Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

Palin basically reassigned him to a post that would be a demotion and he quit. So, he was removed from his current post, but not fired. So, by "fired" they are referring to his old post, not having a spot with the government.

Again, I think this may hurt Palin a bit in the short term, but I think she's handled everything very well. At this point, no fair-minded individual can think this hearing will not be a political witch hunt if left unfettered.

So you agree that "firing" the chef was a lie!

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Flasch,

Wouldn't you say we would have a better chance of finding out the truth and less of a chance of this matter being contaminated by politics if French were to recuse himself from handling the investigation?

It seems to me like that would be the easiest thing to do, because there's going to be a ready made excuse of "Well, the guy in charge of the investigation is a huge supporter of Obama" if the investigation were to turn up evidence of impropriety.

honestly I dont care who runs the investigation as long as ALL people involved, especially subpoened, give it their all to cooperate and give all the information they possess and if they want it on videotape I dont care. I want the truth to come out, period. If he were to recuse himself and they get someone as qualified or more qualified than him that's fine but I want answers and I dont care who the investigator is as long as theyre qualified. With videotape and the right of the press to get all the information after the culmination it shouldnt matter. The GOP is just throwing up a smokescreen IMO, the legislature didnt have a problem with this guy 6 wks ago before she was on the ticket. Now they do? Whatever, they should want the truth as bad as, if not more than me, since they are our leaders!

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'm sure this will all be cleared up in her next interview with...

Sean Hannity.

Obama's done as many tough interviews (one with O'Reilly) in two years as Palin's done in 2 months. And Obama looked terrible in the Fox interview. I know those on the left expect her to immediately do interviews with a ton of hostile people, but why should she when Obama has been dodging tough interviews and questions for yars. It was only when he started to lose that he took the O'Reilly spot (during the republican convention, no less).

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So you agree that "firing" the chef was a lie!

I think I was pretty clear. You can be fired from your post but still hold a position with the government. You do understand that, right?

[Flasch186]

her contradictory quotes were clear Arles.

Her unwillingness to, all of a sudden, want to cooperate is shady beyond belief.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

Obama's done as many tough interviews (one with O'Reilly) in two years as Palin's done in 2 months. And Obama looked terrible in the Fox interview. I know those on the left expect her to immediately do interviews with a ton of hostile people, but why should she when Obama has been dodging tough interviews and questions for yars. It was only when he started to lose that he took the O'Reilly spot (during the republican convention, no less).

Easy or tough, she's done a grand total of one interview since the convention. The other three major ticket players have at least appeared on a Sunday morning show since their respective conventions.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think I was pretty clear. You can be fired from your post but still hold a position with the government. You do understand that, right?

Does not equal,

So, he was removed from his current post, but not fired.

[st.cronin]

Funny quote from Tucker Carlson on what will happen if McCain wins:

“Even those who supported Hillary in the primaries will scold the rest of us for voting against a black man. They’ll be shrill and self-righteous, more even than usual, and they’ll never stop. It’s almost enough to make you want to vote for Obama, just so we won’t have to hear them.”

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

Obama's done as many tough interviews (one with O'Reilly) in two years as Palin's done in 2 months. And Obama looked terrible in the Fox interview. I know those on the left expect her to immediately do interviews with a ton of hostile people, but why should she when Obama has been dodging tough interviews and questions for yars. It was only when he started to lose that he took the O'Reilly spot (during the republican convention, no less).

I love how O'Reilly is equal to Charlie Gibson. But what about Russert or Schieffer or Brokaw or any number of other interviews. My guess is Obama's done hundreds of interviews over his career. Just out of curiosity, who would count as a "tough interview"?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Funny quote from Tucker Carlson

You lost me after this part.

[st.cronin]

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Into the Obama Tank for the Final Push

Into the Obama Tank for the Final Push
By Jennifer Rubin

John McCain believes he is in an existential war. America is engaged in a death struggle against Islamic terrorists.

But he is also fighting for his life: against a media establishment dedicated to his political destruction.

