Jack & Jill Politics

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/20/polit...

Stephanie Tubbs Jones was taken to the hospital. The police were trying to pull her over for speeding but she was unconcious behind the wheel.

LAT/Bloomberg bombshell: Obama only up 2
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008...

Zogby: Obama suffers 15-point swing, trails by 5
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1541

Obama’s support for infanticide breaks into mainstream media
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Obama-Ayers records blocked at U of I Chicago
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/oba...

He's down because he has not yet solidified his base.

Could be.

"Meanwhile, rank-and-file Democrats who are uncomfortable with a candidate who has precious little experience in anything and worrisome personal connections will have some real soul-searching to do on November 4."
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/will-rank-and-file...

I don't buy that.

I think Obama's base, for the most part (PUMAs excepted) are more behind him than McCain's, parts of which are still largely disenthused (sp?) by him....or at least were until this past Saturday.

My question would be how much the situation in Georgia affected these numbers.

In the LA Times
Obama has 80% of the D's
McCain 90% of the R's

In the Zobgy Poll

Obama has 73% of the D's
McCain has 88% of the R's
This is not to say that Obama doesn't have problems. Although McCain overreacted to the Georgia situation, Obama didn't help himself when he gave a statement wearing casual clothing and mainly staying AWOL.

That's a more than fair assessment.

Obama's VP pick will tell us.

If it's Biden, that mean's Obama is looking to shore up his foreign policy credentials and add 'gravitas' to the ticket.

If it's Kaine, then he's looking to appeal to rank-and-file Dems who are still wary of him because of Rev. Wright and his 'bittergate' comments.

If it's Bayh. He thinks the base is behind him and is going with a safe, bland choice.

Reason McCain wants to be President? Blind Ambition!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1WbnXn5Q_Hc

Of course.

A hypocrite. A liar. A fraud. A fool.

I'll stop there.

This is a continuation of Hillary's strategy. Take something you've said yourself, accuse your opponent of it - by the time your opponent mounts a defence, you've moved on to the next irrational attack.

Do you really think O is relying solely on new registrations? If so, that's cutting it pretty close.

There are 2 specials airing on CNN tomorrow night on McCain and Obama.
John King is doing McCain, and Suzanne the Obama's.
John King said that with regard to McCain's reported hot temper, Daschle and Feingold said they think Obama would be the better President but they wouldn't "lose any sleep" if McCain was President. I don't know if that's a direct quote.. John King is partial to McCain.

I'm tired of Democrats singing praises to McCain. I don't know if they noticed, but McCain is attacking their candidate.

Me too!! I'm sick of hearing Obama and his surrogates praise McCain's POW service. That shit was 30-odd years ago! It's over!

McCain can toot his own horn (and he does-- SUBJECT-VERB-POW), Obama doesn't need to solidify the idea of him as a patriot any more, especially when Obama is struggling just to get people to recognize him as American.

Democrats don't have to be liars and hypocrites like Republicans, but they sure as hell need to take the damn gloves off. Americans respond to ONE THING-- STRENGTH, and that means negativity, challenging every talking point and every positive portrait of the opponent. It means NEVER, EVER, EVER saying you are sorry or throwing a supporter overboard.

I am getting worried because McCain is gaining points with his negative campaigning. He hasn't said one positive thing about himself, and he doesn't need to if Obama keeps saying them.

I was running errands today getting my son of to college. He walked by the Obama HQ. Engaged by a young lady he came back and asked me if campaign people were pushy. I tried to explain it depended on what their job was. He still kept going on she was pushy to get him to register to vote(he just turned this week) saying Obama would lose if he didn't get registered. His response that's BS.

I responded that one of Obama's strengths has been registering new voters and getting them to vote to him and that is what he is up against. I also told him that one of the things I think Obama is ignoring is those whom are already registered and aren't for him.

Then I see this a few minutes ago: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=its.... My question is after you read this is institutionalizing the party and seeking new voters enough to win the Predential election?

Why haven't you been pushy to get your son to register to vote? Even though he just turned eligible? If she had time to do it and you were right there, you should've been backing her up. Especially in this crucial election year.

Ro
I wasn't there for the conversation. He will be registered.
Did you look at the website? What did you think?

That link goes to a blank page.

Barack understands the dynamics of election fraud.

Registering new voters is the first step to combat it. Getting new registrants to the polls is the second.

Is it enough to win?

We'll see.

Perez Hilton.com: Cindy McCain's A Big Fat Liar

"Mrs. McCain has gone on and on about living life as an 'only child.'

One LITTLE problem!!!!

She has a half-sister who she's known about, according to National Public Radio. In fact, Cindy and her sister hung out from time to time when they were growing up.

NPR points out that Cindy routinely uses the phrase "only child," as she did on CNN last month. "I grew up with my dad," she said then. "I'm an only child. My father was a cowboy, and he really loved me very much, but I think he wanted a son occasionally."

The wannabe first lady has also been described that way by news organizations from The New Yorker and The New York Times to Newsweek and ABC.

When NPR asked the McCain campaign — specifically, Cindy McCain — to comment or respond, neither replied.

We think Cindy would suck at being first lady.

First ladies need to give off that trustworthy vibe!"

I'm no Cindy McCain apologist, but if you weren't raised with another child in the home, then you are an only child, no matter how many "half-siblings" you may or may not have.

Cindy is correct when she says she's her parents' only child. But I think the sister's problem is that Cindy has been going around saying she's her FATHER'S only child, which isn't true. Their dad only died in 2000, it's not like he died in 1960 and Cindy hasn't seen the sister since.

Huh. I was raised as an only child by a childless great aunt and uncle; I had 6 other siblings who I sometimes saw on weekends. So I wasn't an only child, and never told people I was.

I'm not a Perez Hilton fan, but I get what he is saying - though she lived in the home as an only child, she knew she had an older sibling so she knew she wasn't an only. There's no harm in her saying that she has a sister, whether they were raised together or not. Not owning her does more damage, particularly since she has reaped all the benefits of her father's financial prowess, while her older sister has struggled her whole life.

Don't be mad at me because I'm a Scorpio. Heh.

Cindy actually has TWO older half siblings: one by her father and one by her mother.

99%: Not to mention, that there have been NO pictures of "McAncient's" children, especially the adopted child of color! Hmmmmm> :>)

Here is a montage by ABC.com.

My point in posting the story is to show that it is possibly hitting mainstream with it appearing on one of the most popular, top visited sites on the web.

Cindy says it like it's a source of pride. Watch the special on CNN tomorrow night on McCain and the Obama's. They ask Cindy about John's divorce.

Yeah but she's a Taurus, so there you go.
*wink

ABORTION COMMON AMONG ALL WOMEN
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/prabort2.html

• two-thirds of women having abortions intend to have children in the future;

• Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women;

• one in five women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians;

• single women who live with their partner or have no religious affiliation are about four times as likely as other women their age to have an abortion;

• nonwhites, women aged 18-24, Hispanics, separated and never-married women and those who have an annual income of less than $15,000 or have Medicaid are twice as likely as women in the general population to do so; and,

• Hispanic women have a much higher abortion rate than white women, but their rate is not so high as that of black women.

Has anyone read Freakonomics? The author posits that the reason crime has gone down so much, particularly in the 1990's was because abortion was legalized in the 1970's. Women who knew they didn't have the capacity to raise kids had abortions instead.

