Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Flasch186]

yeah its a shame that it seems to just be lip service for a few days and now the press will expose everything and both sides will leak the stuff that they claim is off limits. Soon they'll attacking the sons and duaghters equally. Oh well, Levi's coming to the trail and soon the spotlight will be squarely on that, and then im sure they;ll start attacking biden's son. here come the 527's...disgusting.

Well this doesnt have "many legs"; a he said she said issue that hasnt been settled yet. You want to wait til its resolved right? Like Troopergate.

Originally Posted by Full Article

A son and a brother of Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware are accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner and an investor of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal that went sour, The Washington Post reported, citing court records.

The Democratic vice presidential candidate’s son Hunter, 38, and brother James, 59, meanwhile say it was they who were defrauded by their former partner, whom they have accused of misrepresenting his experience in the hedge fund industry, The Post said.

According to the legal skirmishes, which have been playing out in New York State Supreme Court since 2007, Anthony Lotito Jr. said that he agreed to help set up Paradigm Companies, a hedge fund group for the Bidens, because the V.P. nominee was concerned on how his son Hunter’s lobbying activities would reflect on his campaign.

Hunter Biden was made president of the firm, earning with an annual salary of $1.2 million, according to the lawsuit. However, in an affidavit, Hunter Biden said his father had nothing to do with the deal and that it is Mr. Lotito who swindled the Bidens, The Post said.

[Young Drachma]

Thompson did a good job. I think the real issue that the left + media are going to have to deal with, is the fact that the angrier they get, the more it's going to galvanize the right wing base. I have no idea whether it'll be enough, but those guys have already proven that they can get their people to come out to the polls.

The Dems? They've got to hope youth turnout is stellar and that their stalwarts -- women and the lunch pail crowd -- will turn out.

That seems iffy to me.

[Young Drachma]

Aah, Joe

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Thompson did a good job. I think the real issue that the left + media are going to have to deal with, is the fact that the angrier they get, the more it's going to galvanize the right wing base. I have no idea whether it'll be enough, but those guys have already proven that they can get their people to come out to the polls.

The Dems? They've got to hope youth turnout is stellar and that their stalwarts -- women and the lunch pail crowd -- will turn out.

That seems iffy to me.

whose the goofy "yes" guy yelling on TV at every appluse....he cleared out the room im in.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

whose the goofy "yes" guy yelling on TV at every appluse....he cleared out the room im in.

I hate that guy.

I liked Lieberman holding up President Clinton at an RNC and acknowledged how weird it was .

[JPhillips]

So far he's made the Republicans cheer for fighting Republican lobbyists, combating climate change and Bill Clinton.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So far he's made the Republicans cheer for fighting Republican lobbyists, combating climate change and Bill Clinton.

Man would have been a great Veep, eh?

[Young Drachma]

I can't wait to hear what the media will say about this...

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

When did they change their stance?

Let me put it this way, I've been a member of the church since I was born and they never taught creationism. Yeah, we went over Adam and Eve but that was more from the standpoint of learning Genesis.

It was under JPII at the latest and might have been earlier than that. Got another tidbit for you... The precursor to the Big Bang theory was developed by a scientist at the Vatican. Basically, instead of a point singularity, he envisioned a primordial egg that held all of the matter in the universe.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Don't need it, it just proves my point that they change philosophies.

Try again...

As I said, science and religion are not at odds. A Church changing tenants based upon scientific fact is not a problem. When it changes a underlying basis of the faith it is a problem. For example, if someone came out and proved conclusively that Christ did not exist.

Basically what you are saying is that a religion can never change a stance based upon fact. If so, they are going with the flow. This is very different from changing a view on gay marriage or abortion. Those are philosophical questions. Changing an view on evolution due to the weight of fact is not.

Again, repeat after me, science is the study of what is around. What the framework of the universe is and how it works. Religion and philosophy deal with the why are we here and how should we conduct ourselves.

[ISiddiqui]

From the don't believe all the slurs you hear file:

Alaska Party Official Says Palin Was Not a Member - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

Alaska Party Official Says Palin Was Not a Member
By The New York Times

The chairwoman of an Alaskan political party that advocates a vote on the state’s succession from the union said Tuesday that she had been mistaken when she said Gov. Sarah Palin was a member of the group.

