Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

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.

If you listen to the full clip of his lipstick/old fish comments yesterday, you'll notice him stuttering quite a bit. It's a great example of what you're talking about.

[JPhillips]

But wait, I thought the lipstick/pig stuff was a pre-planned attack.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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?

What?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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?

I was raised Lutheran and Martin Luther was a nutball by the end of his life. That doesn't mean my goal is to be a nutball or that the Lutheran religion is suddenly void of any good ideas or teachings.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But wait, I thought the lipstick/pig stuff was a pre-planned attack.

I heard it reported this morning that it was scripted...attack or not.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I heard it reported this morning that it was scripted...attack or not.

Point being, as Vegas Vic mentioned, Obama doesn't do nearly as well without a teleprompter in front of him, script or no script. There's a lot more pauses and rough patches in his speaking. McCain does much better when he isn't in front of a teleprompter.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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.

I'll agree that the democrats have a perceived Hollywood problem, but I honestly don't know if makes any material difference in the election. The folks that boycott hollyweird aren't sitting on the fence in the first place.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Subby

I'll agree that the democrats have a perceived Hollywood problem, but I honestly don't know if makes any material difference in the election. The folks that boycott hollyweird aren't sitting on the fence in the first place.

I'm still waiting for the Hollywood wackos who said they'd move out of the country in 2004 if Bush won to actually leave the country.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm still waiting for the Hollywood wackos who said they'd move out of the country in 2004 if Bush won to actually leave the country.

If all the conservatives who promised to leave the country when Clinton got elected actually did leave, then Bush wouldn't have been elected in the first place.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

RCP has listed two National polls today...

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

obviously Larry, these 2 are rolling averages

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If all the conservatives who promised to leave the country when Clinton got elected actually did leave, then Bush wouldn't have been elected in the first place.

Part of me wants to break out the stats to show that you're a LIAR.

[Flasch186]

there are stats on people who said they'd move if one person one or lost? Wow, either it's a really small sample size or it's a load of crap on both sides. Shit, I mightve said it over dinner at some point over the last 10 years. It's such a red herring to throw out there but unfortunately since it seems things are treading in a gutter it'd be par for the course for the campaigns, the path to the white house.

Y'know to discuss with MBBF, since he's begun to speak intelligently It seems that the right's move right now is to lay the mines out there, even the small ones and then throw gasoline on the tiny explosion once it's sprung. As Jon would say, it's smart. I hate it and find it disgusting when either side does it but it works with most Americans.

It doesnt change the meat of the things I want to see moved forward which is exposure of lying and hypocrisy whenever it exists or occurs and I wont list them all but boy the bucket is chock full.

The problem is, mainstream America seems to get spun and not pay attention to the exposures and just believes the lies that are repeatedly propogated even when theyre debunked, Like Cheney did to perfection. Its a shame and makes me want to vomit daily.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Part of me wants to break out the stats to show that you're a LIAR.

First of all, it was a joke ("OBVIOUSLY").

Also, I'd love to see how you could come up with stats to prove anything? Do you know how many conservatives said that? Seems to be that would need to be known before you could prove the statement to be incorrect. I mean, if just a few hundred from Florida said it at some point, then the statement is true. So let me know when you've interviewed every conservative in Florida.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

there are stats on people who said they'd move if one person one or lost? Wow, either it's a really small sample size or it's a load of crap on both sides. Shit, I mightve said it over dinner at some point over the last 10 years. It's such a red herring to throw out there but unfortunately since it seems things are treading in a gutter it'd be par for the course for the campaigns, the path to the white house.

I thought the reference would be obvious, but I was making fun of people who ran out for the stats when that Republican said that Palin got more votes for mayor than Biden did for president.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

I thought the reference would be obvious, but I was making fun of people who ran out for the stats when that Republican said that Palin got more votes for mayor than Biden did for president.

Okay, but the difference is you can break out stats to show the Palin-Biden comment was incorrect. You cannot do that for my comment. Not to mention the fact that people ont he right believed the Palin-Biden comment, meaning it deserved to be proven wrong.

Wow, I really wish you would quit with the analogies.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

First of all, it was a joke ("OBVIOUSLY").

Also, I'd love to see how you could come up with stats to prove anything? Do you know how many conservatives said that? Seems to be that would need to be known before you could prove the statement to be incorrect. I mean, if just a few vote coutners from Florida said it at some point, then the statement is true. So let me know when you've interviewed every conservative in Florida.

Fixed. Oh yeah I went there!

[Passacaglia]

And I'm keeping the typo in, so suck it!

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Subby

I'll agree that the democrats have a perceived Hollywood problem, but I honestly don't know if makes any material difference in the election. The folks that boycott hollyweird aren't sitting on the fence in the first place.

