected his boss to be tested, if elected, by a “generated crisis” shortly after taking office.
“We don’t want a president who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars,” McCain, a 72-year-old Vietnam War veteran, told a crowd Monday in Belton, Mo.
“What is more troubling is that Sen. Biden told their campaign donors that when that crisis hits, they would have to stand with them, because it wouldn’t be apparent Sen. Obama would have the right response,” added the Republican nominee, who was spending Tuesday in Pennsylvania, another battleground. “Forget apparent. Sen. Obama won’t have the right response, and we know that because we’ve seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign.”
At weekend fundraisers, Biden said of Obama, “Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
McCain went on the criticize Obama’s opposition to President Bush’s decision to send tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to Iraq, as well as his rival’s more restrained response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia this summer.
Obama gained a rebuttal to those concerns over the weekend, when former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a retired four-star general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed Obama and attested to his readiness to be president.
Powell also criticized McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, saying she failed to meet the primary qualification for a vice president: the ability to assume the presidency at any time.
The attacks on Obama are one element in a sharpened stump speech in which McCain also accused his rival of having socialistic tax policies.
It was unclear whether McCain might step back from his attacks after Obama’s campaign announced that he will suspend campaigning for two days later this week to visit his gravely ill, 85-year-old grandmother in Hawaii.
McCain aides scheduled a daylong tour across Pennsylvania on Tuesday with rallies in Bensalem, near Philadelphia; Harrisburg; and Moon Township, outside Pittsburgh.

Triple T weighs in with his election message:

Pretty good, but the one where he tackles Palin is better.

Which one? He seems to not like Mrs Palin.

Hell, I would've loved to have one of Terry Tate at the Presidential Debate. Take down both Obama and McCain.

"If in your answer you equivocate,. riding the pain train's your fate" Whooooooooo!

Fucking idiotic CNN this mornnig basically did a class on how to rig the DIEBOLD(SP?) machines, with pictures, descriptions, directions, etc.

Fucking retards.

One of the divisions in my current contracting company does the testing of the touch screen voting for 80% of all the states. They're stressing out right about now. There's bound to be something that goes wrong somewhere and our execs will likely be on numerous news shows in the days following the election. I'm glad I'm not in that group.

McCain: Western Pennsylvania "the most patriotic part of America". Before that, though, comes a large misstatement.

HBO had the documentary 4 years ago on this. I find it amazing that with their reputation built on ATMs, that they haven't done all they could to make these things as bulletproof as possible.

in the video above, Im sure in McCain's head he was like, "Shit, that isnt the way that was supposed to come out." And Cindy was like, "What the fuck."

I think I would always feel more comfortable having paper ballots where you mark an 'X', regardless of the potential for saving time and money with electronic voting.

Optical Scan FTW

If we play that game, Ike may have went for another term, resulting in JFK/Nixon facing off in '64. We wouldn't have been in the early stages on 'Nam yet. If elected, JFK may have stayed in office 20 years before Bobby was elected in '84... ;)

Yeah, but the ones who already were/are going to rig the election already knew this. I mean, really, if CNN can get the info, it's readily available. There needs to be more attention brought to how awful this system really is, not less.

SI

Charlie Cook more-or-less calls it for Obama:


That's great, but why do I still feel nervous?

You're a liar. This is the quote:

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy," Biden said. "The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

He's clearly talking about Obama, not "whomever" is president (unless Biden is mistaken and thinks McCain is a 47-year old senator - but being mistaken would still fall under this thread's definition of "lie").

We are likely to have an international crisis whether Obama, McCain or Gumby takes office in January. That's just the way it is... too bad things can't stay nice and peaceful, with no threat of anything at all happening, like it is today.

BS, and What Palin said was that "IF we elect Obama he'll face an economic, er, er, International Crisis." Biden did not say Obama would be the causal effect of such challenge. Palin and you are wrong in attempting to say that Biden said "IF" he is it will happen because what Biden meant, clearly in his quote is that no matter who is the next President, and he believes it will be the 47 year old you mention, he will be challenged in their first 6 months and I agree wholeheartedly with his statement and sentiment and Palin's addition of the word "If" changes the entire meaning of the sentence.

He did say that Obama will be elected the next President and he will be challenged. He did not say that if we elect Obama that will invite an international crisis. Like others have said, no matter who is elected next, they will be challenged.

Harkens back to the last election where the GOP stated that a vote for the Dems is a vote for the terrorists.

The only difference is that Biden said "we're about to elect" and Palin said "if we elect". It would be kind of silly if Palin said the former.

You have to be kidding (or just unable to admit that you're wrong) if you think that quote "clearly" refers to "whomever" is president - he specifically compares Obama to Kennedy, cites his youth, and says that the world will want to test the mettle of "this guy".