A front-page story in The New York Times on Tuesday and articles in other news media reported that Ms. Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party for two years in the 1990’s.

The information in the Times article was based on a statement issued Monday night by Lynette Clark, the party’s chairwoman, who said that Ms. Palin joined the party in 1994 and in 1996 changed her registration to Republican.

On Tuesday night, Ms. Clark said that her initial statement was incorrect and had been based on erroneous information provided by another member of the party whom she declined to identify. The McCain campaign also disputed the Times report, saying that Ms. Palin had been registered consistently as a Republican.

After checking the party’s archives, Ms. Clark said that she could find no documentation that Governor Palin had been a member of the party. She said Ms. Palin attended the party’s 1994 and 2006 conventions and provided a video-taped address as governor to the 2008 convention.

Ms. Clark said that Ms. Palin’s husband, Todd, was a former member of the party.

[Young Drachma]

If They IM'd: the Republican VP losers - 236 - News

[Crapshoot]

ahaahahhahahaaha

[Arles]

OK, that's pretty funny.

On the scandal scorecard against Palin we have:
1. Daughter actually had her sone Trig - proven false
2. Palin was a member of an odd independent party - proven false.

Great record for the Palin critics. So, once this "troopergate" gets resolved here shortly with no real red meat and everyone's moved on from her 17-year old daughter's pregnant - what's next?

Maybe we'll have a debate on the inexperience of Obama vs the inexperience of Palin. This may have been the biggest "scandal flop" since the Bush DUI spam attack and the "Clinton fathered a black child" craziness.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So far he's made the Republicans cheer for fighting Republican lobbyists, combating climate change and Bill Clinton.

Was that last as surreal for you as it was for me?

Bill Clinton getting a rousing cheer at an RNC convention?

[ISiddiqui]

Interesting article on the Times.

NY Times Advertisement

Some snippets:

For skeptical Christian conservatives, Mr. Perkins said, the selection of Ms. Palin was evidence that when it came to the Supreme Court, Mr. McCain would deliver on the principles he laid out at Saddleback Church.

That conversation has not yet taken place, but on Friday, Dr. Dobson said the Palin selection had persuaded him to endorse Mr. McCain. Dr. Dobson said in a statement that the nomination “gives us confidence he will keep his pledges to voters regarding the kinds of justices he would nominate to the Supreme Court.”

In Minneapolis, “it was as if the whole Republican convention had started drinking Red Bull," said Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, who added that when the McCain campaign had sought his input weeks before he had suggested picking Ms. Palin.

[JPhillips]

Don't think the AIP stuff is over. Her husband was a registered member until 2002 and she has been involved in at least two AIP conventions. She could make this go away with a press conference, but apparently she's now sequestered because the media is too mean.

But again this is really about McCain. He didn't vet her and now he's paying the price.

[ISiddiqui]

I wonder about all those who think McCain didn't vet her properly. I mean have you seen how fired up the Republicans are? Do you think that would be the case if he picked Lieberman? Hell, they cheered for Bill fucking Clinton they are so high on cloud 9 right now!

[JPhillips]

Small sample size. She has great appeal for the base and will rally them for money and as volunteers. However, all the numbers say the base isn't enough in 2008. There's been a sizable shift in registration to wards Democrats and to win the Republicans have to pull independents and/or Reagan Democrats. As Mike Murphy said a couple of days ago, McCain can't win without a sizable number of split ballot voters.

For that group, the Palin pick has been a disaster. Nobody can play the "all publicity is good publicity" card. By that argument Rev. Wright was good for Obama. For the past few days a little has dripped out about Palin every day, most of it trivial, but all of it damaging to her credibility. After spending almost the entire campaign attacking Obama on trivial matters, McCain is having it come back to haunt him. We've even got controversial statements made in her church.

And it's not speculation that McCain didn't fully vet her, it's been reported by multiple sources that lawyers are in Alaska now fully vetting her. McCain rushed into this without knowing everything that would come out. Sometimes that works, but with Palin it's been pretty non-stop embarrassment after embarrassment.