That is probably true. I have more distaste for the celebrity who thinks they should get a national stage to talk politics than I have for the candidate they endorse.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by BrianD

That is probably true. I have more distaste for the celebrity who thinks they should get a national stage to talk politics than I have for the candidate they endorse.

I don't really have a problem with that. They already have the national stage, and I admire someone for talking about what they believe in more than who designed their dress or tux. I would probably do the same.

[Arles]

IMO, 75% of celebrity endorsements are based on one of two things:

1. Guilt for being successful and wishing to show they still care about "the common man" as they go from party to part in their limo.
2. PR calculation knowing that being for a left-leaning candidate will help their status in Hollywood for future gigs.

So, I wouldn't get too carried away with the "I admire someone for talking about what they believe in" when talking about the Hollywood crowd.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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

This is one silver lining I'm actually happy about - all 4 on the tickets seem like genuinely decent people, politics aside. I didn't always feel that last couple elections with guys like Cheney and Kerry.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

This is one silver lining I'm actually happy about - all 4 on the tickets seem like genuinely decent people, politics aside. I didn't always feel that last couple elections with guys like Cheney and Kerry.

I can say that about 3 out of 4 but not one of them.

SI

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Arles

IMO, 75% of celebrity endorsements are based on one of two things:

1. Guilt for being successful and wishing to show they still care about "the common man" as they go from party to part in their limo.
2. PR calculation knowing that being for a left-leaning candidate will help their status in Hollywood for future gigs.

So, I wouldn't get too carried away with the "I admire someone for talking about what they believe in" when talking about the Hollywood crowd.

I think you're giving the average Hollywood celebrity wayyyyy too much intellectual credit. These people, with a few exceptions I'm sure, are the equivalent of a 12y/o in their political knowledge and beliefs.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

IMO, 75% of celebrity endorsements are based on one of two things:

1. Guilt for being successful and wishing to show they still care about "the common man" as they go from party to part in their limo.
2. PR calculation knowing that being for a left-leaning candidate will help their status in Hollywood for future gigs.

So, I wouldn't get too carried away with the "I admire someone for talking about what they believe in" when talking about the Hollywood crowd.

Where do Aahnold, Fred Thompson, Reagan, Sony Bono, Charlton Heston, Clint Eastwood, Robert Duvall, Gerald Macreany, et. al. fit?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Arles

IMO, 75% of celebrity endorsements are based on one of two things:

1. Guilt for being successful and wishing to show they still care about "the common man" as they go from party to part in their limo.
2. PR calculation knowing that being for a left-leaning candidate will help their status in Hollywood for future gigs.

So, I wouldn't get too carried away with the "I admire someone for talking about what they believe in" when talking about the Hollywood crowd.

Not sure how making a statement on a message board is getting "carried away". Also, I disagree with your reasoning for the endorsements. I simply think artistic people tend to be more liberal, and thus people in Hollywood end up supporting liberal candidates.

However, the point is I'd prefer a celebrity to talk about something that is important rather than the standard gossip/fashion/salary crap we usually get. And that goes for people like Charlton Heston, Fred Thompson, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, and Jon Voight as well.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't really have a problem with that. They already have the national stage, and I admire someone for talking about what they believe in more than who designed their dress or tux. I would probably do the same.

But in general they can probably speak more intelligently about who designed their dress or tux. I guess I'd like to look for places where I can get some decent information and don't care to get it from random celebrities with unknown qualifications and nobody there to challenge them.

The other side of this is the Tom Cruise effect. It is harder to enjoy the work of someone who shows themselves to be a complete whackadoo.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Not to mention the fact that people ont he right believed the Palin-Biden comment, meaning it deserved to be proven wrong.

Except that if it was written originally here without a typo, as governor instead of mayor, then it was correct all along. Palin did receive more votes for governor than Biden got in his brief run in 2008.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Arles

IMO, 75% of celebrity endorsements are based on one of two things:

1. Guilt for being successful and wishing to show they still care about "the common man" as they go from party to part in their limo.
2. PR calculation knowing that being for a left-leaning candidate will help their status in Hollywood for future gigs.

So, I wouldn't get too carried away with the "I admire someone for talking about what they believe in" when talking about the Hollywood crowd.

God forbid, these guys are (gasp) actually Americans that are doing the same thing we are but on a bigger stage.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Except that if it was written originally here without a typo, as governor instead of mayor, then it was correct all along. Palin did receive more votes for governor than Biden got in his brief run in 2008.