Another interesting fact-- in states where there is "parental notification" parents MADE SURE their daughters had abortions. They were more likely to get abortions!

Re the parents making sure their daughters had abortions...I can totally see that happening. The parent would be the most realistic about the coming hardships. They might not want the social stigma of being parent to a teenage mom or the community thinking they failed.

Religious groups need to understand the unintended consequences of their interference. Sometimes the more strongly you resist something, the more entrenched it becomes. The irony is that Barack's position is a softer, less resistant approach of providing support and options. Isn't it interesting that by voting Conservative, the so-called Pro-lifers have actually increased deaths.

Not surprised.

As an adoptee, I know that the most religious women are the ones who have the most unwanted pregnancies.

Evangelicals and Catholics are also the most likely to surrender a child for adoption. Or drop them off in a "safe haven" baby dump.

Don't. Get. Me. Started.

Viewers question credential design

KUSA - Some viewers contacted 9NEWS Saturday, questioning the design of the credentials to see Sen. Barack Obama accept the Democratic Party's presidential nomination at INVESCO Field at Mile High.

The viewers say with the stars and blue field in the lower left corner, it looks like an upside down American flag. Published flag etiquette states the stars should always be displayed in the upper left corner. An upside down flag represents an international symbol of extreme distress.

If it's so, talk about incredibly stupid.

However......trust, but verify. Craig, do you know, since you're going?

So then...what did it mean when our current POTUS held the flag backwards at the Olympics?

Would that be considered stupid?

So then......you don't answer the question (not that it was directed towards you), but you use it as an opportunity to bash Bush. Typical.

It's early, though, so I'll walk with you: it wouldn't be smart.

But, then again, not only is Bush not running, but no one's questioned his patriotism.

Okay, let's walk. The point that I was making is that there are too many other real things to be discussing!

Bashing Bush?! He does that very well on his own. Come on...you have to admit that this has been one of the worst administrations ever!

Also, I didn't mean to offend you by responding to your comments on this public site. In the future I will make sure that on your comments I will respond only when specifically asked;-)

Oh, stop.....it's not that serious. I was more upset at how the discussion immediately swung to Bush; hence, the "typical" comment.

Worst administration ever? I think history is better left to judge that one.

And I agree that this won't help lower the price of gas one penny. But, in keeping with what I said to Monie, it's a distraction that should-and could, with a little bit of forward thinking-been avoided.

Maybe we should have questioned Bush's patriotism. Let us not forget he joined the Air Force Reserves and his questionable absence for 4 years in an effort to avoid the Vietnam war. Cheney was another one of those "draft dodgers." As far as the credential, if looking at it "face-on" to be upside down, I would think the stars would be in the lower right hand corner, which is how it would appear if someone was literally placing the flag upside down. The flag kinda looks like it could be flapping from a different angle...just my observation.

Technically, I guess any way where the stars were on the bottom would be considered upside down, as they're supposed to be at the top.

I guess my biggest issue (and what I wrote on in my blog) is that between the DNC and the Obama campaign, it should have occured to someone to tread very lightly using the flag; to dot every I and cross every T. Even if it is unintentional-which I have my doubts about-someone should've known that the right wing would go ape shit if/when it got out.

At the very worst, it reads terrible, and looks even worse.

"Even if it is unintentional-which I have my doubts about-someone should've known that the right wing would go ape shit if/when it got out."

The fact that the right wing would go ape shit over this SHOULD be the problem!

"I guess my biggest issue (and what I wrote on in my blog) is that between the DNC and the Obama campaign, it should have occured to someone to tread very lightly using the flag"

Tread lightly? Really? Are the right wing the only one's "allowed" to use the flag?

Oops..I will really try next time to only comment when you are talking to me.

Ok, we're talking now...... ;)

Of course the right wing doesn't have a monopoly on use of the flag, and I didn't suggest they did.

As a veteran-albeit a partisan one-anyone who's gonna use the flag in any venue or medium should do so correctly. This usage (granting the benefit of the doubt) appears wrong).

It is one those ambiguous things. Again, I look at it as possibly being a cross-section of the flag, with a corner of the stars and adjoining stripes , and the flag flapping in the wind. The stripes are not in a "perfect "horizontal plane, so the angle of the stripes can be interpreted in many ways. They probably should have been careful ( the right wing is so rabid) , especially since the media and opponents have mandated that Sen. Obama MUST AT ALL TIMES WEAR A FLAG PIN to prove his patriotism.

I found this really interesting.....

Surprise: Evangelical Women May Have Gone For Obama At Saddleback
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-wicker/...

" The highly respected Guttmacher Institute's studies show that evangelical women make up one out of every five women having abortions. The true number is certainly higher than that because many evangelicals aren't going to claim their faith on abortion clinic forms. Some of them are getting two and three abortions. They feel guilty. They feel sinful. They're ashamed and secretive. They repent. "

Only one of five? I'm somewhat surprised by that stat. I think it's too low.

That author thinks it's higher because many women don't say what their religion is. Still, 20% is significant. The shame factor is powerful.

This statistic helps explain why this is such a huge issue for evangelicals -- it hits right at the crossroads of freedom and hypocrisy. Wow.

How many women turned to faith AFTER having an abortions? The fact is that many, many women who HAD abortions are now PRO-LIFE.

Hypocrisy? If you have had an abortion, but are now pro-life, are you a hypocrite? I think not.

And just what is the personal price to be paid for the freedom to choose an abortion?

Freedom to choose an abortion is freedom to choose in favor of one's self-interest. Freedom to choose is freedom from responsibility and consequences. But freedom to choose offers no guarantee of freedom from guilt, shame, remorse, grief, and depression.

Abortion has harmed as many women as it has 'freed' from 'the burden of a baby.'

Freedom to choose an abortion is freedom to choose in favor of one's self-interest.

Isn't that the creed of the right wing... freedom to choose? Guilt, shame and remorse comes from applied social pressure.

At the time these women make their choice, there is little doubt that they have no other option...until the anti-choice people start showing pictures of aborted fetuses.

Women do not need to be protected from socially applied shame and guilt. If you identify shame and guilt as a problem, then don't add to it by judging women. Instead, validate their choice.

It's not the abortion per se that harms women, it's the social, religious pressure applied at clinic protests and the near constant religious judgment.

Obviously this is a personal and sensitive issue for you. I have a lot
of compassion for you. By freedom and hypocrisy, I mean that there's
clearly a disconnect between the number of evangelical women having
abortions (probably due to inadequate knowledge of or access to
conception combined with pressure to conceive) and the conservative
evangelical pro-life position. Women have the freedom to terminate
pregnancies but do not feel free enough in their own communities to
protect that freedom for themselves and others.

America's abortion and STD rates is much too high and that is in part
due to poor public health education policies combined with very low
availability of help such as child care, sick leave, tax breaks etc
for mothers, especially those raising children on their own. No woman
has an abortion with a light heart and if we provide more help to
women, perhaps they might feel free to make other choices.

Okay. Now it's really official: Rachel is getting a show on MSNBC. She will be on at 9pm following Countdown 5 nights a week starting September 8. She'll be replacing Dan Abrams.

Link to HuffPo piece

Couldn't have happened to a better pundit. And by that I mean Rachel getting her own show (yeah!!) and Dan being replaced - he always annoyed the hell out of me.

Jack Cafferty was hilarious here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/cafferty...


Commentary: Is McCain another George W. Bush?