McCain could still win. She'll kill tonight and I wouldn't underestimate her in the debates. But, while he's shored up the right with Palin, he hurt himself in the middle.

[albionmoonlight]

The religious right is in the bag.

You guys watch her speech tonight.

It will be very moderate. Very maverick. Very outside Washington. Very pro-female. Very "aw, shucks" appealling.

And it will be a hit.

She might be the most socially conservative person to ever be nominated to a major party ticket. And the right people know that and will vote for McCain because of it.

But she does not come off that way. And she will be packaged not to come off that way. And the only way that the Dems will be able to make her look that way is to attack her. And if they really dedicate resources to attacking the VP nominee and not McCain, then they are wasting limited resources and that will be a huge help to McCain.

I agree with those who think that she is a bad pick in terms of "heartbeat away" and all that. But I also agree with those that think she is a brilliant pick in terms of "makes McCain more likely to win the election."

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, once this "troopergate" gets resolved here shortly with no real red meat

there's the crystal ball. Hi pot.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

limited resources

...and that's where we disagree in your whole statement.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

there's the crystal ball. Hi pot.

What's good for the goose...

I agree with albionmoonlight. Her choice was made specifically to win the election and for some reason the entire leftist machine thinks if they show her in a few questionable situations (trooper, daughter preggo, indep party) that everyone will just bail on McCain. What's interesting is not only is this rallying the base, but it's forcing women who were not really into her at first to come out and defend her against these attacks. I saw two fairly moderate/liberal women on the news this AM asking why people didn't ask George Bush or Bill Clinton if they were going to be able to be president and raise their daughter. The (non-militant) feminists are in a tough situation here. Most don't agree with Palin on policy, but they can't like all this scrutiny on whether she can be a mother and VP.

And, as albionmoonlight stated, McCain is pretty much skating away scott free on hard criticism. It seems the right is focusing their attacks on OBama while the left focuses on Palin. I think most on the right will take that tradeoff (esp when it comes to the experience argument).

[albionmoonlight]

Pretty good advice to Palin on tonight's speech:

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: Palin's Goal Tonight: No Potatoe

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Arles

I agree with albionmoonlight.

I know. And it tears me up inside

[SFL Cat]

I disagree about any past associations hurting her. If Obama can survive being a member of a church whose pastor has said things like "The US of KKK" and "G*damn America" then I'm thinking it's next to impossible for a candidate's prior associations to ultimately sink their campaign -- unless their party just chooses to throw them under the bus.

The only real difference here is that Obama has had many months to backtrack and distance himself from his former reverend whereas this stuff for Palin is hitting the fan just a couple of months prior to the election. But if the press and Democrats get too heavy-handed with it, I think it backfires and generates sympathy for her.

And considering some of his prior associations with, shall we say, colorful characters, I think Hillary supporters' complaints that Obama wasn't properly vetted are just as legitimate as anyone saying Palin wasn't vetted.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

I saw two fairly moderate/liberal women on the news this AM asking why people didn't ask George Bush or Bill Clinton if they were going to be able to be president and raise their daughter. The (non-militant) feminists are in a tough situation here. Most don't agree with Palin on policy, but they can't like all this scrutiny on whether she can be a mother and VP.

Wow what a stretch. I saw that too and youre drawing way to much of a correlary IMO, the question was asked and loaded to 2 woman walking along the street. Had they asked me the question the way it was asked I wouldve reacted the same way and I wouldnt have voted for McCain/Palin thereafter. I dont think anyone with any level head is really asking that question unless the right wants to start asking it and blaming the left because its just as stupid as the trig is really a grandchild garbage....garbage, Arles.

The reason she's rallying the evangelical base is because she is as far right evangelically as possible.

The reason a very few segment of woman will vote with her that maybe wouldnt have is the, "I voted vagina" vote.

The reason a large amount of woman wont is due to her lack of support for freedom of choice.

It's just that simple (well not really but...), now spin away Arles. spin away. This is going to be a long day of spinning as I see it instead of just letting things come out as they should and draw conclusions when conclusions are there to be had.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The religious right is in the bag.

You guys watch her speech tonight.

It will be very moderate. Very maverick. Very outside Washington. Very pro-female. Very "aw, shucks" appealling.