Any pretense of fairness by the mainstream media is gone. The MSNBC duo of anchor buffoons have been downgraded but not fired. The Washington Post runs dueling front page articles -- one a recycled tabloid-like piece (apologies to our tabloid friends who generally don't recycle old material) about Cindy McCain's past drug problems and one, made up out of whole cloth, that Sarah Palin's allegedly believes and told departing troops that Iraq was behind 9-11. Caught concocting the latter story, the Post tried a hasty edit on the piece (in the middle of the night, no less) -- a maneuver which bloggers quickly spotted. We saw the oozing condescension of normally mild-mannered Charlie Gibson in his Palin interview. Assuring Palin he was using a direct quote (he was not) to accuse her of believing her son was on "task form God" and laying a gotcha trap on the Bush Doctrine (which has no single meaning), Gibson seemed himself to have a "task" -- to trip up a figure held in contempt by most of his colleagues. And of course we are treated to lengthy "investigative" pieces on Palin -- which lack any factual support for their scandal-suggestive headlines. But still there is nary an investigative piece in any major newspaper on Barack Obama's ties to the Chicago machine of Bill Daley, the mismanaged Annenberg Challenge, his relationship with Bill Ayers or the problematic donations from the Woods Fund.

All of this follows the litany of personal attacks on Sarah Palin -- for everything from running for office while having kids to allegedly supporting Pat Buchanan (she didn't) to advocating creationism in the schools (she hasn't).

Why the two-week spree of fury?

Howard Kurtz declares that the media is "mad" -- mad at McCain for "manipulating them." Others bemoan that McCain has hijacked the storyline and "forced" them to talk about Obama's gaffes. Meanwhile, juicy stories that would be headlines if a Republican were involved -- the meager charitable donations by Joe Biden and a bizarrely inaccurate Obama ad asserting McCain doesn't use a computer (he does but can't type due to war injuries) -- are utterly ignored by the MSM. Rather the storyline continues unabated: those mean Republicans are lying again. But really, what's up? As a longtime prominent conservative editor says the media bias is "the worst I've ever seen." Well, the answer: it's what's down. Barack Obama's numbers -- both national polls and electoral vote tallies -- are taking a nose dive. The media is now, as is the rest of the Democratic establishment, in a frenzied meltdown. Their guy could well lose and they've staked their reputations, such as they are, on his victory. It is not hard to see why they have gone into overdrive to protect and bolster The One.

This is not merely a matter of personal political preference. These journalists have a real problem: what if all those pundits and reporters actually have to cover (for four or eight years) the team they have trashed for the last year? What if the McCain people won't talk to them, if they are frozen out of the in-the-know circle of media elites? This is a real problem.

But the increased venom and hyper-partisanship won't likely solve this problem. The lesson is only two weeks old but they have forgotten it already. Did vilifying Sarah Palin work? Of course not. It made her more popular and helped recruit a massive audience for her homerun speech. In the meantime it helped galvanize the GOP base which rallied to their VP nominee under siege. In the process, the media revealed themselves to be so heavily biased that even normally trusting readers and viewers have come to discount and flat-out ignore their spin.

So what is everyone to do? The McCain camp likely will keep doing precisely what they are doing: run right over the media to the American people, afford Palin the opportunity to be seen and interact with as many people as possible and provide better access to her for whichever outlets can still manage to accurately convey what she says and does. Ditto for McCain.

The MSM has a choice: double down and risk extinction, ridicule and potential ostracism from the McCain team or try to play it straight. The debates will be telling in this regard. You never know: they might become savvier about covering their tracks via late night alterations: the blogosphere is always watching. As for readers and viewers, they have the power of the purse and the clicker which they are increasingly exercising. Some 69% of voters think the media is rooting for a candidate - one presumes that they are already discounting the sycophantic coverage of Obama.

But that still leaves Barack Obama trailing in the polls. You see, the MSM's act (i.e. ridiculous hit pieces on McCain coupled with glowing, defenses of Obama and non-reputing of stories adverse to Obama) is played out on its own stage. Ultimately he is on his own. No amount of Chris Matthews's commentary is likely to convince Americans that Sarah Palin is a rube. No matter how many "Cindy McCain took drugs" stories above the fold, Americans still are inclined to evaluate the character and record of John McCain on its merits.