But it wasn't a typo. The whole thing started as a response to the comments made at the convention, where mayor was used. Molson said it was obviously a joke and called people stupid for thinking otherwise, but some conservatives believed it, and Vegas Vic even used it here to make a point.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Okay, but the difference is you can break out stats to show the Palin-Biden comment was incorrect. You cannot do that for my comment. Not to mention the fact that people ont he right believed the Palin-Biden comment, meaning it deserved to be proven wrong.

Wow, I really wish you would quit with the analogies.

If you're making the statement, you're the one that should prove that it's accurate.

The fact that one has easily attaintable numbers and one doesn't is meaningless if both are jokes. And your statement surely has specific numbers too, they would just take more work to find.

And still, Biden got 0 votes for president.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But it wasn't a typo. The whole thing started as a response to the comments made at the convention, where mayor was used. Molson said it was obviously a joke and called people stupid for thinking otherwise, but some conservatives believed it, and Vegas Vic even used it here to make a point.

Lord knows that I can't find the original sidebar on that, even skimming back through something like 60 pages in the thread, but best I can recall is that:

-- the original reference must have gone right by me (if there was one before VV got involved in that portion). Or else I picked up on it when VV referenced Molson saying something about it and attributed the original comment to VV all along.

-- VV and I briefly discussed (or me & someone in the thread) that it was accurate as "governor" instead of "mayor" (which was how I had read it from the beginning). And that left me with the impression that it was a typo from the get-go.

[molson]

The reason I don't think it was a typo (at the convention) is that it was in direct response to the Obama campaign's mocking of the size of the town she was mayor of. That mocking was a theme of much of the speaches, including the "you know, except with actual responsibilites" line.

The fact that the the joke so clearly contradicts the numbers (if you consider votes for nominee a vote for president), clearly tells me that it was a joke.

But hey, I'm wrong at least half the time, if not more (unlike liberals in this thread).

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Lord knows that I can't find the original sidebar on that, even skimming back through something like 60 pages in the thread, but best I can recall is that:

-- the original reference must have gone right by me (if there was one before VV got involved in that portion). Or else I picked up on it when VV referenced Molson saying something about it and attributed the original comment to VV all along.

-- VV and I briefly discussed (or me & someone in the thread) that it was accurate as "governor" instead of "mayor" (which was how I had read it from the beginning). And that left me with the impression that it was a typo from the get-go.

Actually, I was involved in that too, and agreed with you that it was probably a typo. However, what I said was that it was a typo from the person who originally distributed the talking point, not from the person who originally posted it here. It was clearly said as Mayor at the convention.

[Kodos]

George Clooney for President!

[JonInMiddleGA]

re: the whole pig & lipstick thing (which to be honest has pretty much flown past me as anything other than a quick clip, headlines online & a sidebar issue here -- too many "have-to-deal-with-right-now" items in my life for the past few days to have paid much attention to pigs, lipstick, or anything that didn't involve an immediate threat to my health, welfare, or family)

-- It seemed obvious to me from the delivery & the response that it got at the time that this was anything other than an attempt to be clever & play to the room by Obama. I border on being flabbergasted that anyone even tries to deny that.

-- It was, at worst, an okay line to use as a pointed jab to entertain the crowd in my mind except that he didn't anticipate how it could be used against him. Personally I'd say no harm no foul in playing to your crowd as long as they're the only people who hear it. It's the last bit that creates a problem here (and having an opponent smart enough to make use of bulletin board material when it's offered).

-- How really outraged is the average member of the McCain/Palin campaign about it? Little to none would be my strong belief. But if there's mileage to be had from pretending to be, seems beyond stupid not to make the effort and get whatever benefit from it they can.

-- How really angry is the average GOP voter? Madder than the presumably thicker-skinned candidates/campaign veterans themselves would be my estimate. A case of "don't you talk about my {insert person with a relationship here}" sort of mad. I mean, a person can trashtalk their own relatives but if you do it then there's a risk you'll piss them off, even if you said the exact same thing. That's pretty knee jerk stuff but easily predictable too.

And it all leads me back to something I've wondered about from the early stages of the campaign: the quality/skill of Obama's handlers. Little things like this make me wonder whether he's slipping out of their grasp & making mistakes on his own or if they're truly clueless enough not to have anticipated how something like this could backfire.

I mean, they were capable of knocking off Hillary so there had to be some ability there somewhere no matter how much she may have mishandled her own campaign during the primaries. So why all of sudden do we get a goof like this one? Has he had any significant organizational changes that I've missed? Somebody leave, get fired, get replaced? Has the candidate gotten a little too comfortable with the spotlight & simply stopped taking advice from his own people and decided he can wing it on his own?