Sen. John McCain takes weekends off and limits his campaign events to one a day. He made an exception for the religious forum on Saturday at Saddleback Church in Southern California.

I think he made a big mistake. When he was invited last spring to attend a discussion of the role of faith in his life with Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, McCain didn't bother to show up. Now I know why.

It occurs to me that John McCain is as intellectually shallow as our current president. When asked what his Christian faith means to him, his answer was a one-liner. "It means I'm saved and forgiven." Great scholars have wrestled with the meaning of faith for centuries. McCain then retold a story we've all heard a hundred times about a guard in Vietnam drawing a cross in the sand.

Asked about his greatest moral failure, he cited his first marriage, which ended in divorce. While saying it was his greatest moral failing, he offered nothing in the way of explanation. Why not?

Don't Miss
The Cafferty File: Join the conversation
Jack's book: "It's Getting Ugly Out There"
Analysis: Is McCain finding his way on faith?
Throughout the evening, McCain chose to recite portions of his stump speech as answers to the questions he was being asked. Why? He has lived 71 years. Surely he has some thoughts on what it all means that go beyond canned answers culled from the same speech he delivers every day.

He was asked "if evil exists." His response was to repeat for the umpteenth time that Osama bin Laden is a bad man and he will pursue him to "the gates of hell." That was it.

He was asked to define rich. After trying to dodge the question -- his wife is worth a reported $100 million -- he finally said he thought an income of $5 million was rich.

One after another, McCain's answers were shallow, simplistic, and trite. He showed the same intellectual curiosity that George Bush has -- virtually none.

Where are John McCain's writings exploring the vexing moral issues of our time? Where are his position papers setting forth his careful consideration of foreign policy, the welfare state, education, America's moral responsibility in the world, etc., etc., etc.?

John McCain graduated 894th in a class of 899 at the Naval Academy at Annapolis. His father and grandfather were four star admirals in the Navy. Some have suggested that might have played a role in McCain being admitted. His academic record was awful. And it shows over and over again whenever McCain is called upon to think on his feet.

He no longer allows reporters unfettered access to him aboard the "Straight Talk Express" for a reason. He simply makes too many mistakes. Unless he's reciting talking points or reading from notes or a TelePrompTer, John McCain is lost. He can drop bon mots at a bowling alley or diner -- short glib responses that get a chuckle, but beyond that McCain gets in over his head very quickly.

I am sick and tired of the president of the United States embarrassing me. The world we live in is too complex to entrust it to someone else whose idea of intellectual curiosity and grasp of foreign policy issues is to tell us he can look into Vladimir Putin's eyes and see into his soul.

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure. And the part that troubles me most is he seems content with himself.

He will leave office with the country $10 trillion in debt, fighting two wars, our international reputation in shambles, our government cloaked in secrecy and suspicion that his entire presidency has been a litany of broken laws and promises, our citizens' faith in our own country ripped to shreds. Yet Bush goes bumbling along, grinning and spewing moronic one-liners, as though nobody understands what a colossal failure he has been.

I fear to the depth of my being that John McCain is just like him.

Well now, aint that the truth!

This was excellent. I tried to post this twice today but I couldn't.

He definitely hit the nail on the head!
McCain is even worse than Bush and
I didn't think that was possible!

SCHWEITZER or GORE

VP picks with experience in energy. Discuss.

I'm actually with you and holding out hope for the longest of long shots in Gore, who has agreed to speak on Thursday at Invesco Field.

DailyKos: It's Not Joe Biden

Good.

Likely a good thing. Biden would serve the country better in a high-level cabinet position.

Kaine or Bayh. I prefer Kaine, because he's a governor. But Bayh might help in the rustbelt states where people still need to see a white man in charge--somewhere.

Keith Olbermann: Rachel Maddow Gets Her Own Show!

It's about time.

WHOO HOO! I am so happy for her and for us!

I'm so glad Rachel's getting her own show. But MSNBC should have kept Dan Abrams and ditched David Gregory's lame ass.

Yep. IMO he lost his journalistic credibility when he hammed it up on stage with Karl "M.C." Rove.

Monie: Co-signing on the "ditch David Gregory . . ." Cain't tolerate him!! :>) :>)

I think Rachel is fabulous....except that time she had that sad puppy dog look on her face as Ferraro ranted about sexism and racism. Rachel just sat there and let her go off.

I have the same problem as Rachel. I tend to be overly respectful of windbag, stupid old people and fail to challenge them adequately on their idiotic ideas.

And just in time for some sanity, clarity, and competence (not to mention being free from negrophobia) in the media.

RonnieB: YEP! Perhaps we'll start to see more Obama support in her style of delivery!! This will be good for the woman vote! I hope! :>) ::>)

YEAH!

Awesome!

The chick who lost the primary won't be VP - she cannot be vetted because Billy Jeff didn't allow that kind of scrutiny into their finances; if he had, they wouldn't still be trying to retire her unnecessarily high campaign debt. Plus she has too many negatives and would be a lightening rod for hatred from the neo-cons.

I doubt if Biden will be the choice either - he is too loquacious - and he just auditioned for S of S anyway. I think the person Obama chooses will be someone whose name has only been whispered - maybe Doug Peterson or Brian Schweitzer. I don't think it will be a woman, and I don't think it will be an Old Guard Dem, although someone on one of the progressive sites was even pushing Gore and Kerry as possible choices. I think Obama's head faking the media and the repugs.

The announcement probably won't be made until just before the convention; since there's no hurry and since the later he announces the better, he could even wait until next Wednesday because he knows McCain't will be attempting to steal the momentum the following weekend with his VP announcement.

The later the Obama VP announcement, the better.

99%: "The chick who lost the primary . . . " LOL :>) :>) I keep reminding myself of the "vetting process" when I weaken and even think that billary could be selected as VP. :>) Not to mention, Patty Solis Doyle standing in the VP Office doorway, BLOCKING billary's entrance and waiting to b**** slap her if she tried to get through! :>) :>) :>)

I've seen accounts by other POWs there at the time that McCain would have only been tortured 2 of the 5 years he was a POW. Not that it makes it much better, but we shouldn't be exaggerating the record.

The only C-in-C credentials I allowed McCain for his POW service was that he knew what it meant to be tortured, and therefore knew that no moral country would torture. He ruined any respect I had for him by acquiescing to the Bushies on torture. Yet another Republican hypocrite.

Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_...

Terrific. Convince the Muslim world that Bin Laden is right that the USA is waging a religious crusade....

McCain On "Judeo Christian" Crusade
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008...

I read that at The Carpetbagger Report. He really is a warmonger, isn't he? Either that or he seems to think that it's 1960 and his words don't go throughout the world within seconds. Or maybe he just thinks that words don't matter. In any case, he's a dangerous person.

Considering everything else he's gotten away with his entire life and career, he continues to be protected.

Speaking of The Carpetbagger Report, Steve Benen is leaving and taking a job at the Washington Monthly. I enjoyed Carpetbagger. Now I have to get used to a new site. Bummer.

taritac: Ahhhhh man!!!! I like that site too. :>) Thanks for this information! :>( :>(

On Friday night, my hubby and I watched an interview on Bill Moyers Journal with author Andrew J. Bacevich. Bacevich, who is a conservative, served 23 years in the Army, graduated from West Point,and retired as a colonel. He also teaches international history relations and history at Boston University, and is the author of several books. His latest called THE NEW AMERICAN MILITARISM. His son also died in Iraq last year. He gave, in my opinion, a very insightful interview, revealing that he is troubled by the course of our U.S. policy. One quote Bacevich gave on Friday sounded fairly close to an answer John McCain gave at the forum on Saturday:

Bill Moyers: How is Iraq a clear manifestation, as you say, of this "yawning disparity" between what Americans expect, and what they are willing to pay?