In the end the voters, and not the media, will elect a Presidential ticket. If they fail in their mission to revive the candidacy of their favorite son, the major newspapers and television networks will have to justify their own conduct, repair reputations and mend fences and convince news consumers they still matter. Good luck with that.

[JPhillips]

If you can't handle the Charlie Gibson how can you handle Al Queda?

[cartman]

The McCain camp likely will keep doing precisely what they are doing: run right over the media to the American people, afford Palin the opportunity to be seen and interact with as many people as possible

Ummm, what?

[st.cronin]

I think it means he's gonna make like Eric Dickerson.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you can't handle the Charlie Gibson how can you handle Al Queda?

I think she handled him fine. Put Obama in an interview where two quotes are taken completely out of context and he's asked a very vague question about the "Bush doctrine" and I doubt he would have handled it as well as Palin. I don't remember a lot of head bobs, "uhhs", "umms" and stutters that Obama gave O'Reilly on some very tame questions.

Obama has never really been tested in any interview and always been supported by the media members doing the interview (the Stephanopoulos one was ridiculous). I'm really worried about his first meeting with a major world leader if there's no teleprompter and he's pushed for tough answers. My fear is his response on the hotseat will make W look like a Rhodes scholar. It would be nice if we had some examples of him doing well under critical interviews before he took the White House. Biden's done it, McCain's done it and even Palin's done OK. Obama's been completely protected in nearly every interview. I wonder how he will do when he's asked to go outside the "media womb" as president.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

A couple of changes since this post: Indiana is now considered likely to vote McCain, and Minnesota is now a tossup. The scorecard is McCain 227, Obama 207, with the following tossups:

Nevada (5)
Colorado (9)
New Mexico (5)
Minnesota (10)
Michigan (17)
Ohio (20)
Pennsylvania (21)
Virginia (13)
New Hampshire (4)

Intrade spread: McCain 52.1, Obama 47.3.

Intrade tightened up a little today, McCain 51.4, Obama 47.8.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think she handled him fine. Put Obama in an interview where two quotes are taken completely out of context and he's asked a very vague question about the "Bush doctrine" and I doubt he would have handled it as well as Palin. ........................................ Obama has never really been tested in any interview and always been supported by the media members doing the interview

Just watched O'Reilly this lunch time. In response to an email criticising the Gibson interview with Palin he answered that the Gibson interview with Obama earlier this year was in very much the same vein. Is O'Reilly now in the Obama camp too?

[Arles]

Wow, this smells of desperation. First, Obama's campaign rips McCain for not using a computer (because of his war injuries), then a 527/PAC puts this out:



Do people really think this kind of stuff will help Obama? Maybe if people didn't like McCain or there was some legitimate pattern in recent months of outbursts. But throwing a "hail mary" ad stating that McCain's time in a POW camp makes him "reckless, erratic and unfit to lead" seems in fairly poor taste.

I can just see some on the left sitting in a room after meeting this POW in the ad saying "Hah, now we will swift-boat McCain like they did to Kerry". The problem is McCain lacks the negatives and context that made the Kerry ads effective. This is going to blow up in the left's face and allow McCain-Palin (once again) to play the victim and get all kinds of press while doing it.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Just watched O'Reilly this lunch time. In response to an email criticising the Gibson interview with Palin he answered that the Gibson interview with Obama earlier this year was in very much the same vein. Is O'Reilly now in the Obama camp too?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Because some random emailer on O'Reilly says something you think it means he's in Obama's camp? I watched both interviews and I think both were tough on the candidates. IMO, Palin looked better than Obama (but I am biased) and that was really the extent of my comments in this thread on the subject.