I think what Biden meant was that Obama is well aware that he'll be challenged by others because of his inexperience and perceived relative passiveness in foreign affairs, and that he's up to the challenge.

It's just a quote, it's happens to be one of the fears I have about Obama (I mentioned early how I believed Putin, for example, was rooting for an Obama win). I'm sure Biden would take it back if he could - but my only real argument here was your use of the word "liar".

I was just about to say the same thing to you:

you honestly agree with Palin that she and Biden meant that "IF" you elect Obama [it will bring about] an International challenge, to test him?

If you do than we might as well stop debating the statement because we'll never get our interpretations to mesh or change eachother's mind (or the other's who agree with either me or you on this particular topic).

I edited my post a few seconds after you posted this, but ya, I think Biden's saying, "we know what we're up against, we know we'll be challenged because of Obama's inexperience (citing his age and comparing him to Kennedy - who stood up to international challenges), and that we're ready for that challenge".

There's nothing remotely about McCain in what Biden said, at all. Calling Palin a liar was off-base (as is 95% of the time that word is thrown around here).

I don't have a problem with what Biden said. It was good to hear somebody from the (or any) ticket admit one particular challenge they might face. I think he was actually trying to soothe fears.

This kind of stuff drives me nuts. We don't need more loopholes and credits in the tax code. Just raise the rate or lower the rate and get on with it.

Political Radar: Obama Tweaks Tax Plan to Rebut McCain

The first presidential candidate who offers to simplify the tax code will have my vote until I can't vote for that person anymore.

I would argue that exposure like this is what spurs innovation and improvement. Sweeping issues under the rug never ends well.

id like to see it 2 weeks after the election and not two weeks before hand when there is literally nothing that can be done to 'fix' anything before Nov. 4

This really does sound like he is predicting the test of Obama specifically. "Within six months of this administration" could be taken to mean the next administration - whoever it is. "...because they are going to want to test him just like they did young John Kennedy" seems pretty specific to Obama. I would agree that any new president will face tests (as the spin goes now), but Biden seems to be making the point that Obama specifically will be tested due to his age.

I also like the Dan Rather quote saying that this story would be above the fold of most newspapers if Palin had said it.

1. I can see how those that want to interpret it as Molson did would think that they are right.

2. I also do not see Biden stating that Obama would be the causal effect of such challenge and do not think Im wrong.

Therefore perhaps this is one of those things that can be interpreted both ways. I do however think it was wrong to add an 'if' to the quote when Palin cited it.

3. I agree with you and Rather that if Palin had said it she wouldve been scrutinized more harshly but only because she is the competition and not because she's Palin.

"...you're gonna face a major international challenge, because they are going to want to test him..." I'll let it go after this, but the causal effect seems pretty clear. I won't disagree that McCain would also be challenged, but that wasn't stated explicitly.


Because she is the competition to whom? The newspapers? I would hope that the newspapers themselves don't have a position where either candidate would be viewed as competition.

Ive been swayed, Ronnie Dobbs said it succinctly. I agree with Molson that he was talking about Obama specifically. I also think that Palin added an 'if' there that changes the meaning in my view of the quote to have a causal relationship. Im fine with that and admit Im wrong.

Brian I dont think he means, test Obama because of his age i think he means the 'him' to be President but I also get it that we're never going to know specifically because it isnt specific enough.


The competition to Obama therefore the statement would clearly indicate the causal relationship to the quote that I do not believe existed in Biden's original quote, and still dont, but would make for better ratings fodder: "GOP says 'if' you vote for Obama he'll be challenged by an International Crisis!" <----better ratings than what I think Biden said sans the 'if'.

Are we seriously having this prolonged discussion merely because Flasch feels the need to spin today. We're all perfectly aware that he was referring solely to Obama. There's honestly nothing to debate. It should come as a shock to no one that Obama will be tested by world leaders early on if he's elected.

and McCain wont? That's my point! Ill ask you ----- DO YOU believe that by electing Obama it will have a causal effect in inviting an international crisis that wouldnt exist if McCain we're elected?

Do you believe Biden meant a vote for Obama would have a causal effect?

If not, do you believe that Palin added the 'if' to insinuate such a causal effect?

'International crisis'? No

Will Obama be tested by world leaders much more than McCain? Absolutely.

I'm not even saying it's good or bad. He may handle it well or he may fall flat on his face. It's certainly fair to say that most people have no idea how he'll do.

OK, so I lied about leaving it alone. I think context here fills in the gaps you seem to be seeing. The same speech talks about a "brilliant 47-year old senator" and "test him like they did young John Kennedy" I'm trying to see the other side of this, but I keep seeing "they will test Obama because of his age".


I think this is another place where we are reading the same thing and coming to different conclusions. Rather was asked if Palin had made comments about McCain being challenged because of his age would the story be above the fold? This isn't a case of Palin accusing Obama of being too young being more newsworthy, it was a question of Palin saying about McCain what Biden said about Obama being more newsworthy. Same situation, other side of the aisle.