Andrew Bacevich: Let's think about World War Two. A war that President Roosevelt told us was essential to United States national security, and was. And Roosevelt said at the time, because this is an important enterprise, you, the American people will be called upon to make sacrifices. And indeed, the people of the United Stated went off to fight that war in large numbers. It was a national effort. None of that's been true with regard to Iraq. I mean, one of the most striking things about the way the Bush administration has managed the Global War on Terror, which President Bush has compared to World war Two.

Bill Moyers: Right.

Andrew Bacevich: One of the most striking things about it is that there was no effort to mobilize the country, there was no effort to mobilize the country, there was actually no effort made to expand the size of the armed forces, as a matter of fact. The President said just two weks or so after 9/11, "Go to Disney World. Go shopping." Well, there's something out of whack here, if indeed the Global War on Terror, and Iraq as a subset of the Global War on Terror is said to be so critically important, on the one hand. And on the other hand, when the country basically goes about its business, as if, really, there were no War on Terror, and no war in Iraq ongoing at all.

His answer, which I saw on Friday night seemed to be a somewhat mirror to the response John McCain gave to the forum on Sunday, particularly when on the moral failure question when Mccain said (and I'm phrasing): "Right after 9/11 instead of shopping, we should have joined the peace corps etc.etc. " I told my husband then that I thought John McCain may have watched that program, and borrowed Bacevich's thoughts about regular American's non-involvement in this war. Anyway, the Bacevich interview brought up many good points, like the militarization of our foreign policy and American's "empire of consumption.". If anyone' s interested you can read the transcript at:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/tran...

Andrew Sullivan discusses a great deal of this interview on the Daily Dish.

CLINTON FUNDRAISING AT THE CONVENTION?

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/19/cl...

I am so sick of this! It's really time for Howard Dean to say enough is enough!

This is disturbing for so many reasons. This multi-millionaire is going to ask for her debt to be paid, a debt that she knowingly incurred after it had become mathematically impossible for her to win the nomination?!

There are people who can't keep a roof over their family's head, put gas in their cars to get to work, buy food for their children and she wants to make a plea for people to replenish her vault of wealth?!

I can't believe that there are people still thinking that this woman should be POTUS????

BlackButterfly: "DISTURBING" Co-signing Big Time on this and all points!! :>)

Let the PUMAS pay off Hillary's debt.

Its not her fault she lost, its Obama's fault that he won. That appears to be their line of thinking.

I got that email. Here's the text of it:

I have played so many roles at so many Democratic National Conventions. I've been there as a campaign worker, a governor, a keynote speaker, a nominee, a president, and a former president.

But no convention is quite like your first. There is nothing like seeing for the first time so many people in one place working toward one common purpose: electing the next Democratic president.

It's an inspiration, and you don't want to miss it if you have a chance. So I hope you'll take Hillary up on her offer and contribute by midnight tonight for a chance to attend the Denver convention in person. You'll get to see Hillary speak on Tuesday, and Barack Obama -- the next president of the United States -- on Thursday.

And I hear Hillary and you will have a chat -- I'll make sure to stop by.

Enter before midnight tonight for a chance to see me, Hillary, and Barack Obama at the convention in Denver next week!

Join Hillary in Denver. Contribute today.

I know you've always been there for Hillary, and she needs you now as she works to pay the small vendors who helped us during the campaign. Hillary's not going to stop fighting for the issues we all care so much about, and she's going to need you all the way.

And if you contribute before the midnight deadline, you might have the chance to join Hillary and me in Denver next week for a truly exciting and historic convention. You're going to get to see an amazing display of Democratic unity in person -- you don't want to miss it.

Contribute before midnight tonight for a chance to join me and Hillary in Denver next week.

Thanks for all the support and help you've shown to Hillary. I can tell you that it means the world to her.

Sincerely,

Bill Clinton

::

Random thoughts...

I'm deeply troubled about the Clintons raising funds to pay off her campaign debt at the DNC convention. If any money should be raised it should be for the nominee and the party...not the loser.

Additionally, I think the Clintons are testing Obama to see how far they can push the envelope before the convention. They are trying to get Obama to cry foul with their long list of demands, therefore, giving them adequate cause to stage a coup at the convention.

HRC's strength of support is an illusion. If her support was strong, then the "18 million" voters would have retired Clinton's debt and would begin a clandestine presidential fundraisining campaign in the event BO cannot secure the nomination at the convention.

Reality: This will be a brokered nomination. Obama has negotiated with Clinton to give her and Bill prime speaking spots at the convention; solicit and receive donations to retire her campaign debt; and institute a roll call vote, which Clinton supposedly will look at the results and finally concede.

Obnoxious, Trite and Narcissistic...ahhh the good old days of Clintopia.

Excuse me while I go vomit!

Clintopia! Love it.


er..the word not the place.

New L.A. Times/Bloomberg presidential poll has some surprises later today

Which White House contender had the better summer?

A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll of registered voters across the country leaves little doubt about the answer.

We can't reveal the precise figures yet; for that, check back at LATimes.com about 2 p.m. PDT (5 p.m. EDT). Suffice to say that the results will not alter the perception that -- given a seemingly sunny political climate for Democrats -- Barack Obama is under-performing nationally.

Also, a series of questions gauging voter attitudes about candidate attributes makes clear which perceptions Obama needs to shore up between now and election day.

For John McCain, the poll underscores that the more voters focus on domestic issues, the greater the challenge to his hopes of winning the presidency.

And he and his aides might be a bit surprised by the findings when voters are asked whether they view Obama as "too arrogant and presumptuous" and whether McCain could be considered "too hot-tempered."

-- Don Frederick

this should read Obama 's ahead by 2 pts. He's only ahead by that much because Dems are not rallying behind him. If they did he would be ahead by a substantial margin. Th

Obama 's ahead by 2 pts. He's only ahead because Dems are not rallying behind him.

So long as Obama is ahead. I really don't care.

Why I think Obama VP will be Roemer, Schweitzer, Sebelius, or Clark.

Read here: http://majorman.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/obama-...

What, exactly, is the point of this exercise? Gulag Archipelago was published in 1973, the same year that John McCain was released from the POW camp. There is no way of proving what the bloggers hope, which is that no mention of this story was made until after the book's publication. And even if that were the case, all it would prove is that John McCain didn't tell this story until after the book's publication, not that it didn't happen. Vietnam is a country with pretty rich Catholic tradition; tracing a cross in the dirt at Christmas is not something so unthinkably bizarre that it could only have happened in one communist dictatorship.

The only way this would actually hurt McCain is if you found a signed letter from him saying that this never happened. Since it's very unlikely that such a letter exists, the very best that this effort will achieve is sowing seeds of doubt in a few minds, making themselves look desperate to almost everyone else (and thereby making people wonder what's wrong with Obama, that they're this desperate), and outraging a number of people that you would call McCain's honor into question with absolutely no evidence, or hope of obtaining same.