[Jas_lov]

New CNN/Time polls:

Michigan: Obama 49 McCain 45
Virginia: McCain 50 Obama 46
Missouri: McCain 50 Obama 45
New Hampshire: Obama 51 McCain 45

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time CNN battleground polls « - Blogs from CNN.com

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It was clearly said as Mayor at the convention.

And see, I don't think I ever realized it was even a line from the convention until it came up here on page whatevertheheck we're up to. The first time I remember seeing/hearing it was when it came up here back everhowmany pages ago.

Stipulate that I'm innocent of any attempt spin on this sidebar, and I'll enter a nolo plea for having taken the source/context wrong for the comment from the get go.

[Flasch186]

Chris Matthews is killin' Mary Fallin (R) from Oklahoma. She tried to say that 'Obama's rotting fish comment' is targeted at McCain as him being an old fish and you shouldve seen Matthews reaction. boy does she look silly right now. She then cited Clinton as being against the 'bullying' and Matthews read her Clinton's quote to the contrary today. He is making her look like such a hypocrite....and good. Hypocrisy, no matter where, needs exposure.....

and now I saw the whole clip and he was obviously, IMO, referencing that change can be called many things but in this case, 'you can slap lipstick on a pig and its still a pig, but its still a pig' was in reference to the word change....

but I aagree with many, including Matthews, that this 'sideshow' has beomce quite the distraction and gotten more mileage than its worth. Kudos to the GOP.

[TazFTW]

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

Rasmussen has McCain leading Obama 49-47 in New Mexico. The last Rasmussen poll (8/20) had it at Obama 47 McCain 41.

[larrymcg421]

Polling is definitely looking good for McCain right now, but it'll be interesting to see if this is convention bounce or if it has any staying power.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Chris Matthews is killin' Mary Fallin (R) from Oklahoma. She tried to say that 'Obama's rotting fish comment' is targeted at McCain as him being an old fish and you shouldve seen Matthews reaction. boy does she look silly right now. She then cited Clinton as being against the 'bullying' and Matthews read her Clinton's quote to the contrary today. He is making her look like such a hypocrite....and good. Hypocrisy, no matter where, needs exposure.....

and now I saw the whole clip and he was obviously, IMO, referencing that change can be called many things but in this case, 'you can slap lipstick on a pig and its still a pig, but its still a pig' was in reference to the word change....

but I aagree with many, including Matthews, that this 'sideshow' has beomce quite the distraction and gotten more mileage than its worth. Kudos to the GOP.

You agree with a talk show host who calls the issue a "sideshow" and yet spends precious minutes of airtime talking about it? Isn't Matthews being more than a bit hypocritical?

[Flasch186]

sure but as he said on Morning Joe this morning, ALL cable news is a 500lb guy looking for a 100lb burrow. Its 100% consistent with what I ssaid a few pages ago...TV news has a bias...a bias for RATINGS and if its the issue du jour, he has to ride that...You gotta ride it till the next burrow comes along to relieve the first one. Disgusting and reflective of the state of America but very very true, IMO.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Polling is definitely looking good for McCain right now, but it'll be interesting to see if this is convention bounce or if it has any staying power.

My own suspicion is that stuff like this are people just moving themselves from "undecided" (whether they'll vote or not moreso than who they'll vote for) to the camp they were in all along.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

sure but as he said on Morning Joe this morning, ALL cable news is a 500lb guy looking for a 100lb burrow.

And with that, Matthews will probably draw the ire of 500 pound voters on both ends of the political spectrum

[Flasch186]

i hope theyre taping.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My own suspicion is that stuff like this are people just moving themselves from "undecided" (whether they'll vote or not moreso than who they'll vote for) to the camp they were in all along.

I don't think that's it, because the undecideds have stayed pretty much the same (ranging between 4-6%). McCain is clearly taking from Obama's numbers. We'll see if it holds.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't think that's it, because the undecideds have stayed pretty much the same (ranging between 4-6%). McCain is clearly taking from Obama's numbers.

{scratches head}
{looks at most recent polling post again}

Rasmussen has McCain leading Obama 49-47 in New Mexico. The last Rasmussen poll (8/20) had it at Obama 47 McCain 41.

Umm ... Obama had 47% on 8/20, he has 47% now. What did McCain take from his numbers?

Or were you talking generally/nationally, instead of just the New Mexico numbers (which I thought you were initially commenting on since your post I replied to was immediately after the NM numbers were posted).

[ace1914]

The polls have a margin of error of 2-5%. It doesn't show any real movement.

[Flasch186]

...and theyre rolling averages.

[SFL Cat]

Well, this is interesting.

Biden: Hillary May Have Been Better VP Pick « FOX Embeds « FOXNews.com

Early indicator that Biden drops out and Hillary takes his place?