[Vegas Vic]

That's a despicable ad. We'll see if Kerry has the stones to come out and criticize it.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Funny quote from Tucker Carlson on what will happen if McCain wins:

I was thinking of this the other day. I can remember the indignation felt by the Anti-Bush folks the day after the '04 election. The anger was papable.
I'm hoping to see their response again this November, but only time will tell. I'm holding out hope, but I'm certainly not confident that McCain will win the day.

I can't imagine it would be as bad, the Democrat reaction that is, as when Bush won in '04. Those were some rough days.

The Democrats need more Michael Moore. Where is Michael when we need him anyway?

[Arles]

Here's another gem for the night:



In the ad:

"John McCain has even said 'social security is a disgrace'. I couldn't disagree more."

Here's McCain's actual quote:

"Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today," he said. "And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed."

Obviously, he was saying the current method of funding is a disgrace and needs to be reformed/fixed. He wasn't saying social security itself is a disgrace.

Looks like the gloves are off and I wonder if we'll see all the criticism from CNN/MSNBC/Networks on the POW ad, keyboard ad and social security ad like we did on the questionable ads McCain ran on Obama (IMO, esp the lipstick-pig one which was pretty unfair). I'll be interested to see if that happens this week. I hope they do criticize the Obama/DNC/527s for these ads, but I won't hold my breath.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Arles

I watched both interviews and I think both were tough on the candidates.

Then why do you say:

Obama has never really been tested in any interview and always been supported by the media members doing the interview

O'Reilly chastised the emailer and responded that Gibson had had an equally tough interview with Obama - which your above statement would seem to dispute.

I'm not sure I should boast about O'Reilly and I agreeing but he seems to support my contention that we really need to know a great deal more about Palin before seeing her enter the White House. Newt Gingrich was positively put out by this suggestion.

Sometimes maybe even O'Reilly gets it right

Incidentally, following my own wish to know more about Palin I've just read the very long wikipedia page. If that page is correct, and there is always some doubt about wikipedia, she really should drop the "Thanks, but no thanks" stuff on the bridge to nowhere. It was more like

Palin: "Vote for me and I'll build you two bridges" (on the campaign trail for governor)
Congress: "Here's $422 million to help you build them, but, shssh, don't tell anybody"
Palin: "Of course I won't. They think I'm against earmarking"
Other candidate: "I want to amend this"
Congress: "Damn, now everyone knows about it"
McCain: "This bridge is a waste of money"
Chorus: "The bridge is a waste of money, the bridge is a waste of money"

Palin is elected governor.

Palin: "Costs have risen, we need more"
Congress: "No, find the extra yourself"
Palin: "I'm not going to build the bridge, no one seems to like it anyway. Even McCain disapproves."
Congress: "Then we want our money back"
Palin: "I'm going to build a couple small roads to where the bridge would be."
Congress: "They'd be useless. Roads to nowhere"
Palin: "Yes, but I can legally keep the money and spend the rest on something else."
Congress: "Bitch!"

That's probably putting it over in a thoroughly bad light but it's much closer than "Thanks, but no thanks".

Of course, wikipedia has been wrong before and could well be part of the anti-Palin media

[Big Fo]

Meh, neither of those ads are nearly as bad as the kindergarten/sex-ed ad McCain ran. The first one is fine, being a POW is indeed "not a good pre-requisite for a President" and having John McCain near that red button scares me as well. I don't like the social security ad due to the misleading "disgrace" line. Still, small potatoes compared to what the Republicans have done so far...

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think she handled him fine. Put Obama in an interview where two quotes are taken completely out of context and he's asked a very vague question about the "Bush doctrine" and I doubt he would have handled it as well as Palin. I don't remember a lot of head bobs, "uhhs", "umms" and stutters that Obama gave O'Reilly on some very tame questions.

Obama has never really been tested in any interview and always been supported by the media members doing the interview (the Stephanopoulos one was ridiculous). I'm really worried about his first meeting with a major world leader if there's no teleprompter and he's pushed for tough answers. My fear is his response on the hotseat will make W look like a Rhodes scholar. It would be nice if we had some examples of him doing well under critical interviews before he took the White House. Biden's done it, McCain's done it and even Palin's done OK. Obama's been completely protected in nearly every interview. I wonder how he will do when he's asked to go outside the "media womb" as president.