Those desperate to discredit Senator McCain's record will have to impugn his fellow prisoners as well. Orson Swindle, who was held as a prisoner of war along with McCain, recalls that he heard this particular story from McCain "when we first moved in together." That was in the summer of 1971, Swindle said, though "time blurred" and he couldn't be sure. He said it was some time around then that the Vietnamese moved all "36 troublemakers" into the same quarters, where they "talked about everything under the sun."

Keep it up. It will only benefit McCain.

The point is that McCain a a lying, psychotic, sack of shit.

LOL You forget to say he is a OLD, LYING,PSYCHOTIC , SACK OF SHIT

Howard Fineman:

Within the last few hours I’ve spoken with two of the finalists for the role of Barack Obama’s running-mate, and to two other sources who are close to the process.

My bottom line is this: Barring a big surprise or last-minute change of heart, the choice is likely to be Sen. Joe Biden of Deleware, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee…

“If I had to bet my life on it, I’d bet it is Joe,” said one of the other contenders.

Said another, “Barack is moving toward a seasoned Beltway type, and that probably means Biden.”

If this is true the RNC can hope to have lots of fun with him. In addition to what JJP has documented in the previous post there is Biden's his tweaking of Obama for being less curious about NATO’s role in Afghanistan than a subcommittee chairman should be.

A classic Joe Biden ad from 1988, which begins: "The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, and the economic future of the next generation. A President has got to know the territory, but that's not enough."

Experience was a major theme of Biden's pitch in the primary (take the above, and add 20 years), and it's a contrast they'll have to aim to avoid if he's Obama's running mate.

An inevitable question if Obama picks Biden: Why would the American people want all of the experience and foreign policy knowledge at the bottom of the ticket?

Because they want vision, judgment, compassion, and intelligence at the top of it?

Clinton Praises McCain on Energy Policy

LOL -- man I'll be glad when Nov gets here! So Obama can lay the smack down on this McCain/Clinton ticket.

LOL.....I tell ya.....gotta quote my daddy ........"you must not know the white man".

Okay.

WTH???

PAGING KEITH OLBERMANN! PAGING KEITH OLBERMANN! It's time for another Special Comment for the Clintons!

I was just about to post that. Bill Clinton is showing his ass. He needs to stop.

Who would have ever thought that my love for Bill Clinton could die? BILL, only YOU can make me love you again!!!! Stop being an asshole!

He can't help himself.

Bill's like Puffy, he can't stop, he don't wanna stop.

This is a must read!!!
Excellent advise on narratives and messaging.
--------------------------------------------------------

From "Nuanced" to Principled: The Lessons of Pastor Rick, and Why and How Obama and the Democrats Should Make Abortion a Voting Issue
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/from-...

I'm underwhelmed by Monday morning quarterbacking. Not that there are no good points in the essay, but these writers have it easy critiquing performances after the fact.

That said, Barack needs a good debate coach. When he's on, he's on. When he's not, he's awful. He can't afford to be awful in a single debate this fall.

Very true re the debate coach.

Also, IF and I say IF, the Dems want to make choice an issue, perhaps they shouldn't use the word 'abortion.' Since, as Obama likes to say, no one is pro-abortion, this makes anti-abortion a poor campaign term as well. The Dems should perhaps frame the opposition's dissension to choice as 'anti-choice.' From a public and media relations perspective, I believe this will resonate with women voters no matter their party affiliation.

In the end, if Obama doesn't think he needs to brush up on his debating skills, there's not a whole lot his campaign advisers/workers can do about it. It is, after all, his campaign, and I get the feeling that, unlike she who shall not be named, he takes full control and full responsibility for each and every task and act made in his name. Nothing gets passed him, but he seems the obstinate type, so I doubt that anyone (except, perhaps, Mrs. Obama) can persuade him to get a coach, although he definitely needs one.

I'm emailing him that he should be as passionate at the debates as he is when he stumps. The oratorical passion he exhibited at the VFW today is what is needed during the debates. Hopefully, he has learned that, while he has become a great orator, he is a poor debater. A passionate demeanor will win the day, since his opponent, the plagiarist, is as dull as dishwater whenever and wherever he speaks.

Those are interesting observations. And I sense that O is stubborn.

What was that stuff at the forum about 'getting the president we need' and 'things will work out'...c'mon Senator, that's a far cry from the revolutionary "Yes We Can!" But, I guess he was soothing the Evangelical audience.

Stubborn. Obstinate. Yes.

It's frustrating for me to watch because these are things we've identified from in the primaries, as areas the O campaign needs to brush up on. Yet, here we are a couple months from the general election, and they haven't been dealt with.

Just ordinary people commenting in blogs, say O looked stilted again. His head was tilted to his right, and he didn't have a direct gaze. I can tell when Obama doesn't feel in command. Barack was hiding behind that table at the faith forum and he was slumped in his chair. Another thing is he partially bent his head to his mug of water rather than keeping his head still, and bringing the mug up to his mouth. It looked insecure. There are techniques to help someone feel grounded, and in control in hostile environments....isn't anyone working with him on this stuff??

I think they shouldn't leave any stone unturned, and he's running out of time to make corrections.

He's a Leo. Despite their healthy egos, they wear their insecurity on their sleeves.

Look at Bill Clinton for more evidence of the same in a politician who happens to be a Leo.

Barack can't change who he is. But he does need to be more consistently "arrogant" in his debates. He certainly has shown he can be. Of course, he gets beat down by the press when he is and he gets beat down as weak when he isn't.

But something tells me that when he's onstage with the man who has accused him of treason and asked that he has a sense of humor when that same accuser compares to vacuous, promiscuous, blonde, white, female celebrities, he will not cower one bit.

Craig, I think it's time to come clean with the Leo bit.

Who hurt you, baby?

Signed by an arrogant, stubborn but basically insecure Lioness. Born in the year of the tiger so ....I'm really lazy as well. LOL

Wow, I never knew that being born in the "year of the tiger" translated to lazyness....no wonder I'm so dayummed laid-back.

Do you have any links where I can research that further?

In my experience, Leos are crazy...My mama is a leo and she's crazy...so is every other leo who i've dated or befriended. When I found out Obama was a leo, I wondered, "How da f**k is that even possible?"...then "My Brothers Keeper" loyalty kicked-in.

As for scorpios, we make the world go round...
Bill Gates (Richest Man on Earth), Julia Roberts, Puffy, Johnny Carson (R.I.P.)...scorpios are about longevity...we become institutions.

Scorpios are about longevity...we are going to be around. So Hillary will be back...believe that shyt...2008 is not her time.

I just assumed that since it is a feline, it meant sleeping all day. This is interesting. Look at the countries. Heh. Blend that with Scorpio --ah oh.

My favorite person in the world is a Scorpio. You guys are loyal once on your side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_(zodiac)

LOL.

The greatest athletes, politicians, and actors tend to be Leos.

Leos are also wise, intuitive, likable, attractive, generous, ambitious, organized, and cunning.

No Leos have hurt me.

Scorpios?

Now that's another matter.

And here we were getting along so well, with me being born on Nov 2. Heh.

I've known good Leos and horrible ones, thus proving that astrology isn't a reliable means of analyzing character and personaly.

Some Leos are wise, some aren't; some are intuitive, some aren't, some are likable, some aren't, some are generous, some aren't, some are ambitious, some aren't, some are organized, some aren't, some are cunning, some aren't. I know a Leo athlete - very popular - who has the public persona of a nice guy but is really a lowdown, dirty, rotten, scoundrel based on what I've experienced with him. I know a Leo male born on Aug 4 just like Obama, yet he doesn't even have a high school diploma and believes that his sexual prowess and having 3 children by 3 diffrent women without marrying them equals the quintessential man. He doesn't have a pot to piss in nor a window to throw it out of.