I wouldn't make this claim.


I do. He said the crisis would happen "because they want to test him". Feel free to argue my grasp of the English language, but I believe "because" implies causality.

Edit: I'll even change this to help you out. I don't know if Biden MEANT that a vote for Obama would have a causal effect, but I think he did say that it would.


This doesn't really apply because of my previous answer. I think her saying 'if' highlights what Biden said, but I don't think it changes the meaning.

And I think a "crisis" isn't necessarily a bad thing - if Obama faces challenges early, and handles any crisis competently and decisively, great for Obama and great for the US.

If you think he's up to it, then this dynamic isn't necessarily a negative, if you have concerns about it, it's absolutely a fair point to make by the more experienced side (though here it's a little less convincing because it's Palin, but that's another story).

I'm an Obama supporter and I think its pretty clear Biden was referring specifically to an Obama presidency and not the next president in general. Seems a stupid thing to say, but I can kind of see the strategy. Public opinion has swayed such that now a small majority see Obama as being better able to handle crisis than McCain and this is trying to play to the erratic image McCain projected in the wake of the economic crisis. If that was the case though he should have spoke more generically "whoever we elect as president will be challenged by an international crisis..." Maybe that's what he meant to say and this is just another example of Biden misspeaking before a crowd?

Either way though I think its a stupid play and completely unnecessary.

According to Zogby, polling shows that NASCAR fans are split evenly between the candidates. That's a wow in my book and means the checkered flag we're seeing doesn't just symbolize we're less than 2 weeks from the end of the race.

So why did McCain pick Palin again? This discussion reminds me of McCain's biggest advantage, experience, and how it feels like there's an asterisk attached to that advantage every time it comes up.

John McCain gains an endorsement that could be the beginning of an even bigger endoresement:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...upporters.html

I'm fine with all of the above and can see how different conclusions were reached. I can also see that if you reach a different conclusion to Biden's original quote that Palin's follow up would be a reconfirmation of the same thing.

:D:lol:

Probably picking up what this poll picked up

WASHINGTON (AP) - The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.

The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.

Three weeks ago, an AP-GfK survey found that Obama had surged to a seven-point lead over McCain, lifted by voters who thought the Democrat was better suited to lead the nation through its sudden economic crisis.

The contest is still volatile, and the split among voters is apparent less than two weeks before Election Day. ... The new AP-GfK head-to-head result is a departure from some, but not all, recent national polls.

Obama and McCain were essentially tied among likely voters in the latest George Washington University Battleground Poll, conducted by Republican strategist Ed Goeas and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. In other surveys focusing on likely voters, a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Obama up by 9 percentage points, while a poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center had Obama leading by 14. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, among the broader category of people registered to vote, found Obama ahead by 10 points.

Polls are snapshots of highly fluid campaigns. In this case, there is a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points; that means Obama could be ahead by as many as 8 points or down by as many as 6. There are many reasons why polls differ, including methods of estimating likely voters and the wording of questions.

Of course, a national poll means zilch without breaking it down by state.

:+1:

I'm not even sure why the defensiveness other than being partisan to the point of absurdity.

Im not defensive about it other than the cause effect claim.

Actually i think no matter who wins, they'll be tested and I also hope that whomever it is succeeds mightily in passing said test as it would be good for you and I. I just think saying it's a causal effect of voting one way or the other is wrong and IMO not what Biden said (meant if you want). It is what Palin said IMO.

Regardless I DO think Biden is right in that a test will come of our next President.

Does this post come with an air sickness bag?

Pandering, pure and simple. Part of the reason so many independents are disillusioned with McCain and his campaign. It solidified his base, but alienated the voters he needs the most.

I was thinking more about this on my drive to lunch, and I think the bold part is where some of the struggle is coming from. Saying an international crisis will come up "because they want to test [Obama]" is functionally equivalent to saying "if you elect Obama, then we will see an international crisis". It is not functionally equivalent to saying "if and only if". I think you are equating Palin saying "if" to her saying "if and only if".

It is probably equally safe to say that if we elect McCain, a different international crisis will come up which will test him. Since Biden failed to even hint along those lines in his speech, Republicans can quote him without any fear of people saying that they are quoting out of context.

BrianD, you are right and im all ears if you can explain to me how Im not correct in my interpretation as I want to know if Im off base. I believe she was saying 'if [and only if]'. Is that not accurate or a misinterpretation or some sort of bad assumption?

unfortunately the bags are caught between rolling averages.

I bet. It's a ridiculously tangled web you're weaving today.

These "national" polls mean zilch to me anyway you look at it. Most of these are polling less than 1,500 likely voters, except for PEW which hits on a whopping 2,300 telephone interviews.

It would be funny to see them broken down by state, though. "6 out of 9 likely voters in Delaware to vote Dem."