That BS, Arles and I'm saying so because you usually make your points with a lot of logic. Forget about the Bush doctrine. I don't care about that. What was most important was the fact that Gibson asked her three times:
"What three things would you change about the Bush Administration?" She talked about what she did in Wasilla. WTF? You are a VP candidate of the incumbent party that has dissolved this nation's strength, and you can't tell me three things you would change, without being massaged to the answer? Are kidding me?

Obama has been far from in "media womb." The O'Reilly interview is about as tough as it comes. Why do you think McCain won't be on Mathews show? O'Reilly and Matthews use the same asshole interview technique. They ask a question, allow the interviewee to begin to answer, then constantly interrupt the interviewee with another question to disorient the person, distort the answer and make them look stupid. If you are not aggressive enough and continue your train of thought to completion, both O'Reilly and Mathews will win the argument. That's why there were so many ohhhs, and umms in that interview. If Obama had an interiview with Gibson, where its the normal question, then answer, then trick question then answer, Obama will do well. The guy has been a trial lawyer, a professor, an 8-year state senator, and U.S. Senator. But somehow he's new to a hostile interview? Be realistic, Arles.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Arles

Looks like the gloves are off and I wonder if we'll see all the criticism from CNN/MSNBC/Networks on the POW ad, keyboard ad and social security ad like we did on the questionable ads McCain ran on Obama (IMO, esp the lipstick-pig one which was pretty unfair). I'll be interested to see if that happens this week. I hope they do criticize the Obama/DNC/527s for these ads, but I won't hold my breath.

What keyboard ad? Anybody got a link? BTW, I don't see an Obama approval on either the POW/SS ads.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ace1914

The guy has been a trial lawyer, a professor, an 8-year state senator, and U.S. Senator.

For the record, he was also a community organizer. I've been repeatedly told that it's something to be proud of, so why you left it off that list is beyond me.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ace1914

What keyboard ad? Anybody got a link?

Basically stated, the Obama campaign ran an ad about the fact that McCain doesn't use a computer for e-mail and that kind of thing. The ad was meant to paint him as being out of touch with the American public because most people have entered the electronic age. What they failed to mention or didn't know was that McCain has his secretary/aides do all of that because his war injuries inhibit his ability to use a keyboard.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Into the Obama Tank for the Final Push

I'll save everyone the trouble with the summary of this article: "In this horribly flawed and biased piece, we continue to pound home that the only reliable place for news is sweet, nurturing Fox"

SI

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Basically stated, the Obama campaign ran an ad about the fact that McCain doesn't use a computer for e-mail and that kind of thing. The ad was meant to paint him as being out of touch with the American public because most people have entered the electronic age. What they failed to mention or didn't know was that McCain has his secretary/aides do all of that because his war injuries inhibit his ability to use a keyboard.

I didn't think that was the ad you guys were talking about. Didn't the ad say he didn't know how to use a computer?

There's a big difference between illiteracy and disability.

[Flasch186]

All of this stuff is small potatoes to me unless Palin cooperates with the Troopergate investigation.

I hate 527's and wont watch their fucking ads from either side. Theyre basically all full of shit and bad for this country.

Palin better answer the questions in Alaska though or that is an ad I'd push down America's throat. How we can have leaders (including W and Clinton) that wont answer investigator's questions and have it be 'ok' is beyond me. The 2 W Aides that are laughing in contempt at Congress' subpoenas?! AWFUL. Palin not cooperating and likely looking at her own subpoena?! UNACCEPTABLE. The list goes on and on for both sides.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'll save everyone the trouble with the summary of this article: "In this horribly flawed and biased piece, we continue to pound home that the only reliable place for news is sweet, nurturing Fox"

SI

To be honest, I never fully understood the who argument against Fox. I think that Fox is pretty open about which way it leans and has never pretended otherwise. Their 'fair and balanced' mantra often appears to be a phrase to mock their competitors' leanings more than anything legitimate claim. I think most Republicans would be much more accepting of the leaning of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN if they just went ahead and admitted it at some level.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ace1914

I didn't think that was the ad you guys were talking about. Didn't the ad say he didn't know how to use a computer?