Halle Berry is a Leo and very beautiful; I like Halle a lot, yet Halle can't act her way out of a paper bag.

And not all Scorpios are low down, vengeful and mean-spirited. Some are, some aren't. Some are Eagles, some are serpents, some are scorpions, some are Phoenixes, some are direct and honest, some are shifty-eyed liars, some are sex machines, some are celibate, some are just plain evil, some are good and sweet and very sensitive.

It just depends on the person and it doesn't matter what their astrological sign is. Some Aries are lowdown dirty, some aren't. Some Pisces are drunken bums, some aren't. Some Tauruses are cheap and stingy, some aren't. Some Virgos are smart, some aren't (see John McCain't). Some Capricorns are ambitious, high achievers, some aren't.

Whatever their sign, some people are just lousy human beings, and some aren't.

There you go, throwing out astrology with the bathwater!

LOL

The only way he can be more 'consistently arrogant' is if he is free to speak with conviction and honesty about what he believes and what his policies will be.

He cannot do this however, because his true views and policies are not in the mainstream. He, uh knows this, so he, uh, pauses, and stutters as he, um tries to move, er, unconvincingly to the, um, center.

Below I list some of his positions.

Can he 'aggrogantly' come out and say for example, "I support driver's licenses for illegal immigrants'? Can he state unequivocally state "I oppose a ban on partial birth abortions"? and hope to win the election?

He should give it a try.

"To thine own self be true."

Dude, define mainstream.

About 30% of the country self-defines as conservative. About 30% liberal. Everyone else somewhere in the middle.

When asked about positions instead of how they define themselves, the majority of people, about 60% if I remember correctly, align themselves with the DEMOCRATIC platform.

The Republican platform is consistently against what people generally believe, but what they are GREAT at is identifying a couple of hot button issues (abortion, gay marriage) that they adopt, and push those memes. They are masterful at it. They consistently convince people to vote against their political, economic, environmental, etc. self interests by appealing to a couple of niche issues.

You obviously have been co-opted by this game-playing.

Republicans have one constituency: CORPORATIONS, and they will choose corporations over the economy, the Constitution, gay marriage, abortion, and the American people EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. If corporations could figure out how to make billions providing abortions or gay marriage, you would see Republicans drop those planks with a quickness.

Look, Dems are the ones who are making a concerted effort to to bring pro-life voters into the party. Obama is trying to reach out to Evangelical voters. Independents, moderates, centrists, whatever you want to call them are not center-left. They are center-right and Obama knows this better than anyone.

Obama wants to move to the center but can he do it? Will his record, for example, in opposition to partial birth abortion and the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, convince women and Catholics that there will be reasonable restrictions on abortion?

This is just one example. But on issue after issue of as he 'thoughtfully' um uses, er, 'excessive caution' to uh craft a 'nuanced' um position, he is obviously uncomfortable and at a loss for words.

Throughout his political career he has aligned himself with the far-left of the Democrat party and has maintained relationships with individuals and organizations whose views can be characterized as 'extreme.'

Now, you may not see it this way, but you are not moderate, or centrist in your views.

I submit that today's "mainstream" moderate:

1) May oppose the war in Iraq, but acknowledges the ongoing success of the 'surge' and wants to withdraw when conditions on the ground signal the time is right to withdraw.

2) Are environmentally sensitive to the issue of global warming, but also want energy independence. They are open to supporting any and all options that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, increase domestic energy supply, and explore all alternative sources of energy, including nuclear, wind, solar, etc.

3) Does not want their taxes raised. Especially during an economic downturn.

3) Supports school choice.

4) Wants secure borders to deter illegal immigration. Opposes driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. Supports a 'path to citizenship' for those already in the country.

5) Against wasteful government spending. Wary of huge government programs.

6) Personally opposes abortion, supports a women's right to choose, but does favor some restrictions, such as parental notification for minors, partial birth abortion ban, and protection for infants born alive during a botched abortion.

7) Gay marriage. Supports civil unions.Leave 'defining' or 'protecting' traditional marriage to the states.

Centrist has artificially been moved to the right in the last few years, when actually, people believe in much more liberal ideas. YOU, sweetheart, are not centrist or moderate either.

Every one of those positions you cited, except maybe school choice, are OBAMA's positions.

And Leos are stubborn.

And so are Virgoes.

Moreso.

Ok. before everybody runs down the whole zodiac calendar of who is stubborn.....its not Leos or Virgoes or Scorpions or Geminis............its just men.

lol

Eh hee! See my essay response to Craig posted upthread.

Ha, maybe he'll back McCain up against the wall like he did with Lieberman.

That was classic. Barack went southside on ole Joe...LOL

I would have appreciated him going "southside" and breaking out a good ol' can of whip-ass on LIE-berman, but we can't always get what we want...LOL

I think you're right when you say that he won't cower in front of McCain.

Obama does not cower. What? Not used to an intelligent black man who doesn't go off at every provocation? Nothing personal to you Micheline - but I don't get why Obama is now being flagged as -- since you used the word cowering Micheline -- "weak". He is a strong intelligent man who picks his battles.

Go Obama 08

I used the word cower first.

He really needs to work on his stammering and stop using ahs, ums as pauses. It seems to me he needs to see a speech coach.

That doesn't bother me so much because it's obvious to me that he is giving himself time to think before he speaks, and that is always a good thing for anyone to do.

He understands the nuance of linguistics - that there is only one right word, phrase or sentence, and he takes the time to flip through his mental dictionary before he speaks. I like that.

It's the timidity of his responses during debates that troubles me. I don't expect him to hit it out of the park at every question but . . . I can't quite put my finger on it but I think his responses tend to be too dispassonate. Also, during the primaries, I noticed that the questions (generally they aren't very good or substantive) were sometimes used to bait him, and I saw him visibly control being perturbed (not just during Snuffy Smith and Chunky Charles's ambush).

All that said, I also understand how difficult it may be for him to campaign, attend fundraisers and work with a coach. They guy's got to sleep sometime, and I wouldn't want him doing it on the plane with the media hacks traveling with him.

Obama's mind is moving much faster than his mouth can get the words out. And so he doesn't use the wrong word, he uses um...uh....uh....uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....pauses.

The problem is Joe Blow on the street turns on TV and sees him going uh......uh........uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh and concludes that he's stupid or slow of mind. He either needs to slow his mind down or accelerate his mouth. The mind and the mouth need to work in sync and they're not.

Nah, he's a deliberate speaker, and that's a good thing. He doesn't do a lot of stammering when he's speaking; it is only when he is in a Q/A forum or a debate that he tends to stammer as y'all call it.

Maybe he believes the fallacy that he has to fill the air with sound while he thinks of the proper words to say. While it annoys some, it doesn't annoy me.

99%: Agreed! :>)

He can't slow down his mind.

there is nothing wrong with his stammering. you know what . . . you all need to back up and think about what it takes to run for President. All these backseat drivers telling Obama what to do, how so speak, stop your stammering, don't slouch . . . . .

He is an intelligent man, who is confident, and is not perfect. But he will be president if we vote for him. I could care less what McCain says. Our focus should be turning supporters into voters, we will win this thing hands down. I have no problem with him thinking though what he has to say and adding an um or pausing. So what? Let him do his thing.