And it will be a hit.

She might be the most socially conservative person to ever be nominated to a major party ticket. And the right people know that and will vote for McCain because of it.

But she does not come off that way. And she will be packaged not to come off that way. And the only way that the Dems will be able to make her look that way is to attack her. And if they really dedicate resources to attacking the VP nominee and not McCain, then they are wasting limited resources and that will be a huge help to McCain.

I agree with those who think that she is a bad pick in terms of "heartbeat away" and all that. But I also agree with those that think she is a brilliant pick in terms of "makes McCain more likely to win the election."

Bingo. I fear the Dems are making the same mistakes they made with Dubya. When you underestimate your opponent, they can really sneak up on you.

[JPhillips]

How is McCain getting away? He's been hammered over the past few days for picking Palin. His judgment has been questioned over and over and over.

[Flasch186]

Yeah, McCain's getting hammered and even had to pull his spokesman off of Larry King last night. The hilarious part was earlier the journalist roundtable talked about a few phone calls to someone in AK and they got the answer to the question that the spokesperson couldve given to answer the question that was asked that got him all flustered.

Arles, the base is in the bag. Palin will not get a substantial amount of swing votes or Hillary supporters and to the troopergate issue (or Biden's sons), dont you want the truth to come out? Regardless of outcome dont you want the truth? that's what scares me the most about debating with you is that I get a sense that you would rather NOT get the truth and just create or spin your own.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How is McCain getting away? He's been hammered over the past few days for picking Palin. His judgment has been questioned over and over and over.

The Dems are definitely hammering away, but it really doesn't appear to be sticking at all. Most of the criticisms of Palin appear to have only emboldened most of the Republican base behind their Prez/VP candidates. Honestly, I'm not sure the Republicans on their own could have ever rallied their voting base behind these two candidates nearly as well as the Democrat attacks have done. It's an amazing situation.

I have little doubt that Palin will continue her grounded, straight talking ways tonight in her speach and do VERY well.

[Flasch186]

the moment she was picked the base (Religious Right that is) was emboldened. The exposures and questions may add gas to that fire but I dont think it adds more evangelicals that wouldnt have been anyways.

The idea that the questikons arent sticking just isnt true, the polls this morning have widened (although theyre meaningless in the long run) and McCain has had to send a group of lawyers to AK to revet her....how is that not sticking? Well I know how to the right but in fact, that is an affect of the stick.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

the moment she was picked the base (Religious Right that is) was emboldened. The exposures and questions may add gas to that fire but I dont think it adds more evangelicals that wouldnt have been anyways.

The idea that the questikons arent sticking just isnt true, the polls this morning have widened (although theyre meaningless in the long run) and McCain has had to send a group of lawyers to AK to revet her....how is that not sticking? Well I know how to the right but in fact, that is an affect of the stick.

As has been mentioned many times before, the polls are a rolling average. The most worthless argument you could make right now is that Obama is surging in the polls and that somehow correlates to a reaction to any Palin issues, yet you managed to attempt exactly that. As I mentioned before the Democratic convention, any reference to polls is meaningless from the beginning of the Democratic convention until a couple of days after the Republican convention. Sit back and don't bother with the polls for the next week or so.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Arles

On the scandal scorecard against Palin we have:
1. Daughter actually had her sone Trig - proven false
2. Palin was a member of an odd independent party - proven false.

Um, that's only the first inning there, sport. The game is in the third - try to catch up.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

As has been mentioned many times before, the polls are a rolling average. The most worthless argument you could make right now is that Obama is surging in the polls and that somehow correlates to a reaction to any Palin issues, yet you managed to attempt exactly that. As I mentioned before the Democratic convention, any reference to polls is meaningless from the beginning of the Democratic convention until a couple of days after the Republican convention. Sit back and don't bother with the polls for the next week or so.

you mustve missed when I said they were basically meaningless in the long run or your red tinted glasses were still on.

[Young Drachma]

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

you mustve missed when I said they were basically meaningless in the long run or your red tinted glasses were still on.

Yes, it was an excellent move to cover what was an obvious implication with no real merit. It's easier to make a 'glasses' argument rather than address the point. I've noticed that's one of your standard rebuttals. You're better than that.