He's just not able to do so without pain, so why would he bother when he has people that are there to help him out? I have a parent with similar disabilities, so I suppose I sympathize with the situation. Both McCain and my parent would likely love to use the computer, but their health issues just don't allow it.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Meh, neither of those ads are nearly as bad as the kindergarten/sex-ed ad McCain ran.

That was appalling, absolutely appalling. Even O'Reilly described it as an outright lie. Obama wants age-appropriate sex education for kids where parents can opt out for any reason they wish and the McCain campaign says that he wants sex education for kindergarten kids.

Does no one else find this insulting? If you're going to run a negative ad then pick a weakness in your target and exaggerate it. Drive home your point about the weakness by writing it large. It sticks because the audience knows there's some truth to it.

But putting out something that is so easily proved false treats the audience like idiots. "Neh, these guys won't know any better" it sneers.

It's insulting and coming from someone who's going to change politics for the better .............nah

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

To be honest, I never fully understood the who argument against Fox. I think that Fox is pretty open about which way it leans and has never pretended otherwise. Their 'fair and balanced' mantra often appears to be a phrase to mock their competitors' leanings more than anything legitimate claim. I think most Republicans would be much more accepting of the leaning of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN if they just went ahead and admitted it at some level.

Actually they aren't Fair and Balanced right now. Its now "We Report, You Decide." I think I had the all time biggest laugh about Fox when they reported the "terrorist fist bump by Obama."



This is Obama's "media womb."

[Flasch186]

...but the GOP DOES think the audience are idiots, and I'm not sure that theyre wrong. Most 527's feel the same way I suppose with the trash they put on TV containing unsubstantiated lies and fear mongering. Both sides are guilty of running bad ads but the GOP's willingness to stretch the truth thus far is not a good thing (See Rove). I'll reiterate that the need for Palin to testify or give up ALL information so the investigation can come to it's rightful conclusion is very high on my integrity radar and I look forward to ads that show this in it's truthfulness, both the culmination and, for now, her change of tune and unwillingness to cooperate. Total horsecrap garbage.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Actually they aren't Fair and Balanced right now. Its now "We Report, You Decide." I think I had the all time biggest laugh about Fox when they reported the "terrorist fist bump by Obama."

This is Obama's "media womb."

But you get my point. I don't think they've ever hid their leanings in any way. If anything, I think the reaction drawn from the liberal side happens because they're so outraged that FOXNews doesn't even try to hide their bias.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

DailyKos daily poll has Obama up by 4.

Daily Kos: 9/16 Daily Kos R2K Tracking Poll: Obama 48, McCain 44

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But you get my point. I don't think they've ever hid their leanings in any way. If anything, I think the reaction drawn from the liberal side happens because they're so outraged that FOXNews doesn't even try to hide their bias.

MBBF, I understand. I watch Fox, CNN, and NBC. My wife says I act like an old man watching news all day. But, I feel like its important to see all the different sides to be able to recognize the techniques that introduce bias. MSNBC and FOX seem the same to me, just opposite ends of the spectrum. I'll have to disagree with you on CNN, though. Lou Dobbs and Glen Beck are far from "in the tank" for Obama. Dobbs is pretty upset about immigration all the time and Beck is pretty funny. He's ignorant as hell and never has any basis to support his arguements but he's funny.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Lou Dobbs and Glen Beck are far from "in the tank" for Obama. Dobbs is pretty upset about immigration all the time and Beck is pretty funny. He's ignorant as hell and never has any basis to support his arguements but he's funny.

I find Beck to be much like Alan Colmes. They make for good comedy (for totally different reasons ), but they are the tokens thrown in on each network.

[Schmidty]

I've never seen such a close-minded campaign from both sides. It truly is like a "Go Team!!" grudge match.