Val: YAAAAAAA! Co-signing! :>) :>)

thank you

He speaks haltingly and stammers and uhs because he is trying to hide who he really is.

Obama's positions on the following issues are opposed by a median of 76% of respondents:

* Obama supports giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants
* Obama supports racial preferences in public employment, contracting and school admissions
* Obama opposes a ban on partial birth abortions
* Obama would cut funding for research and development of "unproven" missile defense systems
* Obama opposes making English the official language for doing business with the U.S. government
* Obama opposes the Supreme Court decisions prohibiting racial assignments of grade school children
* Obama opposes parental notification for minors obtaining abortions

Moreover, Obama

* would talk without precondition with the leaders of state sponsors of terror
* is the only U.S. senator to vote against the language of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act
* supports giving foreign terrorists habeas rights
* contends William Ayers is a mainstream member of the community
* for twenty years belonged to a church whose pastor, Obama's mentor, was prone to making, well, somewhat radical statements
* plans to raise payroll, income, capital gains and estate taxes
* despite recent rhetoric, never opposed a gun ban
* has received the following ratings:

NARAL — 100%
NEA — A
ACORN — 100%
Planned Parenthood — 100%
National Taxpayers Union — F
Family Research Council — 0%
Citizens Against Government Waste — 13%
NRA — F

McCain wants to scream he's a "pro-life" candidate and dictate what a woman should do with her uterus but has no problem listening to Phil "Nation of Whiners" Gramm who was an investor in pornographic films.

You're insane.

That is all.

99%: "You're insane" co-sign! :>) :>)

"THAT IS ALL!!" co-sign! :>) :>)

Obama cannot defend his far left positions to a moderate, center-right electorate or he will lose the election.

He, uh, knows this but, um, there uh, must be a, er, um, clever, no, um nuanced, way to um, conceal um, no, obfuscate, er, my true positions.

As in poker, stammering and stuttering is his tell.

What is telling is that the McCain camp has virtually cut off his access to media in fear of him committing more gaffes. McCain's seemingly good performanceat the forum does not override his gaffe of not knowing the relationship between Shiites, Shi'as and Iran or other foreign policy issues, the outright lies he makes about his own voting record(which the media often gives him a pass on) or the numerous times where he has been either speechless or said he'd have to look up an answer before he could give a response. Far too many Mccain supporters have short term memory---but thank goodness for Youtube.

From what I've heard and read, Obama's an excellent poker player.

You're insane.

That is all.

"You're insane."

That IS all.

wrong.

And the problem with all that is....

Wrong again s. McCain talks like an excitable 7 year old....

and, and....and...we're gonna go to mars!!!...'cause we wanna see what mars looks like!! .....pant pant pant.

Anyway, Obama stammers because he's thinking hard while he speaks. Every word is weighed for precision...it's not conducive to sound bite tv; but, we understand it. You could call it excessive caution, but it definitely is not deceptive.

..and btw, that stuff you listed...is A-Ok with me!

Truthseeker: Co-sign!! :>) :>) :>)

s is certainly taking advantage of his/her 1st Amendment rights!

Whew! Boring, tiring. la, la, la, - I can't [don't wish ta] hear you Deep Breaths!! :>) :>)

Exactly. Ok with you but not a moderate, center-right electorate.

Weighing his words for 'precision', using 'excessive caution' what is he so worried about revealing?

He is trying to be all things to all people and it is becoming increasingly difficult as voters requires more specific information about his positions and his record.

Co-sign

My friends, trust me on this, you DON'T want to fuck with the Russians...

Pat Buchanan might be a SOB, but I think he nails it here:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who Started Cold War II?
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=13323

"If Cold War II is coming, who started it, if not us?

The swift and decisive action of Putin's army in running the Georgian forces out of South Ossetia in 24 hours after Saakashvili began his barrage and invasion suggests Putin knew exactly what Saakashvili was up to and dropped the hammer on him.

What did we know? Did we know Georgia was about to walk into Putin's trap? Did we not see the Russians lying in wait north of the border? Did we give Saakashvili a green light?

Joe Biden ought to be conducting public hearings on who caused this U.S. humiliation. "

Russia isn't to be feared.

I agree. I don't think they are the problem here; but, they are not to be trifled with either.

What's really suspicious is how CNN has given Saakavilli so much airtime. He was on almost every day, cross-eyed, slumped and ranting incoherently.

to give McCain ratings.

I still don't watch CNN.

My Russian friends tell me that Putin is posturing.

He bombed the shit out of Georgia. It looked pretty real to me.

I can't find the article, TS. It only goes to a page with Pat Buchanan's bio.

Pat Buchanan makes me ill sometimes, but every now and then, he says something right.

Sorry....I got there following and link from Huffington. Try going there first:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/19/patric...

From Michael Moore in Rolling Stone:

How the Democrats Can Blow It...in 6 Easy Steps

1. Keep saying nice things about McCain.
2. Pick a running mate who is a conservative white guy or a general or a Republican.
3. Keep writing speeches for Obama that make him sound like a hawk.
4. Forget that this was a historic year for women.
5. Show up to a gunfight with a peashooter.
6. Denounce me!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/2224...

Wow, you're quoting Michael Moore now? You must really be running out of material. Did they threaten you with a beating if you didn't bring in any converts?

Eh hee!

They need to stop the madness!

Besides, Moore supported Obama's primary foe, didn't he?

Not that I know of, unless he changed his mind at some point.

My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index...

"Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple."

Obama should immediate take advantage of the situation in Pakistan. It provides the opportunity to discuss the need for democracy. For the first time in Pakistan's history there has been a change at the Presidency without a military coup. Quite a contrast from a presidency whom believes in democracy but is constantly supporting dictatorships in the name of US security

Don't you find it curious that this resignation comes right now?

I certainly do.

After Benazir Bhutto was already martyred. He must be getting a nice payoff from Bush.

I don't know, Craig. I do know that Obama has been talking about the Afghanistan-Pakistan border being a haven for OBL and other terrorists. Maybe the Emperor Dim Son and Darth Cheney are planning to send in the Rangers to get OBL. I doubt it but quien sabe?

The timing remains curious.

Let's see what unfolds during the Democratic convention, right around, say, Thursday.

Not saying you're wrong at all.

But Musharraf's been having problems since last year at the beginning of November when he declared a state of emergency in Pakistan.

Why won't the University of Illinois let Stanley Kurtz research its records relating to the Obama-Ayers relationship?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmJmMm...

Disturbing!

I read the information from Kurtz. It is explained as fact, the University of Illinois-Chicago (UIC) does not own the the records. Some lower library officials gave permission to view the records based on the normal process for viewing any records of special collections. The managers were notified by the donors a deed for the records had not been executed and in addition the records were not organized by the library. Since the library did not own the records, it could not give permission for your boy to review them.

By the way the records are not on the Obama -Ayers relationship, they are on a foundation they both served as board members. They both stated this is the extent of any relationship. Ayers is on the faculty of UIC.

The lack of organization means the library does not know what was in the records. It is absolutely appropriate to prohibit access to uncatalogued documents. The researcher could still or damage the records. It is better to create images of the records and then allow access to who so ever.

Why won't McCain let anyone view his entire Navy medical file- you know - the files without half the pages missing. Where are those pages? Where? Why can't we view them? Why? What is he hiding?

Because they would prove that he's a boar, among other things, that's why.

Would you even know what you were looking at if you did?