[Flasch186]

As of today the polls show Obama stretching a lead, is that not clear enough? Than I will add that, in the long run polls are meaningless. It couldnt be more clear in this post or the one above. I mean it to be clear so if you wont look at that without partisanship I dont know what to tell ya.

[larrymcg421]

Yet when the polls showed a McCain bump in the first few days of the Dem convention....

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

This is unheard of. I don't think there's ever been an election where the opposing party got a bounce during the other party's convention.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

***Hillary smirks while Bill pats her on the back***

It took some asshole to point out that it was a rolling average...

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The Gallup tracker that shows McCain ahead is a 5 day rolling average, so it is still including data from before the convention.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Yet when the polls showed a McCain bump in the first few days of the Dem convention....

It took some ******* to point out that it was a rolling average...

You've got to be kidding. You don't think Hillary and Bill Clinton smirk at the first note of any Obama weakness? You're fooling yourself if that's the case. That was the only point of my comment.

[Flasch186]

heh, so only one tracker is a rolling average...the rest reflect when the poll is taken.....say today.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You've got to be kidding. You don't think Hillary and Bill Clinton smirk at the first note of any Obama weakness? You're fooling yourself if that's the case. That was the only point of my comment.

well apparently you should be more clear.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

As of today the polls show Obama stretching a lead, is that not clear enough? Than I will add that, in the long run polls are meaningless. It couldnt be more clear in this post or the one above. I mean it to be clear so if you wont look at that without partisanship I dont know what to tell ya.

The poster who usually tries to point to others as being partisan is usually the one who is most partisan.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

well apparently you should be more clear.

Probably just need to speak slower. I've obviously got to adjust to the intelligence of my audience.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You've got to be kidding. You don't think Hillary and Bill Clinton smirk at the first note of any Obama weakness? You're fooling yourself if that's the case. That was the only point of my comment.

a) Since they're both politically savvy, they understood the bit about the rolling average
b) I think they were both more interested in working on the kickass speeches they delivered for Obama
c) If Bill was smirking, it would be because some hot babe just slipped him her hotel key

[Butter]

MBBF is starting to get personal. You must be getting to him.

Keep it up.

[chesapeake]

Knocking on doors in my precinct in NoVA this weekend, I talked to 5 women in the space of an hour between the ages of 50 and 75 who had voted for Hillary and were various shades of unsure about voting for Obama in November. Only one said that she was seriously considering voting for McCain, but she added she wouldn't now because, in her words, Palin's selection was "offensive" to her -- simply a naked political move to to throw a woman on the ticket to pander to voters like her. Four of the five women made specific comments about Palin's lack of qualification for the office.

Interestingly, 2 Republican voters I talked to said the same thing. One Republican was critical to the point of almost cursing. She told me about the Independence Party thing.

Obviously this isn't even close to representative sample. But it supports the sense that I am getting that Palin has little appeal to disaffected Hillary voters. I also get the sense that more traditional main street Republicans aren't very excited about Palin.

I do think Palin is selling adequately to the religious base of the party, and she may get some of those folks to turn out who had been turned off by the top of that ticket.

[ace1914]

Its just that the Obama ticket looks more appealing. America's outlook of the world is changing. Old folks don't like to change, young people do. They picked Palin to give the "appearance" of changing Republican politics but its not. Now the Republicans are piggy backing the idea of "changing politics?" I heard that so much last night I ALMOST thought it was their slogan. McCain's decision making has been horrible this whole campaign. He's going to lose BIG. 56-43 or something like that.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Probably just need to speak slower. I've obviously got to adjust to the intelligence of my audience.

well clearly you should just leave this thread if you have little to no respect for others, than. The crazy thing is I dont feel like Im asking much:

Allow the troopergate thing to be resolved before assuming she did right or wrong.

Allow the Biden's son thing the same.

Look at polling data for what it is.

Understand that Palin is for abstinence only education in schools to help prevent teenage pregnancy.

Dont tell lies, either side.




Now you tell me, what of the above is partisan?

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

MBBF is starting to get personal. You must be getting to him.

Keep it up.

Right. I haven't seen that much from him.