I wasn't going to vote since my guy would have had no chance anyway, but I think I might just throw a vote McCain's way because of the way the Obama campaign has been going. McCain isn't a good choice (although he couldn't be any worse that W anyway), but Obama seems like a snake oil salesman. I don't trust a word that comes out of his mouth, no matter how great of an orator he is.

Yeah, I know I'm not adding anything to the discussion, but nothing I could say would change anyone's mind about anything. By the way, can anyone think of a campaign that hasn't had a fill-in-the-blankgate in it?

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I've never seen such a close-minded campaign from both sides. It truly is like a "Go Team!!" grudge match.

I wasn't going to vote since my guy would have had no chance anyway, but I think I might just throw a vote McCain's way because of the way the Obama campaign has been going. McCain isn't a good choice (although he couldn't be any worse that W anyway), but Obama seems like a snake oil salesman. I don't trust a word that comes out of his mouth, no matter how great of an orator he is.

Yeah, I know I'm not adding anything to the discussion, but nothing I could say would change anyone's mind about anything. By the way, can anyone think of a campaign that hasn't had a fill-in-the-blankgate in it?

Wouldn't be more prudent to not vote, or vote 3rd party, if you feel that way? What has Obama done that makes him a "snake oil salesman?" I haven't term used in a while.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Wouldn't be more prudent to not vote, or vote 3rd party, if you feel that way? What has Obama done that makes him a "snake oil salesman?" I haven't term used in a while.

He's selling himself, not anything concrete as far as I can tell. Even his specifics aren't really specific-feeling. It's just the impression I've been getting more and more as this has gone along. At least with McCain, you'll get what you see, as subpar as it is.

Bah. I shouldn't be in here with all of you polysci geniuses.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

He's selling himself, not anything concrete as far as I can tell. Even his specifics aren't really specific-feeling. It's just the impression I've been getting more and more as this has gone along. At least with McCain, you'll get what you see, as subpar as it is.

Bah. I shouldn't be in here with all of you polysci geniuses.

"Specific-feeling?" j/k

By the way, I consider myself more a polysci-savant. Geniuses like Arles, Flasch, and MBBF are beneath me.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by ace1914

"Specific-feeling?" j/k

Heh. You got me.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

Here's another gem for the night:



In the ad:

"John McCain has even said 'social security is a disgrace'. I couldn't disagree more."

Here's McCain's actual quote:

Obviously, he was saying the current method of funding is a disgrace and needs to be reformed/fixed. He wasn't saying social security itself is a disgrace.

Looks like the gloves are off and I wonder if we'll see all the criticism from CNN/MSNBC/Networks on the POW ad, keyboard ad and social security ad like we did on the questionable ads McCain ran on Obama (IMO, esp the lipstick-pig one which was pretty unfair). I'll be interested to see if that happens this week. I hope they do criticize the Obama/DNC/527s for these ads, but I won't hold my breath.

If you change the funding method you will destroy Social Security. Maybe it can be replaced by something better, but you can't change the funding without killing it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you change the funding method you will destroy Social Security. Maybe it can be replaced by something better, but you can't change the funding without killing it.

Maybe it's the heartless economic conservative in me, but anyone who plans their retirement to include Social Security funds is trading in fool's gold. Best to assume that SS won't be there for you and be pleasantly surprised when you get something than the opposite.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Maybe it's the heartless economic conservative in me, but anyone who plans their retirement to include Social Security funds is trading in fool's gold. Best to assume that SS won't be there for you and be pleasantly surprised when you get something than the opposite.

Based on some of what you posted in the Recession thread, forgive me if I take anything you say about planning for retirement with a huge grain of salt.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Maybe it's the heartless economic conservative in me, but anyone who plans their retirement to include Social Security funds is trading in fool's gold. Best to assume that SS won't be there for you and be pleasantly surprised when you get something than the opposite.

I agree with the fool's gold idea, but hell, they sure as hell take it out of every check so I why shouldn't I expect it to be there when I retire?

[JPhillips]

Social Security will be fine. Modest changes can make it solvent for decades. Medicare on the other hand is a huge problem.