Yes

Based on your extensive medical knowledge, no doubt.

What good does opening this information up to the public do? And does it stop with McCain, or would you like to scrutinize the medical history of every veteran as part of a job hiring/election process?

Reality is, I get it. You want to show that there's something either mentally or physically wrong with McCain that makes him unfit for the presidency. You're not interested in McCain the person; you just want what you need to benefit Obama.

We already know he's unfit to be POTUS.

"You want to show that there's something either mentally or physically wrong with McCain that makes him unfit for the presidency."

So you think so too, huh?

That was a good one, Miranda.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Not to mention the fact that no other presidential candidate in history-at least to my knowledge-has been subjected to a medical test to show that he's fit for office.

But, that's the general theme of the Obama insurgency: if it helps our candidate, great.....and if it's not beneficial, it's those damn Republicans and their dirty tricks.

Hope it works out for you. Guess we'll see in a few months.

Actually, a presidential candidate's health has been put to scrutiny before--I came across a case of this in a medical ethics class. In 1992, Democratic Senator Paul Tsongas's health was put under scrutiny by the media because he had non-Hodgkins lymphoma years earlier but his doctor's assured he was cancer-free after a bone-marrow transplant. The questions were raised about the cancer returning. Sadly, he passed away in 1997 from a recurrence of the cancer. It is valid to be concerned about candidate's medical history, both physically and mentally. But there is a fine line to walk with the privacy issues.

I would argue that Tsonga's cancer history was the sole reason he was not the Democratic nominee.

Bill Clinton was revealed to be a scandal and the Democrats were scared he would be wiped off the map in November.

Party leadership pled with Tsongas to return to the race. It was ready to nominate him over Clinton, the presumptive nominee.

Tsongas turned down the invitation. Some say it was because the brutal primary weakened his constitution, allowing his cancer to return.

Ross Perot delivered the election to Clinton.

Perot contested two elections, both of which Clinton won.

There were plenty rumors that Perot and Clinton were two peas in a pod. Covertly, of course.

Learn something new every day.

Well now how did you reach the conclusion that it would benefit Obama in any way, if the redacted portions of McCain's military medical records were reviewed? What do you fear is in those missing pages that could possibly hurt McCain?

I don't fear anything. I just know that some of those who support Obama would use the information in his records for their own partisan purposes.

You'd look at his birthday and say he's too old. You'd look at his time as a POW and say he's psychotic. You'd look at his white cell count and say it's too high.

Some of y'all are that....rabid.

Well you know how "rabid" physicians can be...what with having those geriatric specialties and pediatricians - I mean really, what's age got to do with it? And then here you have the military setting up suicide hotlines for guys coming back from war (22,000 calls in a year...is that a lot?) and those mandatory evaluations for all POWs - what's that about? And when has a white cell count ever been too...(gulp)..."high". I mean they're white so they must be good...no?

Yep, you got me with the "rabid" reactionaries there.

LOL at the blood cells.

Let me ask this: why do you care? Is it because you're genuinely interested in McCain's health? Or are you just looking for something to hold up as a reason not to vote for him?

Im not looking for a reason to not vote for McCain, thats not how I would choose any candidate for any position. To me, thats stupid. I vote FOR a person, not against someone else.

However, yes, I'm concerned with the possibility of a 72 year old man who has battled skin cancer twice, a former POW who has a very strong reputation of having anger management issues, one who referred to Vietnamese people as "gooks" which may indicate something deeper than just a slip of the tongue (which it wasnt).

Hey, we all know Reagan's Alzheimer's kicked in before he left office...and Lord knows they wheeled Strom Thurmond's dead body around for 5 years before they finally put it in the ground. For me, age and health is definitely an issue.

Were your choices Clinton and McCain, would you still be as concerned?

Yes

Hate to go Clinton on you, but I have to take you at your word.

Those are some valid points you make. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt's health problems also raised questions about their judgement and policies during various times in their presidency.

::golf clap::

Congratulations, D! You've made a valiant effort here today on behalf of the McThuselah campaign with their orders! Have you met your quota of posts for the day? What did you qualify for -- the mini golf clubs, or the koozie??

I'm actually more concerned about the privacy issues that would be raised. Not that Obama insurgency gives a damn.

But should Town see fit to award points, so be it. I only accept them from him, though.

Your lack of creativity, though, gets you none. Thanks for playing.

At the same time, many opponents of Obama, Republican and Democratic, have used his education at a Muslim elementary school to spread fictional "Muslim ties" and insinuate that he is an"other" or perhaps "unAmerican." Obama could not help as youngster which school he attended no more than any of us determined where we went to school as 6 or 7 year olds. Supporters on all sides can be rabid when they want to be.

Fair enough.....though I'd argue that there's a clear difference between the two situations.

Because they know that retarded Republicans cannot resist the "guilt by association" meme.

From the NYT

What If...

"No power brokers in the Democratic Party are openly campaigning for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as their vice-presidential nominee this year, and even Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides have stopped talking her up. Yet privately, some Democrats continue to see her as exactly the partner that Senator Barack Obama needs.

Clinton supporters have tried to make this point in recent weeks, winning language in the party’s convention platform that acknowledged Mrs. Clinton’s history-making candidacy, and praising her as a smart, seasoned policy wonk who could add ballast to Mr. Obama’s message of hope and change."

But then again recent polls say McCain leads Obama 55/27 in being better qualified to deal with Russia, so it may very well be Biden.

What if it is Hillary? What if all of these stunts/distractions are covering up the fact that it will be an Obama-Clinton ticket?

The prevailing VP options remain pretty boring (even though I like Kaine).

I know there's still much distrust and unforgiveness about Billary, but then I started thinking about history and the VPs who accompanied Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, namely Adams, Johnson, and Truman.

Adams - Firebrand Founder
Johnson - 1st Ever Impeached President
Truman - "If you can't take the heat, get out the kitchen" Atomic Bomber

If you believe that Obama is (will be) in the "Masterclass" of Presidents, then you should really compare his VP selection not only on the basis of modern politics, but consider it within the context of history.

The VP need not be a safe choice. Ultimately, people will not be voting for the VP. They will be voting for the P.

If you fear that Hillary (or Bill) could overshadow Barack, then she would have been the THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE right now. She is not.

So...
Obama-Biden...zzz
Obama-Kaine (and I like Kaine)...zzzz
Obama-Bayh (highly unlikely)...zzz
Obama-Clinton...IT'S ELECTRIC even with all of the accompanying drama.

It's worth the drama.

I would not underestimate Barack..."He ain't scurred of no Clintons." Why should we be?

Yeah, but the VP can determine whether a person wins or loses. I disagree with pundits and others who say that no one cares who is VP because Al Gore actually re-defined the VP office during his 2 terms of service. Slick Dick Cheney has since made it a co-presidency office.

No, it would not be electric; it would be disastrous for him to choose her. She has way too much baggage, and her on the ticket would galvanize the neo-cons to go to the polls and vote in a way that McCain't never would. The fact that her husband's sending letters to her primary supporters asking them for dough tells me it's not her. People need to get over it; it's not going to be her.

I have no idea who it WILL be but since she and BJC are a package deal, Obama ain't going with her. Plus, she hasn't been vetted and will never be vetted because Bill ain't showing nobody the money, especially not Obama. No Drama Obama is the campaign insider mantra, and it isn't about being afraid of them; it's about winning the election in November.

No, no, no, no, no.